Hi guys.
I'm having a bit of a slow day, so I came up with a way to pass the time. I thought it would be great to give you guys a stage to show off your understanding of the advanced topics you're so keen to refer to all the time. I'd like it if you could show us all how internet experts, such as yourselves, would go about answering these simple exercises....
Bifurcations (one of StevenA's particular areas of expertise)
Calculus (I hope the simplicity of this exercise doesn't offend)
Cardinality (Precursor562 practically wrote the internet book on this subject)
Chaos (a favorite among internet experts - perhaps Ivars should have a go?)
General Relativity (Surely this is one to Mr Duffield - go Johnny-go-go-go)
Limits (I think this is another for StevenA and Precursor562)
Topology (Again, I hope the simplicity of this one doesn't anger people.)
Newtonian Dynamics (Well I thought I'd throw in some classical stuff... Precursor562, you know about this stuff, right?)
QED (According to AlphaNumeric, Precursor562 should find with a doddle. If not, Raphie Frank will be all over it...)
Solitons (Got to be for Mr Duffield again... he's the man on the ball)
If you can't do any of them, could you at least explain why, given that you're internet experts, these simple exercises are beyond you? We wouldn't want to think you were telling when you say you know about these things...
Cheers guys!
QUOTE (Euler+Jun 4 2008, 11:28 AM)
Hi guys.
I'm having a bit of a slow day, so I came up with a way to pass the time. I thought it would be great to give you guys a stage to show off your understanding of the advanced topics you're so keen to refer to all the time. I'd like it if you could show us all how internet experts, such as yourselves, would go about answering these simple exercises....
Oh I can't [wait to see this...
I'm having a bit of a slow day, so I came up with a way to pass the time. I thought it would be great to give you guys a stage to show off your understanding of the advanced topics you're so keen to refer to all the time. I'd like it if you could show us all how internet experts, such as yourselves, would go about answering these simple exercises....
Oh I can't [wait to see this...
Here's the funny part, Euler. I actually AM somewhat of an Internet expert. A few websites for which I was the project manager/account executive while at swandivedigital?
The Shubert Organization
http://www.shubertorganization.com/
The Shubert Foundation
http://www.shubertfoundation.org/
The Markle Foundation
http://www.markle.org/
I don't believe I have ever even remotely presented myself as an expert on QED. So feel free to continue along this angle of attack with me, but it will reflect more than a little poorly upon your integrity and honesty both should you do so.
All the same, as usual, I'll give you credit on the humour front.
Best,
Raphie
Swandivigital
http://www.swandive.com/
The Shubert Organization
http://www.shubertorganization.com/
The Shubert Foundation
http://www.shubertfoundation.org/
The Markle Foundation
http://www.markle.org/
I don't believe I have ever even remotely presented myself as an expert on QED. So feel free to continue along this angle of attack with me, but it will reflect more than a little poorly upon your integrity and honesty both should you do so.
All the same, as usual, I'll give you credit on the humour front.
Best,
Raphie
Swandivigital
http://www.swandive.com/
Can't forget DavidD
If nobody answers this post, that you have mentioned, can you answer your own questions as it could be a learning experience?
Thanks.
Thanks.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jun 4 2008, 01:53 PM)
I actually AM somewhat of an Internet expert.
We know! We've seen you in threads like this. 17-pi+46^3002=birthday+number of peanuts in the jar... type internet mathematics. Cutting edge!
We know! We've seen you in threads like this. 17-pi+46^3002=birthday+number of peanuts in the jar... type internet mathematics. Cutting edge!
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Jun 4 2008, 06:38 PM)
If nobody answers this post, that you have mentioned, can you answer your own questions as it could be a learning experience?
I'm not convinced it's helpful to see solutions to problems based on unfamiliar material. I don't want to spoil the fun for all the internet experts though, so if you want a particular question answered you can PM me and I'll give a pointer.
I'm not convinced it's helpful to see solutions to problems based on unfamiliar material. I don't want to spoil the fun for all the internet experts though, so if you want a particular question answered you can PM me and I'll give a pointer.
QUOTE (Euler+Jun 4 2008, 06:59 PM)
We know! We've seen you in threads like this. 17-pi+46^3002=birthday+number of peanuts in the jar... type internet mathematics. Cutting edge!
Mail Error!
SMTP protocol failure!
Host: 74.63.39.114
Return Code:
Return Msg:
Board Error: Could not open a socket to the SMTP server
Check your SMTP settings from the admin control panel
I will massage in a week? I guess.
SMTP protocol failure!
Host: 74.63.39.114
Return Code:
Return Msg:
Board Error: Could not open a socket to the SMTP server
Check your SMTP settings from the admin control panel
I will massage in a week? I guess.
QUOTE (Euler+Jun 4 2008, 06:59 PM)
We know! We've seen you in threads like this. 17-pi+46^3002=birthday+number of peanuts in the jar... type internet mathematics. Cutting edge!
Hmmm... Let's see, Euler. I am interested in Network Theory from the Social Science perspective. This you already know. Do you suppose figurate numbers may have a thing or two to do with that? How about Fibonacci Numbers?
The first question I know the answer to as I am sure you do as well since Network Theory is largely about the relationships between discrete objects (or concepts) and thus can be thought of as fundamentally geometrical in nature. The second question I do not know the answer to.
But I believe that second question to be a question worth asking, particularly in light of the 1:10:89 rule (1/89 generates the Fibonacci series in the decimal expansion), an emerging rule of thumb related to participation in online (i.e. Internet) environments. But I am sure you know all about that already so I won't bother to provide a link.
I am rather certain you also knew already about the connection between Triangular Numbers and Fibonacci Numbers, as well as their joint connection to both Heptagonal numbers and Lucas Numbers. Pretty much everybody knows that, right?
Anyway, glad that "sec" got a laugh. You're a pretty funny guy and I guess I'm a pretty "silly" guy for posting in regards to number theory, as elementary as it may be, on a number theory thread...
Best,
Raphie
Hmmm... Let's see, Euler. I am interested in Network Theory from the Social Science perspective. This you already know. Do you suppose figurate numbers may have a thing or two to do with that? How about Fibonacci Numbers?
The first question I know the answer to as I am sure you do as well since Network Theory is largely about the relationships between discrete objects (or concepts) and thus can be thought of as fundamentally geometrical in nature. The second question I do not know the answer to.
But I believe that second question to be a question worth asking, particularly in light of the 1:10:89 rule (1/89 generates the Fibonacci series in the decimal expansion), an emerging rule of thumb related to participation in online (i.e. Internet) environments. But I am sure you know all about that already so I won't bother to provide a link.
I am rather certain you also knew already about the connection between Triangular Numbers and Fibonacci Numbers, as well as their joint connection to both Heptagonal numbers and Lucas Numbers. Pretty much everybody knows that, right?
Anyway, glad that "sec" got a laugh. You're a pretty funny guy and I guess I'm a pretty "silly" guy for posting in regards to number theory, as elementary as it may be, on a number theory thread...
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jun 4 2008, 08:56 PM)
...I guess I'm a pretty "silly" guy for posting in regards to number theory, as elementary as it may be, on a number theory thread...
You're not doing any number theory, you idiot! All you're doing is blind numerology. Here is a question sheet based on the first couple of lectures on an introductory course on number theory.
I bet that's the kind of thing you tell people: "yeah, I do research in mathematics, namely number theory". It's a fair distance from the more accurate "I splash numbers about on an internet forum because I don't know any actual mathematics and no one in the real world takes me seriously".
Would you like me to construct a number theory question for you? Or is it about time you scuttled off to read over your own posts again, so you can pretend they're deep and meaningful?
You're not doing any number theory, you idiot! All you're doing is blind numerology. Here is a question sheet based on the first couple of lectures on an introductory course on number theory.
I bet that's the kind of thing you tell people: "yeah, I do research in mathematics, namely number theory". It's a fair distance from the more accurate "I splash numbers about on an internet forum because I don't know any actual mathematics and no one in the real world takes me seriously".
Would you like me to construct a number theory question for you? Or is it about time you scuttled off to read over your own posts again, so you can pretend they're deep and meaningful?
Thanks for posting that number theory sheet Euler. As you know I won't be tested given that you have repeatedly expressed your desire to make me look bad (although I don't like to be tested in general, truth be told).
As for the rest, if you believe that proving that every even indexed Fibonacci Number that is also odd can be expressed as the difference of two triangular numbers in a consistent manner using a simple formula is not number theory, suit yourself.
In any case, I went out of my way to use the word "elementary." Perhaps you missed that.
Best,
Raphie
P.S. By the way, calling me an "idiot" aside, I meant the "Thank you."
As for the rest, if you believe that proving that every even indexed Fibonacci Number that is also odd can be expressed as the difference of two triangular numbers in a consistent manner using a simple formula is not number theory, suit yourself.
In any case, I went out of my way to use the word "elementary." Perhaps you missed that.
Best,
Raphie
P.S. By the way, calling me an "idiot" aside, I meant the "Thank you."
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jun 4 2008, 09:17 PM)
Thanks for posting that number theory sheet Euler. As you know I won't be tested given that you have repeatedly expressed your desire to make me look bad (although I don't like to be tested in general, truth be told).
All I need do to make you look bad is to refer people to your posts. The fact that you out-right refuse to demonstrate any understanding of even high-school level mathematics speaks volumes.
Much easier to just play with numbers and tell people you're special...
All I need do to make you look bad is to refer people to your posts. The fact that you out-right refuse to demonstrate any understanding of even high-school level mathematics speaks volumes.
Much easier to just play with numbers and tell people you're special...
This is so disappointing! The only internet expert that enters the thread is the one that refuses to display his expertise! Where on earth are all the others? I thought they'd leap at the chance to show off their understanding...
QUOTE (Euler+Jun 4 2008, 09:21 PM)
Much easier to just play with numbers and tell people you're special...
I don't believe I ever said I was special Euler, except perhaps in giving a damn (but I am certainly not alone in that regard) and thinking that we ought to figure out ways as a society for nice guys (and gals) not to finish last. That and that I have a legacy that makes it more likely for me than for others to be able to accomplish this at least in some small manner. That brings with it a responsibility.
Behavior such as yours is a big part of what keeps people down, Euler. You attack what you do not understand and that makes you, in my view, a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. All the worse because you are clearly talented in mathematics. I trust the judgement of Alphanumeric and RPenner on that one.
I am sure you also have many personal traits to recommend you aside from a rather cutting wit, but you do not display them on this forum. You belittle and mock people. In any case, please do stop calling me names, Euler. I'd like to think you are far more mature than that.
Best,
Raphie
I don't believe I ever said I was special Euler, except perhaps in giving a damn (but I am certainly not alone in that regard) and thinking that we ought to figure out ways as a society for nice guys (and gals) not to finish last. That and that I have a legacy that makes it more likely for me than for others to be able to accomplish this at least in some small manner. That brings with it a responsibility.
Behavior such as yours is a big part of what keeps people down, Euler. You attack what you do not understand and that makes you, in my view, a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. All the worse because you are clearly talented in mathematics. I trust the judgement of Alphanumeric and RPenner on that one.
I am sure you also have many personal traits to recommend you aside from a rather cutting wit, but you do not display them on this forum. You belittle and mock people. In any case, please do stop calling me names, Euler. I'd like to think you are far more mature than that.
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE (Euler+Jun 4 2008, 09:27 PM)
This is so disappointing! The only internet expert that enters the thread is the one that refuses to display his expertise! Where on earth are all the others? I thought they'd leap at the chance to show off their understanding...
See above Euler. I posted links both to websites and to the company in which I was the junior partner. Why on this good earth would you say I refuse to show something I already showed? If that doesn't satisfy you, well, tough cookies.
Best,
Raphie
See above Euler. I posted links both to websites and to the company in which I was the junior partner. Why on this good earth would you say I refuse to show something I already showed? If that doesn't satisfy you, well, tough cookies.
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jun 4 2008, 09:33 PM)
Behavior such as yours is a big part of what keeps people down, Euler. You attack what you do not understand and that makes you, in my view, a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. All the worse because you are clearly talented in mathematics. I trust the judgement of Alphanumeric and RPenner on that one.
You realize I've attacked your "mathematics", right? You then say I am talented in mathematics, right? You then say I attack what I don't understand, right?
Do you actually read your posts back, or do you let the stupid just flow out of you without a seconds thought?
This, I would have to say, is at the limit of what I know/comprehend. If II is a disjoint set of R^n then yes it can still be uncountable.
Also that is the incorrect definition of B_r (x) or B_r (p) rather.
You realize I've attacked your "mathematics", right? You then say I am talented in mathematics, right? You then say I attack what I don't understand, right?
Do you actually read your posts back, or do you let the stupid just flow out of you without a seconds thought?
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jun 4 2008, 09:33 PM)
In any case, please do stop calling me names, Euler. I'd like to think you are far more mature than that.
Must one attain a certain age before calling a spade a spade? On the off chance my subtlety does too good a job; I'm calling you an idiot, again.
Ahhhh, the joy of conversing with an internet number theorist!
Must one attain a certain age before calling a spade a spade? On the off chance my subtlety does too good a job; I'm calling you an idiot, again.
Ahhhh, the joy of conversing with an internet number theorist!
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jun 4 2008, 09:33 PM)
Behavior such as yours is a big part of what keeps people down, Euler. You attack what you do not understand and that makes you, in my view, a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. All the worse because you are clearly talented in mathematics. I trust the judgement of Alphanumeric and RPenner on that one.
Eh? Yer doin exactly what yer complainin about him doin!
Criticisin someone fer criticisin people is still criticisin, yanno.
Yeesh...
Intelligence, civility to people who show some common sense, education.
There's three examples what prove ya wrong.
Eh? Yer doin exactly what yer complainin about him doin!
Criticisin someone fer criticisin people is still criticisin, yanno.
Yeesh...
QUOTE
I am sure you also have many personal traits to recommend you aside from a rather cutting wit, but you do not display them on this forum.
Intelligence, civility to people who show some common sense, education.
There's three examples what prove ya wrong.
QUOTE (Euler+Jun 4 2008, 09:45 PM)
You realize I've attacked your "mathematics", right? You then say I am talented in mathematics, right? You then say I attack what I don't understand, right?
You are talented Euler, meaning I am sure you can confirm the proof, elementary as it may be, that I mentioned regarding Fibonacci Numbers and Triangular Numbers.
Best,
Raphie
You are talented Euler, meaning I am sure you can confirm the proof, elementary as it may be, that I mentioned regarding Fibonacci Numbers and Triangular Numbers.
Best,
Raphie
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jun 4 2008, 09:51 PM)
You are talented Euler, meaning I am sure you can confirm the proof, elementary as it may be, that I mentioned regarding Fibonacci Numbers and Triangular Numbers.
Is this your way of dodging the fact that you've said something utterly stupid, yet again?
[If you feel you have proven anything please send it off to a relevant mathematical journal. You can tell us all when you're published)
Is this your way of dodging the fact that you've said something utterly stupid, yet again?
[If you feel you have proven anything please send it off to a relevant mathematical journal. You can tell us all when you're published)
I hate to say it, but I think all the internet experts may have scarpered!
QUOTE (Euler+Jun 5 2008, 08:51 PM)
I hate to say it, but I think all the internet experts may have scarpered!
Yeah, well, it ain't like provin they know their physics would prove us wrong when we say they don't or anythin...
Or maybe they just ain't got nothin to prove. Err, except them crank theories, that is. An fer that matter, if they ain't got nothin to prove, why they arguin on the internet about their theories?
Damn guys, it's startin to look like all these experts like Fartsite and StupidA an Jerkov are too scared to actually try to do what it takes to shut up the opposition....
Yeah, well, it ain't like provin they know their physics would prove us wrong when we say they don't or anythin...
Or maybe they just ain't got nothin to prove. Err, except them crank theories, that is. An fer that matter, if they ain't got nothin to prove, why they arguin on the internet about their theories?
Damn guys, it's startin to look like all these experts like Fartsite and StupidA an Jerkov are too scared to actually try to do what it takes to shut up the opposition....
Hi Euler,
Looks like there are no takers.
Would you mind a group attempt at the Newtonian mechanics question on this/another thread? Anyone who can actually do it is allowed to help (a bit) while the rest of us struggle.
-C2.
Looks like there are no takers.
Would you mind a group attempt at the Newtonian mechanics question on this/another thread? Anyone who can actually do it is allowed to help (a bit) while the rest of us struggle.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Jun 6 2008, 09:44 AM)
Hi Euler,
Looks like there are no takers.
Would you mind a group attempt at the Newtonian mechanics question on this/another thread? Anyone who can actually do it is allowed to help (a bit) while the rest of us struggle.
-C2.
Perhaps we should give them a little more time? They're probably busy giving talks at conferences, writing books and publishing papers!
I can provide a plethora of questions on Newtonian dynamics - point me to the thread and I shall provide...
Looks like there are no takers.
Would you mind a group attempt at the Newtonian mechanics question on this/another thread? Anyone who can actually do it is allowed to help (a bit) while the rest of us struggle.
-C2.
Perhaps we should give them a little more time? They're probably busy giving talks at conferences, writing books and publishing papers!
I can provide a plethora of questions on Newtonian dynamics - point me to the thread and I shall provide...
QUOTE
Cardinality (Precursor562 practically wrote the internet book on this subject)
This, I would have to say, is at the limit of what I know/comprehend. If II is a disjoint set of R^n then yes it can still be uncountable.
Also that is the incorrect definition of B_r (x) or B_r (p) rather.
WHy am I not surprised by the lack of takers in this thread.
I'll tell you why I personally am not surprised Trippy. Because this thread from the outset was set up with a view to embarrassing people. Hmmm... You're a smart guy, Trippy. Need I really press the point on this one?
Cheers,
Raphie
Cheers,
Raphie
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jun 7 2008, 04:37 AM)
Because this thread from the outset was set up with a view to embarrassing people.
An it's workin.
All o them folk he challenged coulda avoided it all by just answerin the questions, provin themselves right.
The lack of a response was kinda known about by all beforehand... It ain't really doin much but provin what we already know.
An it's workin.
All o them folk he challenged coulda avoided it all by just answerin the questions, provin themselves right.The lack of a response was kinda known about by all beforehand... It ain't really doin much but provin what we already know.
Oh joy - we have a taker! This is a prime example of an internet expert! Knows nothing of the subject in hand, but jumps on wikipedia and thinks he'll manage to wing it! Then has the stupidity to try and correct something that they don't even understand!
Precursor562: we thank you for this fine example.
Precursor562: we thank you for this fine example.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 7 2008, 01:08 AM)
If II is a disjoint set of R^n then yes it can still be uncountable.
"Disjoint set of R^n" - this terminology doesn't make any sense! Are you unfamiliar with these words? Anyhoo - your guess is wrong (which was slightly unlucky, since you had a 50:50 chance). Now I've given you the answer (that such a set must be countable), maybe you could redeem yourself by proving it?
"Disjoint set of R^n" - this terminology doesn't make any sense! Are you unfamiliar with these words? Anyhoo - your guess is wrong (which was slightly unlucky, since you had a 50:50 chance). Now I've given you the answer (that such a set must be countable), maybe you could redeem yourself by proving it?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 7 2008, 01:08 AM)
Also that is the incorrect definition of B_r (x) or B_r (p) rather.
Oh dear. It would seem someone had to jump to wiki! Don't you see why my definition and the wiki one are equivalent for open balls in R^n!?! Oh, hold on - you're not still having problems with |a-b|=|b-a| are you? I really don't think you're very familiar with this stuff...
Oh dear. It would seem someone had to jump to wiki! Don't you see why my definition and the wiki one are equivalent for open balls in R^n!?! Oh, hold on - you're not still having problems with |a-b|=|b-a| are you? I really don't think you're very familiar with this stuff...
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 7 2008, 01:08 AM)
This, I would have to say, is at the limit of what I know/comprehend.
Oh, I forgot about this bit!
The only prerequisite material this question assumes, is knowledge of the definition of a countable set (and to understand the basic terminology, obviously). So it would seem you're telling us that the limit of what you know/comprehend when it comes to the subject of countability, is the definition of the word?
Nice...
Oh, I forgot about this bit!
The only prerequisite material this question assumes, is knowledge of the definition of a countable set (and to understand the basic terminology, obviously). So it would seem you're telling us that the limit of what you know/comprehend when it comes to the subject of countability, is the definition of the word?
Nice...
QUOTE (Euler+Jun 7 2008, 09:10 AM)
Don't you see why my definition and the wiki one are equivalent for open balls in R^n!?! Oh, hold on - you're not still having problems with |a-b|=|b-a| are you?
Firstly, it's clear that Precursor doesn't realise that the variable p can be called whatever you like, hence why he tried to tell you your definition involving x is wrong, it should involve p. And secondly, he doesn't know about metrics and norms.
And we know he won't do the QED question. I asked him that months ago and he still won't do it.
Firstly, it's clear that Precursor doesn't realise that the variable p can be called whatever you like, hence why he tried to tell you your definition involving x is wrong, it should involve p. And secondly, he doesn't know about metrics and norms.
And we know he won't do the QED question. I asked him that months ago and he still won't do it.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 7 2008, 10:08 AM)
Firstly, it's clear that Precursor doesn't realise that the variable p can be called whatever you like, hence why he tried to tell you your definition involving x is wrong, it should involve p. And secondly, he doesn't know about metrics and norms.
And we know he won't do the QED question. I asked him that months ago and he still won't do it.
But wouldn't that mean he's been lying about his level of knowledge?
And we know he won't do the QED question. I asked him that months ago and he still won't do it.
But wouldn't that mean he's been lying about his level of knowledge?
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jun 7 2008, 04:37 PM)
I'll tell you why I personally am not surprised Trippy. Because this thread from the outset was set up with a view to embarrassing people. Hmmm... You're a smart guy, Trippy. Need I really press the point on this one?
Cheers,
Raphie
And once again, you completely miss the point.
Egg.
Cheers,
Raphie
And once again, you completely miss the point.
Egg.
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Jun 7 2008, 05:37 AM)
I'll tell you why I personally am not surprised Trippy. Because this thread from the outset was set up with a view to embarrassing people. Hmmm... You're a smart guy, Trippy. Need I really press the point on this one?
The whistling sound you're hearing is Euler's point flying over your head....
The whistling sound you're hearing is Euler's point flying over your head....
Hints removed.
QUOTE (mr_homm+Jun 7 2008, 07:58 PM)
Since the "intended victim" has already responded to the cardinality question, I hope it won't be amiss if I drop a couple of hints about the solution.
Actually Stuart, it would. I'd appreciate it if you edited your post.
EDIT: Sadly, it would seem Precursor562 is now reading this thread, so the question becomes void.
has already responded to the cardinality question, I hope it won't be amiss if I drop a couple of hints about the solution. Actually Stuart, it would. I'd appreciate it if you edited your post.
EDIT: Sadly, it would seem Precursor562 is now reading this thread, so the question becomes void.
We have an edit sham-mockery-sham on our hands! To elaborate for the readers:
1) mr_homm outlined how to do the cardinality question.
2) I asked mr_homm to remove the hints so Precursor562 could have another go, given that I'd informed him of the veracity of the statement in the question.
3) In the time between mr_homm editing his post, and the time of my asking, Precursor562 was online, reading this thread. This, of course, now makes the question void.
And here we are! Not to fear Precursor562, I can easily give another cardinality question.
1) mr_homm outlined how to do the cardinality question.
2) I asked mr_homm to remove the hints so Precursor562 could have another go, given that I'd informed him of the veracity of the statement in the question.
3) In the time between mr_homm editing his post, and the time of my asking, Precursor562 was online, reading this thread. This, of course, now makes the question void.
And here we are! Not to fear Precursor562, I can easily give another cardinality question.
I understand perfectly that a variable can be called anything.
I wasn't saying that was the part that was incorrect. I was saying that what it was equal to was incorrect.
No? Perhaps I should of used "in" instead of "of"? Like you did here...
No? Perhaps I should of used "in" instead of "of"? Like you did here...
for open balls in R^n
But wait? Doesn't using "in" means that the set II would have to be a subset of R^n? If so then it wouldn't be a disjoint set. A subset will contain elements found in the parent set. A disjoint set has no elements in common.
Also...
With the equation given. It doesn't matter because of the wording of the question. The question itself doesn't make sense. Set II is supposed to be disjoint, disjoint to what? The set R^n? That means if set II is a set of disjoint, open balls then B_r(x) != any element in R^n.
However I can work through that with although y has to be an element of R^n, x must be such that |y-x| can not equal any element of R^n. So can there still be an uncountable number of possible values for B_r(x)? Absolutely. B_r(x) need only equal a complex number. Since there are an uncountable number of elements in the set of complex numbers then set II can be uncountable.
Although mr. homm posted hints then edited to remove, I've been posting in that time frame and didn't get to read any of them.
I wasn't saying that was the part that was incorrect. I was saying that what it was equal to was incorrect.
QUOTE
this terminology doesn't make any sense!
No? Perhaps I should of used "in" instead of "of"? Like you did here...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| this terminology doesn't make any sense! |
No? Perhaps I should of used "in" instead of "of"? Like you did here...
for open balls in R^n
But wait? Doesn't using "in" means that the set II would have to be a subset of R^n? If so then it wouldn't be a disjoint set. A subset will contain elements found in the parent set. A disjoint set has no elements in common.
Also...
With the equation given. It doesn't matter because of the wording of the question. The question itself doesn't make sense. Set II is supposed to be disjoint, disjoint to what? The set R^n? That means if set II is a set of disjoint, open balls then B_r(x) != any element in R^n.
However I can work through that with although y has to be an element of R^n, x must be such that |y-x| can not equal any element of R^n. So can there still be an uncountable number of possible values for B_r(x)? Absolutely. B_r(x) need only equal a complex number. Since there are an uncountable number of elements in the set of complex numbers then set II can be uncountable.
Although mr. homm posted hints then edited to remove, I've been posting in that time frame and didn't get to read any of them.
This is about the most wrong it's possible to be in one post. This just demonstrates how massively out of depth you are.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 7 2008, 08:21 PM)
I was saying that what it was equal to was incorrect.
That fact that you don't understand that the two definitions coincide for the space we are working on inidicates you don't know what you're on about.
That fact that you don't understand that the two definitions coincide for the space we are working on inidicates you don't know what you're on about.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 7 2008, 08:21 PM)
But wait? Doesn't using "in" means that the set II would have to be a subset of R^n? If so then it wouldn't be a disjoint set. A subset will contain elements found in the parent set. A disjoint set has no elements in common.
Here, again I'm led to believe you're completely out of your depth. The set, \Pi, is a set of disjoint, open balls in R^n. But I'm just repeating myself, I can only assume you're completely out of your depth and you don't understand these basic concepts.
Here, again I'm led to believe you're completely out of your depth. The set, \Pi, is a set of disjoint, open balls in R^n. But I'm just repeating myself, I can only assume you're completely out of your depth and you don't understand these basic concepts.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 7 2008, 08:21 PM)
The question itself doesn't make sense. Set II is supposed to be disjoint, disjoint to what? The set R^n? That means if set II is a set of disjoint, open balls then B_r(x) != any element in R^n.
Again, you prove to us all that not only is the question well beyond you, but you even lack the knowledge to understand the question. This is sad.
Again, you prove to us all that not only is the question well beyond you, but you even lack the knowledge to understand the question. This is sad.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 7 2008, 08:21 PM)
However I can work through that with although y has to be an element of R^n, x must be such that |y-x| can not equal any element of R^n.
Wow - you really have not clue what you're on about, at all! Do you even know what an open ball represents? This doesn't even need mathematical skill or knowledge: you only need read the wiki page you've already googled! Provide for me, if you will, the element of R^3 that is equal to |x-y|, where x=(0,1,4) and y=(8,-4,1).
Wow - you really have not clue what you're on about, at all! Do you even know what an open ball represents? This doesn't even need mathematical skill or knowledge: you only need read the wiki page you've already googled! Provide for me, if you will, the element of R^3 that is equal to |x-y|, where x=(0,1,4) and y=(8,-4,1).
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 7 2008, 08:21 PM)
So can there still be an uncountable number of possible values for B_r(x)?
Values of B_r(x)? B_r(x) is a set of vectors in R^n you tool! Do you not even understand the definition of an open ball or vector space?
Values of B_r(x)? B_r(x) is a set of vectors in R^n you tool! Do you not even understand the definition of an open ball or vector space?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 7 2008, 08:21 PM)
Absolutely. B_r(x) need only equal a complex number.
And then you go and top it off! I honestly don't think it would be possible to display less understand than you have done in this post. Not only have we managed to assert that you don't know the first thing about cardinality, you can't even understand the definitions of basic mathematical objects!!!!
Why do you do this to yourself!
And then you go and top it off! I honestly don't think it would be possible to display less understand than you have done in this post. Not only have we managed to assert that you don't know the first thing about cardinality, you can't even understand the definitions of basic mathematical objects!!!!
Why do you do this to yourself!
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 7 2008, 08:21 PM)
Although mr. homm posted hints then edited to remove, I've been posting in that time frame and didn't get to read any of them.
I don't suppose his post would have helped: it was made on the assumption you actually understood some mathematics!
I don't suppose his post would have helped: it was made on the assumption you actually understood some mathematics!
First off, such a question doesn't require knowing much in cardinality other than the difference between countably finite, countably infinite and uncountably infinite. It requires knowing open balls. Something of which I knew nothing about (or even heard of) till this thread. Although I think I'm beginning to understand the concept...
So for B_r(x) = {y∈R^3: |y - x| < r}
R^3 talks of 3 dimensional space so any point within will have 3 coordinates (x, y, z).
However is x∈p? because for B_r(p), p is the center of the open ball which if talking about 3 dimensional space requires 3 coordinates. p is therefore not a variable but a specific value. If x is a variable then the only way I can see this (and have a countable number of elements in the set II) is if x can be one of the elements of p.
So for B_r(x) = {y∈R^3: |y - x| < r}
R^3 talks of 3 dimensional space so any point within will have 3 coordinates (x, y, z).
However is x∈p? because for B_r(p), p is the center of the open ball which if talking about 3 dimensional space requires 3 coordinates. p is therefore not a variable but a specific value. If x is a variable then the only way I can see this (and have a countable number of elements in the set II) is if x can be one of the elements of p.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 12:06 AM)
First off, such a question doesn't require knowing much in cardinality other than the difference between countably finite, countably infinite and uncountably infinite. It requires knowing open balls.
It doesn't require any knowledge of open balls - I gave you the definition in the question! Are you so mathematically inept that you can't even understand mathematical definitions?
It doesn't require any knowledge of open balls - I gave you the definition in the question! Are you so mathematically inept that you can't even understand mathematical definitions?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 12:06 AM)
Something of which I knew nothing about (or even heard of) till this thread.
And still you thought it wise to try to correct my definition... you're not all that bright, are you? Classic internet expert stuff: you know nothing about a given subject, but you jump on a wiki article and presume to know and understand more about it than a PhD student! Again, I thank you for the example.
The equation means nothing unless you know about open balls.
The equation means nothing unless you know about open balls.
And still you thought it wise to try to correct my definition... you're not all that bright, are you? Classic internet expert stuff: you know nothing about a given subject, but you jump on a wiki article and presume to know and understand more about it than a PhD student! Again, I thank you for the example.
Oh my, god forbid I look up something I know nothing about and try and learn. I'll never try and learn again.
Where's the proof of being a PhD student? All this showed (other than how much of a stuck up, ignorant prick you are) is that you have a basic understanding of open balls.
Where, unlike yourself where you think you know everything, I am man enough to say when I don't know something.
First off, that is some nice arm waving there.
Second, maybe you should correct the mistakes/misunderstanding. Something that I have yet to see you do. You rather just arm wave saying its wrong and then insult, insult, insult. Oh and you repeat info from wiki over and over and over and over until you hear what you want to hear.
First off, that is some nice arm waving there.
Second, maybe you should correct the mistakes/misunderstanding. Something that I have yet to see you do. You rather just arm wave saying its wrong and then insult, insult, insult. Oh and you repeat info from wiki over and over and over and over until you hear what you want to hear.
I think we've seen enough. I'm sorry to say it, but your actions in this thread have proved that you don't have a clue - I'll make sure to refer to it when you put your internet expert cap on!
I'm not sorry to say but your actions in this thread have proved how much of a D-ick you are. You believe to know everything (so there is nothing new for you to learn) and you have demonstrated again and again that you will attack instead of help so there is no reason for you to be on this forum. Now run along....
And still you thought it wise to try to correct my definition... you're not all that bright, are you? Classic internet expert stuff: you know nothing about a given subject, but you jump on a wiki article and presume to know and understand more about it than a PhD student! Again, I thank you for the example.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 12:06 AM)
However is x∈p? because for B_r(p), p is the center of the open ball which if talking about 3 dimensional space requires 3 coordinates. p is therefore not a variable but a specific value. If x is a variable then the only way I can see this (and have a countable number of elements in the set II) is if x can be one of the elements of p.
Once again, this is cringe-worthy. Not only do you not understand this stuff, but you can't even understand the mathematical language it's written in. This may appear harsh to readers, but Precursor562 wouldn't find himself in these compromising situations if he was a little bit more honest, and a little less reliant on wiki-based expertise...
I think we've seen enough. I'm sorry to say it, but your actions in this thread have proved that you don't have a clue - I'll make sure to refer to it when you put your internet expert cap on!
Now run along...
Once again, this is cringe-worthy. Not only do you not understand this stuff, but you can't even understand the mathematical language it's written in. This may appear harsh to readers, but Precursor562 wouldn't find himself in these compromising situations if he was a little bit more honest, and a little less reliant on wiki-based expertise...
I think we've seen enough. I'm sorry to say it, but your actions in this thread have proved that you don't have a clue - I'll make sure to refer to it when you put your internet expert cap on!
Now run along...
QUOTE
I gave you the definition in the question!
The equation means nothing unless you know about open balls.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I gave you the definition in the question! |
The equation means nothing unless you know about open balls.
And still you thought it wise to try to correct my definition... you're not all that bright, are you? Classic internet expert stuff: you know nothing about a given subject, but you jump on a wiki article and presume to know and understand more about it than a PhD student! Again, I thank you for the example.
Oh my, god forbid I look up something I know nothing about and try and learn. I'll never try and learn again.
Where's the proof of being a PhD student? All this showed (other than how much of a stuck up, ignorant prick you are) is that you have a basic understanding of open balls.
Where, unlike yourself where you think you know everything, I am man enough to say when I don't know something.
QUOTE
Once again, this is cringe-worthy. Not only do you not understand this stuff, but you can't even understand the mathematical language it's written in. This may appear harsh to readers, but Precursor562 wouldn't find himself in these compromising situations if he was a little bit more honest, and a little less reliant on wiki-based expertise...
First off, that is some nice arm waving there.
Second, maybe you should correct the mistakes/misunderstanding. Something that I have yet to see you do. You rather just arm wave saying its wrong and then insult, insult, insult. Oh and you repeat info from wiki over and over and over and over until you hear what you want to hear.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Once again, this is cringe-worthy. Not only do you not understand this stuff, but you can't even understand the mathematical language it's written in. This may appear harsh to readers, but Precursor562 wouldn't find himself in these compromising situations if he was a little bit more honest, and a little less reliant on wiki-based expertise... |
First off, that is some nice arm waving there.
Second, maybe you should correct the mistakes/misunderstanding. Something that I have yet to see you do. You rather just arm wave saying its wrong and then insult, insult, insult. Oh and you repeat info from wiki over and over and over and over until you hear what you want to hear.
I think we've seen enough. I'm sorry to say it, but your actions in this thread have proved that you don't have a clue - I'll make sure to refer to it when you put your internet expert cap on!
I'm not sorry to say but your actions in this thread have proved how much of a D-ick you are. You believe to know everything (so there is nothing new for you to learn) and you have demonstrated again and again that you will attack instead of help so there is no reason for you to be on this forum. Now run along....
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 02:18 PM)
The equation means nothing unless you know about open balls.
The point being you made a lot of claims about analysis, about having read books on it etc. Infact, the definition of limits uses very similar concepts, which you claimed to understand. Now you turn around and admit you don't know about open balls.
It's like someone claiming to be an expert at the English language's development not knowing what verbs are.
The point being you made a lot of claims about analysis, about having read books on it etc. Infact, the definition of limits uses very similar concepts, which you claimed to understand. Now you turn around and admit you don't know about open balls.
It's like someone claiming to be an expert at the English language's development not knowing what verbs are.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 02:18 PM)
Oh my, god forbid I look up something I know nothing about and try and learn. I'll never try and learn again.
You never tried to learn maths before. Wiki'ing something isn't proper learning.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 02:18 PM)
Where's the proof of being a PhD student?
That's irrelevent to your claims about understanding analysis and limits.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 02:18 PM)
Where, unlike yourself where you think you know everything, I am man enough to say when I don't know something.
None of us (the 0.9r=1 sayers) claim to know everything. You claimed to be competant at limits. Now you admit you don't understand an essential concept about them. You claimed to understand cardinality but you couldn't do a simple question. You claimed to know how to do quantum electrodynamics, but you don't.
There's plenty of evidence of you being unable to say "This is something I don't know about" unless you're backed into a corner. Or do you still claim to be able to do quantum electrodynamics?
There's plenty of evidence of you being unable to say "This is something I don't know about" unless you're backed into a corner. Or do you still claim to be able to do quantum electrodynamics?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 02:18 PM)
Second, maybe you should correct the mistakes/misunderstanding
Euler, myself, Rpenner, bm etc have shown in many threads we are competant at high school, and on many occasions undergraduate, level material.
When have I claimed to have read books on analysis?
When have I claimed to have read books on analysis?
Infact, the definition of limits uses very similar concepts, which you claimed to understand. Now you turn around and admit you don't know about open balls.
Open balls requires knowing limits and cardinality sure, but knowing limits and cardinality doesn't require knowing open balls. I do recall being taught both limits and sets in high school and not once has there ever been a mention of open balls in math, physics or any other of the math and sciences. Believe me, I know. I took every math and science I could, except physics 12 which they messed up and put me in phys-ED 12. I could have got the mishap corrected but decided against it.
First I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. You and Euler have claimed such things by repeating over and over how you almost have/have your PhD's
Second, it is more like claiming to be an expert on verbs but not know much about English.
First I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. You and Euler have claimed such things by repeating over and over how you almost have/have your PhD's
Second, it is more like claiming to be an expert on verbs but not know much about English.
Wiki'ing something isn't proper learning.
Researching is proper learning. Attending a school isn't the only way to learn.
Yes at limits. Competent != Expert. Something you have trouble understanding.
Yes at limits. Competent != Expert. Something you have trouble understanding.
Now you admit you don't understand an essential concept about them.
I claim to not know open balls. Wiki is simply an easy source to find. Speaking of which....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_ball
Please tell me. Wiki is good for mentioning necessary related topics. Where is cardinality or limits mentioned on the page?
Also I was never told about the difference in equation.
Are you serious? Can you not see that it has to do with his (and your) attitude across the entire forum. Not just being able to do questions he post. I would hope he would know how to do it being the one to post them.
Are you serious? Can you not see that it has to do with his (and your) attitude across the entire forum. Not just being able to do questions he post. I would hope he would know how to do it being the one to post them.
You claimed to know more about limits and cardinality than professors, never mind students.
Again, more arm waving..If it were an Olympic sport I don't know who you get gold. You or Euler.
I'm well aware of the problems and questions you and Euler have provided links to. I also don't recall you actually doing them yourself when nobody else does. Although in a case of a scanned page containing word problems I would hope that there exists an answer sheet that was not scanned.
I'm well aware of the problems and questions you and Euler have provided links to. I also don't recall you actually doing them yourself when nobody else does. Although in a case of a scanned page containing word problems I would hope that there exists an answer sheet that was not scanned.
The 'dicks' are those people claiming to know WAY more than they do and refusing to show it.
Pot, this is kettle. Over.
Link please. I'm sure that you did some and not all because you couldn't find the info to do all on the internet. I'm also sure that you pulled of a bit of "smoke and mirror" too.
Oh my, god forbid I look up something I know nothing about and try and learn. I'll never try and learn again.
Your problem is you need to unlearn.
There is much you think you know but it's inaccurate. Then instead of backtracking you forge forward and of course get even more wrong.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 02:18 PM)
I'm not sorry to say but your actions in this thread have proved how much of a D-ick you are. You believe to know everything (so there is nothing new for you to learn) and you have demonstrated again and again that you will attack instead of help so there is no reason for you to be on this forum. Now run along....
The questions Euler asked are not 'knowing it all'. Anyone who graduates from a mathematical physics degree should be able to do most of them with ease. Farsight claims to know more about relativity than professors, never mind students. StevenA claims to know more about linear algebra and analysis than professors, never mind students. You claimed to know more about limits and cardinality than professors, never mind students.
Therefore at least some of those questions should have been easy to you. Not just "I know that notation" but "The answer is obviously....". But they weren't. This doesn't mean Euler (or myself and others) think we know 'it all' because we've asked you questions like that. We put your claimed knowledge and ability to the test. If you'd only claimed to be half decent at high school algebra and you didn't know about analysis we'd not have asked.
The 'dicks' are those people claiming to know WAY more than they do and refusing to show it. People like Farsight, Steven and you. How many times have you run from us asking questions? Euler, Rpenner, myself, bm, MrHomm, we post in homework help or threads where people ask for actual knowledge to be demonstrated. I challenged Farsight to a discussion on metrics and general relativity, he refused. Just like you refused to do even the simplest QED question.
Remember when NeoNo.1 challenged me to do a bunch of questions Rpenner set? I actually did some. Including actual QFT calculations. Where've you demonstrate you know actual QFT?
Therefore at least some of those questions should have been easy to you. Not just "I know that notation" but "The answer is obviously....". But they weren't. This doesn't mean Euler (or myself and others) think we know 'it all' because we've asked you questions like that. We put your claimed knowledge and ability to the test. If you'd only claimed to be half decent at high school algebra and you didn't know about analysis we'd not have asked.
The 'dicks' are those people claiming to know WAY more than they do and refusing to show it. People like Farsight, Steven and you. How many times have you run from us asking questions? Euler, Rpenner, myself, bm, MrHomm, we post in homework help or threads where people ask for actual knowledge to be demonstrated. I challenged Farsight to a discussion on metrics and general relativity, he refused. Just like you refused to do even the simplest QED question.
Remember when NeoNo.1 challenged me to do a bunch of questions Rpenner set? I actually did some. Including actual QFT calculations. Where've you demonstrate you know actual QFT?
QUOTE
The point being you made a lot of claims about analysis, about having read books on it etc
When have I claimed to have read books on analysis?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The point being you made a lot of claims about analysis, about having read books on it etc |
When have I claimed to have read books on analysis?
Infact, the definition of limits uses very similar concepts, which you claimed to understand. Now you turn around and admit you don't know about open balls.
Open balls requires knowing limits and cardinality sure, but knowing limits and cardinality doesn't require knowing open balls. I do recall being taught both limits and sets in high school and not once has there ever been a mention of open balls in math, physics or any other of the math and sciences. Believe me, I know. I took every math and science I could, except physics 12 which they messed up and put me in phys-ED 12. I could have got the mishap corrected but decided against it.
QUOTE
It's like someone claiming to be an expert at the English language's development not knowing what verbs are.
First I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. You and Euler have claimed such things by repeating over and over how you almost have/have your PhD's
Second, it is more like claiming to be an expert on verbs but not know much about English.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's like someone claiming to be an expert at the English language's development not knowing what verbs are. |
First I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. You and Euler have claimed such things by repeating over and over how you almost have/have your PhD's
Second, it is more like claiming to be an expert on verbs but not know much about English.
Wiki'ing something isn't proper learning.
Researching is proper learning. Attending a school isn't the only way to learn.
QUOTE
You claimed to be competant at limits.
Yes at limits. Competent != Expert. Something you have trouble understanding.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You claimed to be competant at limits. |
Yes at limits. Competent != Expert. Something you have trouble understanding.
Now you admit you don't understand an essential concept about them.
I claim to not know open balls. Wiki is simply an easy source to find. Speaking of which....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_ball
Please tell me. Wiki is good for mentioning necessary related topics. Where is cardinality or limits mentioned on the page?
Also I was never told about the difference in equation.
QUOTE
The questions Euler asked are not 'knowing it all'.
Are you serious? Can you not see that it has to do with his (and your) attitude across the entire forum. Not just being able to do questions he post. I would hope he would know how to do it being the one to post them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The questions Euler asked are not 'knowing it all'. |
Are you serious? Can you not see that it has to do with his (and your) attitude across the entire forum. Not just being able to do questions he post. I would hope he would know how to do it being the one to post them.
You claimed to know more about limits and cardinality than professors, never mind students.
Again, more arm waving..If it were an Olympic sport I don't know who you get gold. You or Euler.
QUOTE
because we've asked you questions like that.
I'm well aware of the problems and questions you and Euler have provided links to. I also don't recall you actually doing them yourself when nobody else does. Although in a case of a scanned page containing word problems I would hope that there exists an answer sheet that was not scanned.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| because we've asked you questions like that. |
I'm well aware of the problems and questions you and Euler have provided links to. I also don't recall you actually doing them yourself when nobody else does. Although in a case of a scanned page containing word problems I would hope that there exists an answer sheet that was not scanned.
The 'dicks' are those people claiming to know WAY more than they do and refusing to show it.
Pot, this is kettle. Over.
QUOTE
I actually did some.
Link please. I'm sure that you did some and not all because you couldn't find the info to do all on the internet. I'm also sure that you pulled of a bit of "smoke and mirror" too.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 01:18 PM)
Oh my, god forbid I look up something I know nothing about and try and learn. I'll never try and learn again.
Your problem is you need to unlearn.
There is much you think you know but it's inaccurate. Then instead of backtracking you forge forward and of course get even more wrong.
Oh no - someone seems to have got their knickers in a twist! Delightful...
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 01:18 PM)
The equation means nothing unless you know about open balls.
I gave you the definition of an open ball. The fact that the definition was beyond you isn't our fault.
I gave you the definition of an open ball. The fact that the definition was beyond you isn't our fault.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 01:18 PM)
Oh my, god forbid I look up something I know nothing about and try and learn. I'll never try and learn again.
You openly admitted that you didn't know what an open ball was (which is laughable, given the knowledge you claim to have). And with one read of a wiki page, you felt in a position to correct my definition! Let me ask, have you yet to realise that the definitions coincide, or are you too clueless to even understand the wiki page on open balls?
You openly admitted that you didn't know what an open ball was (which is laughable, given the knowledge you claim to have). And with one read of a wiki page, you felt in a position to correct my definition! Let me ask, have you yet to realise that the definitions coincide, or are you too clueless to even understand the wiki page on open balls?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 01:18 PM)
Where's the proof of being a PhD student? All this showed (other than how much of a stuck up, ignorant prick you are) is that you have a basic understanding of open balls.
And out pops the conspiracy theorist! Are you some kind of crank-poster-boy? I don't think you could have provided us with more prime examples of how idiotic people like you are!
Come on Precursor562, in this thread we've seen you:
And out pops the conspiracy theorist! Are you some kind of crank-poster-boy? I don't think you could have provided us with more prime examples of how idiotic people like you are!
Come on Precursor562, in this thread we've seen you:
- Not understand the definition of a set.
- Not know the diference between a scalar and a vector.
- Not realise that two definitions are equivalent.
- See that you're completely unable to answer a simple question on cardinality.
- Have you admit that the limit of your knowledge of cardinality is the definition of the word.
- Say that you can make an open ball "equal a complex number" (my personal favorite).
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 8 2008, 02:48 PM)
Your problem is you need to unlearn.
There is much you think you know but it's inaccurate. Then instead of backtracking you forge forward and of course get even more wrong.
Once again, I find myself vehemently disagreeing with you. Are you not able to read his posts in this thread alone? He has shone a staggering misunderstanding of everything he is presented with. What is it you feel he needs to "unlearn"?
For instance, there's simple question based on Newtonian mechanics on that list: you don't see him jumping to answer it, do you?
There is much you think you know but it's inaccurate. Then instead of backtracking you forge forward and of course get even more wrong.
Once again, I find myself vehemently disagreeing with you. Are you not able to read his posts in this thread alone? He has shone a staggering misunderstanding of everything he is presented with. What is it you feel he needs to "unlearn"?
For instance, there's simple question based on Newtonian mechanics on that list: you don't see him jumping to answer it, do you?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 03:46 PM)
When have I claimed to have read books on analysis?
In the 0.9r threads. You claimed to have read books on this topic but when I asked you the title or author you couldn't remember.
In the 0.9r threads. You claimed to have read books on this topic but when I asked you the title or author you couldn't remember.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 03:46 PM)
Open balls requires knowing limits and cardinality sure, but knowing limits and cardinality doesn't require knowing open balls.
The epsilon-delta notation of limits involves open balls. It's a definition which Euler has given many times and which I repeatedly asked StevenA to use.
Definition of limit :
f(x) -> L as x->a if for all epsilon>0, there exists a delta such that |f(x)-L|<epsilon and |x-a|<delta.
Oh look, |f(x)-L|<epsilon and |x-a|<delta. Looks like open balls in R to me. What do they look like to you?
Definition of limit :
f(x) -> L as x->a if for all epsilon>0, there exists a delta such that |f(x)-L|<epsilon and |x-a|<delta.
Oh look, |f(x)-L|<epsilon and |x-a|<delta. Looks like open balls in R to me. What do they look like to you?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 03:46 PM)
First I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. You and Euler have claimed such things by repeating over and over how you almost have/have your PhD's
You claimed to know better than maths professors. If you know better than experts, doesn't that make you an expert?
And having PhDs doesn't make you an expert but it does demonstrate a great deal of working knowledge and the view of your peers that you're competant in your thesis area.
I'm not an expert in string theory, though I do a PhD in that area. I am by no means even close to being the best in my area. I am vaguely competant at some areas of string theory. Compared to your average guy on the street, I am extremely knowledgable. Compared to your average physics student in high school, I'm very knowledgable. Compared to your average physics undergraduate, I'm above average. Compared to your average string theorist, I'm below average.
I hold no illusions about my place among my contemporaries. Farsight, Steven, you. You think you are contemporaries of physicists or mathematicians. You aren't. But you hold the delusion you are.
And having PhDs doesn't make you an expert but it does demonstrate a great deal of working knowledge and the view of your peers that you're competant in your thesis area.
I'm not an expert in string theory, though I do a PhD in that area. I am by no means even close to being the best in my area. I am vaguely competant at some areas of string theory. Compared to your average guy on the street, I am extremely knowledgable. Compared to your average physics student in high school, I'm very knowledgable. Compared to your average physics undergraduate, I'm above average. Compared to your average string theorist, I'm below average.
I hold no illusions about my place among my contemporaries. Farsight, Steven, you. You think you are contemporaries of physicists or mathematicians. You aren't. But you hold the delusion you are.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 03:46 PM)
Researching is proper learning. Attending a school isn't the only way to learn.
And how have you researched quantum electrodynamics?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 03:46 PM)
Yes at limits. Competent != Expert. Something you have trouble understanding.
And yet we have no evidence you're competant.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 03:46 PM)
Where is cardinality or limits mentioned on the page?
Where did I say they were on the page about open balls. Open balls, as I just demonstrated, come into the limit of functions.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 03:46 PM)
Are you serious? Can you not see that it has to do with his (and your) attitude across the entire forum. Not just being able to do questions he post. I would hope he would know how to do it being the one to post them.
The one on limits is so simple you don't even have to put pen to paper to work out the limit.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 03:46 PM)
I also don't recall you actually doing them yourself when nobody else does.
I asked Farsight to demonstrate the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations. I then, when he couldn't, did it for him.
But if you want an actual example, here's the opening part of the solution to the GR question of Euler's. Would you care to finish it?
But if you want an actual example, here's the opening part of the solution to the GR question of Euler's. Would you care to finish it?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 03:46 PM)
Pot, this is kettle. Over.
Where have I claimed to be able to do a particular area of maths and physics I cannot? Provide a link.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 03:46 PM)
Link please. I'm sure that you did some and not all because you couldn't find the info to do all on the internet. I'm also sure that you pulled of a bit of "smoke and mirror" too.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=17930
NeoNo.1 asked for questions, Rpenner provided, I did a few. Namely here, here, here and here and here I admit to the ones I cannot do.
Where have you done any questions like that? You don't even try smoke and mirrors. You claim you can do something and then run away when asked to prove it.
NeoNo.1 asked for questions, Rpenner provided, I did a few. Namely here, here, here and here and here I admit to the ones I cannot do.
Where have you done any questions like that? You don't even try smoke and mirrors. You claim you can do something and then run away when asked to prove it.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 02:46 PM)
Open balls requires knowing limits and cardinality sure...
Oh for the love of God! How stupid are you!
You needn't know about limits, or cardinality to understand the definition of an open ball you utter, utter tool! Sure, if you were experienced with limits (as you claim you are) you would have come across them, but in no way are those topics prerequisite to understanding the definition of an open ball!
You, quite literally, couldn't look any more stupid than you do right now. Congratulations!
Oh for the love of God! How stupid are you!
You needn't know about limits, or cardinality to understand the definition of an open ball you utter, utter tool! Sure, if you were experienced with limits (as you claim you are) you would have come across them, but in no way are those topics prerequisite to understanding the definition of an open ball!
You, quite literally, couldn't look any more stupid than you do right now. Congratulations!
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 10:52 PM)
Again, to work with limits and cardinality pertaining to open balls one must be familiar with open balls.
You can do the concept of open balls without limits. You cannot do limits without open balls. That's what Euler was getting at.
You can do the concept of open balls without limits. You cannot do limits without open balls. That's what Euler was getting at.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 10:52 PM)
When ask to define/show the limit or cardinality of such then yes you do need to know about such as well as open balls, F-Uck nuts.
But, again, that isn't what Euler said.
You cannot do limits rigorously without knowing what an open ball is. As I demonstrated, things like |a-b|<e are precisely that, open balls. You can do open balls without doing anything to do with limits. For instance, defining topological spaces using open sets is a use of open balls without the use of limits.
Of course you need to know about open balls if you're doing the limits of something in open balls, that's tautological. But Euler didn't say that. Either you don't understand the distinction or you are deliberately trying to make a strawman.
Call us names after making a strawman or having someone's points pass you by doesn't do you any favours.
You cannot do limits rigorously without knowing what an open ball is. As I demonstrated, things like |a-b|<e are precisely that, open balls. You can do open balls without doing anything to do with limits. For instance, defining topological spaces using open sets is a use of open balls without the use of limits.
Of course you need to know about open balls if you're doing the limits of something in open balls, that's tautological. But Euler didn't say that. Either you don't understand the distinction or you are deliberately trying to make a strawman.
Call us names after making a strawman or having someone's points pass you by doesn't do you any favours.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 10:52 PM)
No I didn't know about open balls so how can someone be expected to work with such regardless of related knowledge.
Limits are defined by considering regions around points. Open regions about points. Symmetric open regions about points. Open balls about points.
So you've seen open ball notation before. It's been said many times in this thread and others for definition of what it means for 0.9r to be the limit of a sequence or summation. Thus demonstrating you don't know enough mathematics of a basic kind to even recognise it.
Remember, we'd not be having a good at you if you hadn't claimed to know about such things, that you're a competant mathematician when it comes to limits etc. Even now, you claim things about 0.9r etc despite admitting you don't know about the concepts used to define 0.9r!
Oh really.. With what? Statements like.....
Oh really.. With what? Statements like.....
You cannot do limits rigorously without knowing what an open ball is.
Hmmm, let's see.
Lim f(x) = 1/x
x->infinity
Lim f(x) = 0.
Simple limit of a function. Yeah, no there is no need to know anything about open balls at all. Yet you call me the bull shitter.
Surprise, surprise another conceited induced misunderstanding from AlphaN.
Has it ever clued to you that maybe the insults are simply retaliation to those that have been repeatedly sent my way, even when I simply shrugged it off and not sent any out. Or are you too self absorbed to realize something like that.
Surprise, surprise another conceited induced misunderstanding from AlphaN.
Has it ever clued to you that maybe the insults are simply retaliation to those that have been repeatedly sent my way, even when I simply shrugged it off and not sent any out. Or are you too self absorbed to realize something like that.
Remember, we'd not be having a good at you if you hadn't claimed to know about such things,
How "juvenile delinquent" of you.
Or maybe that I do have some understanding of such things as convergence, divergence, limits. That I do understand atomic structure and have a basic understanding of particle interactions. The difference is that instead of following the mainstream, I push the envelope exercising my own mind instead of mindlessly following some teachings like some choirboy believing every word of a priest during service.
For instance, The sum of an endless summation being equal to its limit.
1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 +.....
The problem with this is that you are always adding less than what is required for the summation to equal 1.
It goes with the same idea (as it is the mathematical way of saying) that if you travel half the distance, then half of what remains, then half again, and again and again etc. That you will reach your destination. Sorry but I just can not believe that to be true.
Let's not forget that the idea of an endless summation like that equaling its limit is based on a pure axiom. That is the idea of the endless summation equaling its limit is an assumption from which rules are built upon. Sorry but that is something that is cringe worthy. That instead of trying to prove something to be true, they assume something is true simply because they can't prove it to be not true then build a system of rules on the assumption it is true. Then the "authoritative experts" on the subject will turn their nose even higher into the air on any idea that the assumption of something being true may actually be false because it "conflicts with the current system". Of course it will, it actually demonstrates it all to be incorrect.
It goes with the idea of two parallel lines converging. For instance you stand on a railway track that extends on forever ahead of you. You know the rails are parallel and can prove it simply by measuring them. Yet when you look down the track they appear to get closer together as they extend toward the horizon. They appear to touch at the horizon. Truth is the appearance of the tracks coming together is nothing more than an illusion involving the distance the section of track is away from you. Much like the size of the moon is an illusion where it appears to be larger lower on the horizon then high in the sky but this is nothing more than not having anything to compare the size to when high, while having that something when it is low. You can prove that the moon stays the same size by cutting out a circle of paper whose diameter will just cover the moon at arms length when the moon is low. Using the same piece of paper when the moon is high will reveal that it covers the moon just as much.
Then the "experts" will play with the possibilities, think they are onto something, and the next thing you know you have parallel lines. It's enough to make me vomit. How about the characteristic of two parallel lines is that the distance between any point along the first line and the corresponding point on the second line will be equal always?
That's what brings me to gravity. If the graviton particle exists then it is the carrier for the fourth fundamental force of nature. It then is given off by all particles (including photons) and absorbed by all particles. It is this interaction that causes the "pull" force. So the path of a photon will change its course in regular space, not remain straight passing through curved space.
So you've seen open ball notation before. It's been said many times in this thread and others for definition of what it means for 0.9r to be the limit of a sequence or summation. Thus demonstrating you don't know enough mathematics of a basic kind to even recognise it.
Remember, we'd not be having a good at you if you hadn't claimed to know about such things, that you're a competant mathematician when it comes to limits etc. Even now, you claim things about 0.9r etc despite admitting you don't know about the concepts used to define 0.9r!
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 10:52 PM)
But both your heads are so far stuck up your own (or each others) a$$es that you wouldn't know such common sense even if it punched you in the face.
You challenged me to show I could do the kind of maths in Euler's questions. In my last post I linked to examples of me doing questions someone independent, ie Rpenner, asked. Including things like quantum field theory, a topic you claimed you knew much more than me about. Not only have you never proven that, you've shown yourself to be ignorant of even the concepts in quantum mechanics and I'm certain you'll never do the QED question I asked you long ago and now Euler has asked in this thread. I also did the opening part for the GR question Euler asked and have posted it, challenging you to finish it off. If you need another hint, I suggest looking up the expression of the connection of covariant derivative on a torsionless manifold in GR in terms, if you don't already know it. If you don't know it, it'll become clear how it's pertinent to the question when you see it.
See, when it comes down to it, I can put my physics/maths where my mouth is. Because I don't make claims about my knowledge or ability which I cannot back up. You and the other people this thread is for (Farsight, Steven etc) don't have the good sense to not make outlandish claims. You know you'll be called on it, you know you'll have your attempts at BS'ing your way past people taken apart and yet you continue to do it.
What does that say about your common sense, that you try to lie about topics you don't know about but which you know we know about. Either you have no common sense or you and your cohorts are compulsive liars.
See, when it comes down to it, I can put my physics/maths where my mouth is. Because I don't make claims about my knowledge or ability which I cannot back up. You and the other people this thread is for (Farsight, Steven etc) don't have the good sense to not make outlandish claims. You know you'll be called on it, you know you'll have your attempts at BS'ing your way past people taken apart and yet you continue to do it.
What does that say about your common sense, that you try to lie about topics you don't know about but which you know we know about. Either you have no common sense or you and your cohorts are compulsive liars.
QUOTE
See, when it comes down to it, I can put my physics/maths where my mouth is.
Oh really.. With what? Statements like.....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| See, when it comes down to it, I can put my physics/maths where my mouth is. |
Oh really.. With what? Statements like.....
You cannot do limits rigorously without knowing what an open ball is.
Hmmm, let's see.
Lim f(x) = 1/x
x->infinity
Lim f(x) = 0.
Simple limit of a function. Yeah, no there is no need to know anything about open balls at all. Yet you call me the bull shitter.
QUOTE
Call us names after making a strawman or having someone's points pass you by doesn't do you any favours
Surprise, surprise another conceited induced misunderstanding from AlphaN.
Has it ever clued to you that maybe the insults are simply retaliation to those that have been repeatedly sent my way, even when I simply shrugged it off and not sent any out. Or are you too self absorbed to realize something like that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Call us names after making a strawman or having someone's points pass you by doesn't do you any favours |
Surprise, surprise another conceited induced misunderstanding from AlphaN.
Has it ever clued to you that maybe the insults are simply retaliation to those that have been repeatedly sent my way, even when I simply shrugged it off and not sent any out. Or are you too self absorbed to realize something like that.
Remember, we'd not be having a good at you if you hadn't claimed to know about such things,
How "juvenile delinquent" of you.
Or maybe that I do have some understanding of such things as convergence, divergence, limits. That I do understand atomic structure and have a basic understanding of particle interactions. The difference is that instead of following the mainstream, I push the envelope exercising my own mind instead of mindlessly following some teachings like some choirboy believing every word of a priest during service.
For instance, The sum of an endless summation being equal to its limit.
1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 +.....
The problem with this is that you are always adding less than what is required for the summation to equal 1.
It goes with the same idea (as it is the mathematical way of saying) that if you travel half the distance, then half of what remains, then half again, and again and again etc. That you will reach your destination. Sorry but I just can not believe that to be true.
Let's not forget that the idea of an endless summation like that equaling its limit is based on a pure axiom. That is the idea of the endless summation equaling its limit is an assumption from which rules are built upon. Sorry but that is something that is cringe worthy. That instead of trying to prove something to be true, they assume something is true simply because they can't prove it to be not true then build a system of rules on the assumption it is true. Then the "authoritative experts" on the subject will turn their nose even higher into the air on any idea that the assumption of something being true may actually be false because it "conflicts with the current system". Of course it will, it actually demonstrates it all to be incorrect.
It goes with the idea of two parallel lines converging. For instance you stand on a railway track that extends on forever ahead of you. You know the rails are parallel and can prove it simply by measuring them. Yet when you look down the track they appear to get closer together as they extend toward the horizon. They appear to touch at the horizon. Truth is the appearance of the tracks coming together is nothing more than an illusion involving the distance the section of track is away from you. Much like the size of the moon is an illusion where it appears to be larger lower on the horizon then high in the sky but this is nothing more than not having anything to compare the size to when high, while having that something when it is low. You can prove that the moon stays the same size by cutting out a circle of paper whose diameter will just cover the moon at arms length when the moon is low. Using the same piece of paper when the moon is high will reveal that it covers the moon just as much.
Then the "experts" will play with the possibilities, think they are onto something, and the next thing you know you have parallel lines. It's enough to make me vomit. How about the characteristic of two parallel lines is that the distance between any point along the first line and the corresponding point on the second line will be equal always?
That's what brings me to gravity. If the graviton particle exists then it is the carrier for the fourth fundamental force of nature. It then is given off by all particles (including photons) and absorbed by all particles. It is this interaction that causes the "pull" force. So the path of a photon will change its course in regular space, not remain straight passing through curved space.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 9 2008, 01:53 AM)
Oh really.. With what?
This
This, This
This and This
I have already provided you with those links, after you demand I show I can do the kinds of questions I (and Euler) ask. And you ignored them. Instead, you have to try to have a go at wordy things I've said. Clearly you do not comprehend the maths I've posted and so cannot find fault with it, even where fault exists.
This
This, This
This and This
I have already provided you with those links, after you demand I show I can do the kinds of questions I (and Euler) ask. And you ignored them. Instead, you have to try to have a go at wordy things I've said. Clearly you do not comprehend the maths I've posted and so cannot find fault with it, even where fault exists.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 9 2008, 01:53 AM)
eah, no there is no need to know anything about open balls at all. Yet you call me the bull shitter.
You do know what 'rigorously' means right?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 9 2008, 01:53 AM)
Or maybe that I do have some understanding of such things as convergence, divergence, limits. That I do understand atomic structure and have a basic understanding of particle interactions. The difference is that instead of following the mainstream, I push the envelope exercising my own mind instead of mindlessly following some teachings like some choirboy believing every word of a priest during service.
Ah, the "I understand loads more than you realise, I just never show it and won't show you now!".
Well I speak 17 languages, can juggle blind folded and have the ability to fly. But I'm not going to prove any of that because you're mean!
Talk is cheap Precursor. You consistently say things like "You're a liar about being a PhD student" and when when I show I can do the maths and physics I talk about and I ask others about, you ignore it. Obviously you don't want to accept I can do the physics I talk about and you cannot.
If you have an understanding of particle interactions but are 'following your own path', let's see some explainations. Give a working model of the atom which isn't the mainstream one. What precisely are you doing? The rest of your post is nothing but arm waving. Which is funny because you complain I'm arm wavey about limits.
Why don't you use some epsilon-delta notation to justify your claims about mathematicians working with 'possibilities'? But only after you show you are doing more than just spinning your wheels with your own ideas of particle interactions.
Well I speak 17 languages, can juggle blind folded and have the ability to fly. But I'm not going to prove any of that because you're mean!
Talk is cheap Precursor. You consistently say things like "You're a liar about being a PhD student" and when when I show I can do the maths and physics I talk about and I ask others about, you ignore it. Obviously you don't want to accept I can do the physics I talk about and you cannot.
If you have an understanding of particle interactions but are 'following your own path', let's see some explainations. Give a working model of the atom which isn't the mainstream one. What precisely are you doing? The rest of your post is nothing but arm waving. Which is funny because you complain I'm arm wavey about limits.
Why don't you use some epsilon-delta notation to justify your claims about mathematicians working with 'possibilities'? But only after you show you are doing more than just spinning your wheels with your own ideas of particle interactions.
Precursor refuses to reply to this thread because I'm posting 'fast talk and BS'. Obviously he considered my demonstrating of doing real physics 'BS'. Or maybe he finds he cannot do any of the questions and I can.
Here's the solutions to another one :
a_n = sin(cos(n^2 + 1)) / ( n^3 + 3n + 1 )
If a_n_L exists then |a_n-L| -> 0 as n->infinity.But what is L in this case? A property which immediately tells you L is that |sin| =< 1. Therefore it's clear that, using |a/b| = |a|/|b|, that
|a_n| = |sin(cos(n^2+1)) / |n^3 + 3n + 1 | =< 1 / |n^3+3n+1|
Clearly 1 / |n^3+3n+1| < 1 / |n^3| = n^(-3)
Therefore as n->infinity, |a_n| < 1/n^(-3) -> 0
Therefore a_n -> 0. Therefore the limit of a_n as n->infinity is 0. Simple and blindingly obvious really.
So Precursor, as I 'fast talking'? Am I talking BS? Or am I right?
Here's the solutions to another one :
a_n = sin(cos(n^2 + 1)) / ( n^3 + 3n + 1 )
If a_n_L exists then |a_n-L| -> 0 as n->infinity.But what is L in this case? A property which immediately tells you L is that |sin| =< 1. Therefore it's clear that, using |a/b| = |a|/|b|, that
|a_n| = |sin(cos(n^2+1)) / |n^3 + 3n + 1 | =< 1 / |n^3+3n+1|
Clearly 1 / |n^3+3n+1| < 1 / |n^3| = n^(-3)
Therefore as n->infinity, |a_n| < 1/n^(-3) -> 0
Therefore a_n -> 0. Therefore the limit of a_n as n->infinity is 0. Simple and blindingly obvious really.
So Precursor, as I 'fast talking'? Am I talking BS? Or am I right?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 09:52 PM)
When ask to define/show the limit or cardinality of such then yes you do need to know about such as well as open balls.
Are you some kind of monkey thats broken out of the zoo and learned how to use a keyboard? The question requires you to know what "open ball" means, In the same question, I tell you what "open ball" means.The fact that the question is beyond you is unsurprising, but the fact that you have such difficulty with the simplest of mathematical definitions is quite astounding! It's almost as if you're even more stupid than I'd allotted for!
Are you some kind of monkey thats broken out of the zoo and learned how to use a keyboard? The question requires you to know what "open ball" means, In the same question, I tell you what "open ball" means.The fact that the question is beyond you is unsurprising, but the fact that you have such difficulty with the simplest of mathematical definitions is quite astounding! It's almost as if you're even more stupid than I'd allotted for!
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 09:52 PM)
I know cardinality involving actual sets
Oh dear - you're not suggesting \Pi isn't a set now, are you? Come on Precursor256, I think it's time for you to lower the bar all over again!
Oh dear - you're not suggesting \Pi isn't a set now, are you? Come on Precursor256, I think it's time for you to lower the bar all over again!
QUOTE (Euler+Jun 8 2008, 04:27 PM)
Once again, I find myself vehemently disagreeing with you. Are you not able to read his posts in this thread alone? He has shone a staggering misunderstanding of everything he is presented with. What is it you feel he needs to "unlearn"?
For instance, there's simple question based on Newtonian mechanics on that list: you don't see him jumping to answer it, do you?
He needs to unlearn any concrete nature of numbers. He needs to unlearn any physical nature of numbers.
Google for "abstract math better" and you will find that people learn math better when they learn it abstractly instead of with phsyical examples. I think Precursor and StevenA are prime examples of why.
They just cannot leave behind any physicallity of math behind.
I would be curious as to how you think someone can learn advanced math if they can't get physicality out of their head.
In fact if a genious had that problem they would argue more, and be more wrong (than a slow witted person) because they would be able to make more arguements.
For instance, there's simple question based on Newtonian mechanics on that list: you don't see him jumping to answer it, do you?
He needs to unlearn any concrete nature of numbers. He needs to unlearn any physical nature of numbers.
Google for "abstract math better" and you will find that people learn math better when they learn it abstractly instead of with phsyical examples. I think Precursor and StevenA are prime examples of why.
They just cannot leave behind any physicallity of math behind.
I would be curious as to how you think someone can learn advanced math if they can't get physicality out of their head.
In fact if a genious had that problem they would argue more, and be more wrong (than a slow witted person) because they would be able to make more arguements.
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 12 2008, 11:46 AM)
He needs to unlearn any concrete nature of numbers. He needs to unlearn any physical nature of numbers.
Unlearn what? You seem to be suggesting he's spent time learning about them, but he hasn't delved deep enough. Well it's entirely apparent from his performance on this forum that he doesn't know anything about a plethora of areas he tries to talk about, including that which would cover the real numbers. You said something similar to him in a thread where he managed to completely misunderstand some of the most basic quantum mechanics on the planet. You claimed that he needed to "unlearn" all the classical stuff he knew about, blaming this on his misunderstanding. The ridiculousness of this comment is overwhelming: he doesn't know any classical physics either! There's a simple question on Newtonian dynamics in this very thread, and you don't see him going near it, do you?
He's a classic example of the type of sad case that jumps on forums such as this and plays pretend science. He doesn't need to start "unlearning" anything: it's apparent there's very little in there.
Unlearn what? You seem to be suggesting he's spent time learning about them, but he hasn't delved deep enough. Well it's entirely apparent from his performance on this forum that he doesn't know anything about a plethora of areas he tries to talk about, including that which would cover the real numbers. You said something similar to him in a thread where he managed to completely misunderstand some of the most basic quantum mechanics on the planet. You claimed that he needed to "unlearn" all the classical stuff he knew about, blaming this on his misunderstanding. The ridiculousness of this comment is overwhelming: he doesn't know any classical physics either! There's a simple question on Newtonian dynamics in this very thread, and you don't see him going near it, do you?
He's a classic example of the type of sad case that jumps on forums such as this and plays pretend science. He doesn't need to start "unlearning" anything: it's apparent there's very little in there.
QUOTE (Euler+Jun 14 2008, 03:57 PM)
Unlearn what? You seem to be suggesting he's spent time learning about them,
I didn't mean to suggest that, I meant he saw at least one episode of Seseme Street with the Count. And has kept that understanding of numbers.
His understanding of the nature of numbers sure seems to be at that level.
You are not suggesting his level of understanding the nature of numbers is beyond a Seseme Street level are you?
I didn't mean to suggest that, I meant he saw at least one episode of Seseme Street with the Count. And has kept that understanding of numbers.
His understanding of the nature of numbers sure seems to be at that level.
You are not suggesting his level of understanding the nature of numbers is beyond a Seseme Street level are you?
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 16 2008, 01:18 PM)
I didn't mean to suggest that...
In that case I don't think we disagree.
In that case I don't think we disagree.
QUOTE (excaza+Jun 4 2008, 02:53 PM)
Can't forget DavidD
ROFLMAO!!!!
Sandy sand sandy
ROFLMAO!!!!
Sandy sand sandy
May I ask where all the internet experts have run off to? StevenA and Precursor562: I'd have expected that with all your internet knowledge, you'd have been able to team together and answer at least one question!
StevenA, here are some of the instances in which you've tried to talk about topology:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...40&#entry303689
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...40&#entry303661
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...40&#entry303604
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry301950
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...20&#entry297429
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...80&#entry297022
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry295020
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...40&#entry277175
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...20&#entry272932
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...80&#entry257162
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry255955
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry118151
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry109094
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry103258
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...t=0&#entry91719
Don't tell us after all this talk you don't actually understand the definition of a topology! And what about bifurcations - you mention them a lot too:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...00&#entry275327
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...60&#entry273101
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...20&#entry273068
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...00&#entry270939
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...00&#entry260137
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry254060
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...20&#entry195875
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry195666
Surely, you know how to classify a simple bifurcation? I think we'd all be pretty disappointed if it turned out you haven't got the first clue about these things.
Hope to see you guys soon!
StevenA, here are some of the instances in which you've tried to talk about topology:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...40&#entry303689
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...40&#entry303661
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...40&#entry303604
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry301950
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...20&#entry297429
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...80&#entry297022
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry295020
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...40&#entry277175
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...20&#entry272932
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...80&#entry257162
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry255955
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry118151
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry109094
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry103258
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...t=0&#entry91719
Don't tell us after all this talk you don't actually understand the definition of a topology! And what about bifurcations - you mention them a lot too:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...00&#entry275327
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...60&#entry273101
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...20&#entry273068
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...00&#entry270939
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...00&#entry260137
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry254060
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...20&#entry195875
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry195666
Surely, you know how to classify a simple bifurcation? I think we'd all be pretty disappointed if it turned out you haven't got the first clue about these things.
Hope to see you guys soon!
Precursor is currently trying to talk about QCD over in that thread. Previously he has stated he knows more about quantum field theory than myself.
But in the current thread, he claimed gluons don't carry momentum. He doesn't know about confinement. He thought the mass of the proton was due to weak bosons, then changes his claim midthread without skipping a beat. He thinks that a bound state of gluons, without any quarks, would be massless, obviously. Except that one of the Millenium Prizes involves the proof that there's a mass gap in nontrivial Yang Mills theory, which is what describes gluons. So Precursor claims it's obviously not true. But I doubt he'll be claiming his million dollars.
And yet, despite all of this supposed knowledge he has, he still hasn't answered the QFT question in this thread. He accuses me of being 'a faker', but the conveniently ignored when I answered some questions in this thread, the NeoNo.1 thread and this.
So for all his talk, where are his demonstrations of knowledge?
But in the current thread, he claimed gluons don't carry momentum. He doesn't know about confinement. He thought the mass of the proton was due to weak bosons, then changes his claim midthread without skipping a beat. He thinks that a bound state of gluons, without any quarks, would be massless, obviously. Except that one of the Millenium Prizes involves the proof that there's a mass gap in nontrivial Yang Mills theory, which is what describes gluons. So Precursor claims it's obviously not true. But I doubt he'll be claiming his million dollars.
And yet, despite all of this supposed knowledge he has, he still hasn't answered the QFT question in this thread. He accuses me of being 'a faker', but the conveniently ignored when I answered some questions in this thread, the NeoNo.1 thread and this.
So for all his talk, where are his demonstrations of knowledge?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 8 2008, 07:53 PM)
For instance, The sum of an endless summation being equal to its limit.
1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 +.....
The problem with this is that you are always adding less than what is required for the summation to equal 1.
It goes with the same idea (as it is the mathematical way of saying) that if you travel half the distance, then half of what remains, then half again, and again and again etc. That you will reach your destination. Sorry but I just can not believe that to be true.
That's a common misconception among those who haven't studied (or paid attention to) math properly. A limit is a point, not a process. The phrase "as x approaches infinity" sounds like it's implying motion, but it's only words. The mathematical concept behind a limit is precise, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with time, motion, or a process.
For example, the limit at infinity of 1/n equals zero, even though there is no n such that 1/n = 0. I'm sorry if you "can not believe that", but it's quite simple. The definitions are unambiguous and totally consistent. I suggest you check out a real math book, something on real analysis, if you really have a desire to understand what a limit is.
1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 +.....
The problem with this is that you are always adding less than what is required for the summation to equal 1.
It goes with the same idea (as it is the mathematical way of saying) that if you travel half the distance, then half of what remains, then half again, and again and again etc. That you will reach your destination. Sorry but I just can not believe that to be true.
That's a common misconception among those who haven't studied (or paid attention to) math properly. A limit is a point, not a process. The phrase "as x approaches infinity" sounds like it's implying motion, but it's only words. The mathematical concept behind a limit is precise, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with time, motion, or a process.
For example, the limit at infinity of 1/n equals zero, even though there is no n such that 1/n = 0. I'm sorry if you "can not believe that", but it's quite simple. The definitions are unambiguous and totally consistent. I suggest you check out a real math book, something on real analysis, if you really have a desire to understand what a limit is.
I was really looking forward to seeing some attempts! Come on guys, just for old times, give a couple of them a crack...
QUOTE (Euler+)
Bifurcations (one of StevenA's particular areas of expertise)
In terms of iterations of a chaotic 1-D function where:
x(t)=f(x(t-1))
This occurs for values of |f'(x)|>1 where f(x(t-1))~=x(t-1) (There is no divergence if x(t)=f(x(t-1)).
In terms of iterations of a chaotic 1-D function where:
x(t)=f(x(t-1))
This occurs for values of |f'(x)|>1 where f(x(t-1))~=x(t-1) (There is no divergence if x(t)=f(x(t-1)).
QUOTE (Euler+)
Calculus (I hope the simplicity of this exercise doesn't offend)
We have a few possible subjects, but the most significant would be the contrasting of finite calculus versus calculus of infinitesimals.
For finite calculus, the operations are performed upon structures with finite limits and for infinitesimal calculus, we have (at least) one unbounded term for which a test for convergence toward a limit is computed.
We have a few possible subjects, but the most significant would be the contrasting of finite calculus versus calculus of infinitesimals.
For finite calculus, the operations are performed upon structures with finite limits and for infinitesimal calculus, we have (at least) one unbounded term for which a test for convergence toward a limit is computed.
QUOTE (Euler+)
Cardinality (Precursor562 practically wrote the internet book on this subject)
This regards relative magnitudes of the limits of functions for unbounded terms in the domain.
This regards relative magnitudes of the limits of functions for unbounded terms in the domain.
QUOTE (Euler+)
Chaos (a favorite among internet experts - perhaps Ivars should have a go?)
Chaos is descriptive of the properties of deterministic systems, for which little information loss occurs and generally very high order (non-linear) terms are involved (often such properties are generated by recursion, but need not necessarily be so). A typical reference to chaotic systems is that "small" changes in an input result in "large" changes in an output, though we can generally see these as high gains or slopes (alternately discrete representations can provide the equivalent discontinuities that could be seen to approach infinite gains at a point relative to a continuous representation) confined to a small area, so you have resulted interleaved many times over a range.
Chaos is descriptive of the properties of deterministic systems, for which little information loss occurs and generally very high order (non-linear) terms are involved (often such properties are generated by recursion, but need not necessarily be so). A typical reference to chaotic systems is that "small" changes in an input result in "large" changes in an output, though we can generally see these as high gains or slopes (alternately discrete representations can provide the equivalent discontinuities that could be seen to approach infinite gains at a point relative to a continuous representation) confined to a small area, so you have resulted interleaved many times over a range.
QUOTE (Euler+)
Limits (I think this is another for StevenA and Precursor562)
WIth regard to infinitesimal calculus, these can represent points of convergence or also simply be the result of a single computation that requires no convergence.
WIth regard to infinitesimal calculus, these can represent points of convergence or also simply be the result of a single computation that requires no convergence.
QUOTE (Euler+)
Topology (Again, I hope the simplicity of this one doesn't anger people.)
This regards the fundamental properties common to various classes of geometric objects.
This regards the fundamental properties common to various classes of geometric objects.
QUOTE (Euler+)
Newtonian Dynamics (Well I thought I'd throw in some classical stuff... Precursor562, you know about this stuff, right?)
Classical mechanical stuff - equal and opposite forces, inertia, force and mass.
Classical mechanical stuff - equal and opposite forces, inertia, force and mass.
This is disappointing. Disappointing indeed. I think you should give your answers another think. Perhaps we should just concentrate on one at a time - let's start with the bifurcation problem.
QUOTE (StevenA+Aug 5 2008, 10:22 PM)
In terms of iterations of a chaotic 1-D function where:
x(t)=f(x(t-1))
This occurs for values of |f'(x)|>1 where f(x(t-1))~=x(t-1) (There is no divergence if x(t)=f(x(t-1)).
Do you need help starting? It would seem so...
x(t)=f(x(t-1))
This occurs for values of |f'(x)|>1 where f(x(t-1))~=x(t-1) (There is no divergence if x(t)=f(x(t-1)).
Do you need help starting? It would seem so...
Steven seems to think that by showing us he either makes up his own definitions for particular maths/physics areas or can use Google we'll think he can do the questions. So why doesn't he actually do the questions?!
And still nothing? Come on guys - you've had plenty of time now (getting on for 3 months).
Precursor has gone silent, though I can understand that given he's got a new daughter to look after. That doesn't explain why he needs to lie when he's got the time to post online, but it does explain his lack of posting. I'm sure when you start a family Euler you'll post less 
Though I'm sure Mrs Euler will have a word to say about that 
Steven's not got an excuse though. He finds the time to post lengthy threads but not to do answers which needs 4 minutes to ansdwer. But then that's the reason he's not taking me up on my bet, he knows he'll fail so he says he's not got the time to copy and paste a thread of his into Word, do a little bit of editing and then submit it, but he's got the time to just write the thread and then reply to it for hours on end.
Though I'm sure Mrs Euler will have a word to say about that Steven's not got an excuse though. He finds the time to post lengthy threads but not to do answers which needs 4 minutes to ansdwer. But then that's the reason he's not taking me up on my bet, he knows he'll fail so he says he's not got the time to copy and paste a thread of his into Word, do a little bit of editing and then submit it, but he's got the time to just write the thread and then reply to it for hours on end.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.