https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.mathsci.mathMathematical discussions and pursuits.Google Groupskonyberg2015-05-06T23:33:20Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/f4bDIptpAowRe: Don't miss my new article on ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE!yourself from this group (as James Harris did). > Whatever happened to James Harris? > > > Thank You > > > > KON James Harris did not think that Galois and Abel was correct. We struggled with him som years. Eventually he lost his tung and went away. I think he still is there. But I don't knkonyberg2015-05-06T23:22:55Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/xdR5_YhtCmURe: Reals based on being developed by Polynomial TheoryTechnique: > > Say we had the polynomial to solve of x^5 -x = 100 > > Applying the technique: > > Does the solution fall between 1 and 2? Or fall between 2 and 3? If we plug in 2 we get 32-2 and if we plug in 3 we get 243-3 and we instantly know our sought for solution lies between 2 and 3.konyberg2015-05-06T23:15:58Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/y_0obzGIFjgRe: Transmission of LightLahn > >>> >>A circular house has no sides. > >> > > >> >Yes it does. > > Geometric shapes which are described by straight lines have sides. A circle > > is a geometric shape without straight lines. > > > > See also:<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle#Terminology> > > > > Does a cylindMartin Shobe2015-05-06T23:11:24Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMoRe: About FrogsF. >>>> >>>> Each of them is clearly "less than" the sequence F(1), F(2), F(3), .... >> >>> But each of them is clearly less than the proof by induction shows. Therefore your objection is clearly unreasonable. >> >> Your response is incoherent. > > Read again. Hint: My proof shows more thakonyberg2015-05-06T23:08:52Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/SORhhThYvr8Re: -ln(1/pi) = ln(pi)number? > > SHUTUP STUPID. SHUTUP. PLEASE SHUTUP and GO AWAY!!!!! Well, log(x) can be a thing. Either rational (as you wish) or Log(z). This can go astry. But never the less. It is quit funny that you will discuss log(x). From all you have said, this function should not exist! KONMathman2015-05-06T22:57:53Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/hj5u1hJ4Q54Re: ideals and integral domainsnot {0} (I intersect J does not equal {0}) > > Let I, J be nonzero ideals in an integral domain. Since I,J are nonzero then there exists an i in I such that i is not 0. Similarly there is a j in J such that j is not 0. Since i,j are in R as well by definition of ideal ij in I and ij in JArchimedes Plutonium2015-05-06T22:53:15Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/xdR5_YhtCmUReals based on being developed by Polynomial TheoryNow I keep using the same example for the Successive Rational Convergence Technique: Say we had the polynomial to solve of x^5 -x = 100 Applying the technique: Does the solution fall between 1 and 2? Or fall between 2 and 3? If we plug in 2 we get 32-2 and if we plug in 3 we get 243-3 and weJohn Dawkins2015-05-06T22:36:54Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/E0hvXbdQqL0Re: Measurable & Unmeasurable SetsIn article <mailto:Pine.NEB.4.64.1505050050560.10482@panix3.panix.com>, William Elliot <ma...@panix.com> wrote: > On Mon, 4 May 2015, G. A. Edgar wrote: > > Ullrich <dull...@sprynet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > The other question that was asked was if measurable is a topological > > > > property.Arturo Magidin2015-05-06T22:22:49Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/hj5u1hJ4Q54Re: ideals and integral domainsnot {0} (I intersect J does not equal {0}) > > Let I, J be nonzero ideals in an integral domain. Since I,J are nonzero then there exists an i in I such that i is not 0. Similarly there is a j in J such that j is not 0. Since i,j are in R as well by definition of ideal ij in I and ij in JBill2015-05-06T22:12:07Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/f4bDIptpAowRe: Don't miss my new article on ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE!from this group (as James Harris did). Whatever happened to James Harris? > Thank You > > KONMathman2015-05-06T22:09:00Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/hj5u1hJ4Q54ideals and integral domainsLet I, J be nonzero ideals in an integral domain R. Prove that I n J is not {0} (I intersect J does not equal {0}) Let I, J be nonzero ideals in an integral domain. Since I,J are nonzero then there exists an i in I such that i is not 0. Similarly there is a j in J such that j is not 0. SVirgil2015-05-06T21:38:16Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMoRe: About FrogsIn article <mailto:cd37a79a-1507-4c97-9306-481d948aec2d@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 20:03:43 UTC+2, Michael Klemm wrote: > > WM wrote: > > > > > The complete ordered set |N of natural numbers is same as the infinite > > > sequence 1, 2, 3, .Virgil2015-05-06T21:34:09Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMoRe: About FrogsIn article <mailto:73f7b50f-71dd-4988-9d36-e2725a98f088@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 20:52:29 UTC+2, Martin Shobe wrote: > > > > >>> This is obviously not less than the sequence F(1), F(2), F(3), ... = F. The sequence F(1), F(2), F(3), ...Virgil2015-05-06T21:27:12Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jODffw8nEMoRe: About FrogsIn article <mailto:940466c6-fb6d-480e-8f10-7a020f5212cb@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 20:55:08 UTC+2, Alan Smaill wrote: > > > > > My proof by induction is valid for the infinite sequence of finite > > > sequences of FISONs F(1), (F(1), F(2)),abu.ku...@gmail.com2015-05-06T21:18:19Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rXgb9wS-VaERe: not hashmarks is base_onebook 5 of Euvlid, rOOmn