<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
  <title>sci.math Google Group</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math</link>
  <description>Mathematical discussions and pursuits.</description>
  <language>en</language>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Another AC anomaly?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/0eb87ce519b6149b/0b633f01c9626cb9?show_docid=0b633f01c9626cb9</link>
  <description>
  Herman Jurjus wrote : &lt;br&gt; well AC is horribly wrong. &lt;br&gt; but i doubt that WM is horribly right. &lt;br&gt; what is WM suppose to be right about ? &lt;br&gt; typical AC. &lt;br&gt; regards &lt;br&gt; tommy1729
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/0eb87ce519b6149b/0b633f01c9626cb9?show_docid=0b633f01c9626cb9</guid>
  <author>
  tommy1...@gmail.com
  (master1729)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:48:11 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: The accuracy of the Calculus</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c85c9b2e3ff0eaca/fc653f1f741f9554?show_docid=fc653f1f741f9554</link>
  <description>
  Wrong? That&#39;s impossible. I cannot be wrong. It is a law &lt;br&gt; of the universe. &lt;br&gt; Instruction should not be based on performing calculations. &lt;br&gt; Instruction should deal exclusively with concepts. Calculation &lt;br&gt; is incidental and even superfluous. &lt;br&gt; &amp;quot;Don&#39;t make a calculation until you know the answer.&amp;quot; &lt;br&gt; That is a very old truism, and it demonstrates the bold new
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c85c9b2e3ff0eaca/fc653f1f741f9554?show_docid=fc653f1f741f9554</guid>
  <author>
  r...@righthere.net
  (rabid_fan)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:56:33 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: -- Packing unit circles in squares: new results</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/ef4d97ca344b686d/207e4378362d897c?show_docid=207e4378362d897c</link>
  <description>
  Improved packings of N unit circles in squares are given &lt;br&gt; for N = 136, 144 and 178. &lt;br&gt; ------------------------------ ------ &lt;br&gt; N = 136 &lt;br&gt; s = 22.546237136793276929412817019 685246559... &lt;br&gt; 270 contacts &lt;br&gt; symmetry group D_1 &lt;br&gt; &amp;lt;&lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://i403.photobucket.com/albums/pp113/DWCantrell_photos/Sq/circs136sq.gif&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt;&amp;gt; &lt;br&gt; The side length s of the packing currently shown at Packomania, with 263
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/ef4d97ca344b686d/207e4378362d897c?show_docid=207e4378362d897c</guid>
  <author>
  dwcantr...@sigmaxi.net
  (David W. Cantrell)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:47:07 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: The accuracy of the Calculus</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c85c9b2e3ff0eaca/ab185047bc823c39?show_docid=ab185047bc823c39</link>
  <description>
  If they don&#39;t have the money, then engage in self study. &lt;br&gt; Follow the steps that would otherwise be taken by going &lt;br&gt; to a university. (One could even do them faster and much &lt;br&gt; more efficiently.) &lt;br&gt; Then present yourself to an employer with your self-acquired &lt;br&gt; skills. What happens? The door will be promptly slammed
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c85c9b2e3ff0eaca/ab185047bc823c39?show_docid=ab185047bc823c39</guid>
  <author>
  r...@righthere.net
  (rabid_fan)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:34:22 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Exercise attempting to evaluate the path integral of the Einstein-Hilbert action over the range from -00 to +00</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/6e4bd4f7b8cc75fb/99ed29345b788089?show_docid=99ed29345b788089</link>
  <description>
  Pardon me Jay and Miss Woobly &lt;br&gt; The term &amp;quot;Relative Tensors&amp;quot; such as &amp;quot;sqrt(g)&amp;quot; having &lt;br&gt; weight W=+1, referred to archically as a tensor density, &lt;br&gt; it then follows the product of &#39;relative tensors&#39; such as &lt;br&gt; W^-1 * W^+1 = 0 Weight and resolves that part to a &lt;br&gt; scalar (INVARIANT). &lt;br&gt; Relative tensor is a bit obscure but highly relevent to
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/6e4bd4f7b8cc75fb/99ed29345b788089?show_docid=99ed29345b788089</guid>
  <author>
  dynam...@vianet.on.ca
  (Ken S. Tucker)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:36:35 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: ..Simple (?) combinatorial problem?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/db7e13a951a662be/a94bfcf82f66a0ff?show_docid=a94bfcf82f66a0ff</link>
  <description>
  The number of placements such that the first box has at least 7 balls &lt;br&gt; is &lt;br&gt; C(12,5) = 792. &lt;br&gt; The number of placements such that the first two boxes have at least 7 &lt;br&gt; balls but the first box has at most 6 balls is &lt;br&gt; 7*C(11,4) = 2310. &lt;br&gt; The answer to your problem is &lt;br&gt; C(12,5) + 7*C(11,4) = 792 + 2310 = 3102.
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/db7e13a951a662be/a94bfcf82f66a0ff?show_docid=a94bfcf82f66a0ff</guid>
  <author>
  fred.gal...@gmail.com
  (Butch Malahide)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:31:30 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: The accuracy of the Calculus</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c85c9b2e3ff0eaca/bc1fb594bd4ba940?show_docid=bc1fb594bd4ba940</link>
  <description>
  Well, since it&#39;s only the idiots who only know McDonald&#39;s about &lt;br&gt; computers &lt;br&gt; that ever say that it doesn&#39;t matter. Since the Engineers who &lt;br&gt; actually know more than shit &lt;br&gt; still work on *DSP* and *Laser Disks&amp;amp; and *Fiber Optics* and *mp3* &lt;br&gt; and *mpeg*, &lt;br&gt; and *External Low RPM Hardisks* and *Post 1950 Cell Phones* and
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c85c9b2e3ff0eaca/bc1fb594bd4ba940?show_docid=bc1fb594bd4ba940</guid>
  <author>
  zzbun...@netscape.net
  (zzbunker@netscape.net)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:27:53 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Principle of Relativity</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d19032b104efcfbe/cbc313351a56a406?show_docid=cbc313351a56a406</link>
  <description>
  Hey, Albertito: &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/public/EVTDISPLAY/atlas2009-collision-vp1-140541-171897-new.png&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; First collisions at LHC. &lt;br&gt; Are you going to shut up as promised yet?
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d19032b104efcfbe/cbc313351a56a406?show_docid=cbc313351a56a406</guid>
  <author>
  thedraperfam...@gmail.com
  (PD)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:24:33 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: The accuracy of the Calculus</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c85c9b2e3ff0eaca/f7013d8a27865368?show_docid=f7013d8a27865368</link>
  <description>
  The four color theorem was proved by computer. &lt;br&gt; That&#39;s the trend. The computer will make obsolete many &lt;br&gt; kinds of &amp;quot;talent.&amp;quot; I don&#39;t need to prove my mettle &lt;br&gt; by being some calculating or integrating jock. Computer &lt;br&gt; algebra will do all the work while I just nod my final &lt;br&gt; approval to the result from a realm of pure thought.
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c85c9b2e3ff0eaca/f7013d8a27865368?show_docid=f7013d8a27865368</guid>
  <author>
  r...@righthere.net
  (rabid_fan)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:03:07 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: The accuracy of the Calculus</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c85c9b2e3ff0eaca/62b66bcb137f2580?show_docid=62b66bcb137f2580</link>
  <description>
  As unpalatable at it may seem, some people just do not have &lt;br&gt; the talent, in spite of any desire. I have, as I am sure &lt;br&gt; have many others, witnessed examples of this first hand. &lt;br&gt; Initially one may wish to disbelieve, but the force of truth &lt;br&gt; soon prevails. &lt;br&gt; But talent is still an extremely overblown concept. My
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c85c9b2e3ff0eaca/62b66bcb137f2580?show_docid=62b66bcb137f2580</guid>
  <author>
  r...@righthere.net
  (rabid_fan)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:02:38 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Einstein&#39;s 4 light postulates</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/1c4699a2aa84b31b/f6a5a94380651ce9?show_docid=f6a5a94380651ce9</link>
  <description>
  There is unphysical light.
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/1c4699a2aa84b31b/f6a5a94380651ce9?show_docid=f6a5a94380651ce9</guid>
  <author>
  macromi...@yahoo.com
  (BURT)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:03:57 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: ensemble négligeable</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/305e44a078a80271/c1015e9fe9c4f9d5?show_docid=c1015e9fe9c4f9d5</link>
  <description>
  Merci beaucoup. &lt;br&gt; Je connaissais en plus un tel f !! Il est construit à partir d&#39;un autre &lt;br&gt; Cantor (autre que le triadique mais de mesure &amp;gt;0 ?), c&#39;est ca ? &lt;br&gt; De plus, quitte éventuellement à faire une translation et une homothétie, on &lt;br&gt; peut supposer que f est une bijection de [0,1] sur lui-même. Et donc, j&#39;ai
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/305e44a078a80271/c1015e9fe9c4f9d5?show_docid=c1015e9fe9c4f9d5</guid>
  <author>
  shugaras...@yahoo.fr
  (Lionel Dorat)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:03:31 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Cooking the right chip...</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/7d166dd1dba311b9/46f874dcd0b4279c?show_docid=46f874dcd0b4279c</link>
  <description>
  Clearly what you need is a machine which accepts raw potatoes, and outputs &lt;br&gt; the largest potato sphere contained in the potato. Discard the rest of the &lt;br&gt; potato and just fry the spherical bit. Perfectly spherical chips - I think &lt;br&gt; this idea could be a winner! &lt;br&gt; And if you&#39;re happy with those &amp;quot;reconstituted&amp;quot; chips, the machine could be
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/7d166dd1dba311b9/46f874dcd0b4279c?show_docid=46f874dcd0b4279c</guid>
  <author>
  news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.plus.com
  (Mike Terry)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:12:44 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: _Number of nonnegative integral solutions to equation</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/05d7d61f6839ac10/babd4062663e84ad?show_docid=babd4062663e84ad</link>
  <description>
  integers &lt;br&gt; different &lt;br&gt; Ray has pointed out that your x_i can be zero, i.e. in my ball analogy it&#39;s &lt;br&gt; OK for the boxes to be empty. &lt;br&gt; That&#39;s OK - my approach still works, but you have to add in 4 &amp;quot;separator&amp;quot; &lt;br&gt; balls which are subsequently taken out again. (In fact this is easier to &lt;br&gt; understand than the version of the problem I was considering.)
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/05d7d61f6839ac10/babd4062663e84ad?show_docid=babd4062663e84ad</guid>
  <author>
  news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.plus.com
  (Mike Terry)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:42:29 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/a7d8fa2243bebfd4/df71d038808c6660?show_docid=df71d038808c6660</link>
  <description>
  Compoton means light energy transfers to mass. This is heat in the &lt;br&gt; aether or a light energy push. &lt;br&gt; Mitch Raemsch
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/a7d8fa2243bebfd4/df71d038808c6660?show_docid=df71d038808c6660</guid>
  <author>
  macromi...@yahoo.com
  (BURT)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:46:19 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
