https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.mathsci.mathMathematical discussions and pursuits.Google GroupsArchimedes Plutonium2016-07-29T06:24:22Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/9ZUi7u8o0TMShame on New Scientist July 23-29 Re: geothermal energy / Stefan Boltzmann law: Geothermal, is it 4 to 1 superior to Solar or 5000 to 1New Scientist this week on page 10 has a silly and stupid speculation out of CalTech of a 9th planet by Brown, Batygin, and Bailey, where this undiscovered planet is the cause of our Sun's 6 degree axial tilt. PBS Newshour put Brown in his place many months ago when Jeffrey Brown asked Mikeabu.ku...@gmail.com2016-07-29T03:04:08Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYARe: Peano StructuresI am quite famous for the inductive prOOf of base_one accounting; just so that, y'know, you know that, and I may finsih the following, latersvillationally > An _essential property_ P of a set natural numbers is a > property which, if N lacks it, N cannot be a set of > natural numbers. (I'mabu.ku...@gmail.com2016-07-29T02:59:19Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/i-LsGY06GSARe: Euler's Continuation of the Zetafunctionhas any work been done with, uh, homogenous planar coordinates, in three variables, or is that not wrong, mod two? > > It is sometimes claimed that Euler knew the functional equation that > > Riemann found in 1859, but there seems to be no source for this and it > > seems unlikely, since Eulerabu.ku...@gmail.com2016-07-29T02:54:27Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/OmVnMBAsxpcnot in your seat, f**lI think that I got the ideal of using both minus and plus one, either form you, or just form twin primes always being -\+ 1 = n6, and you should go with that, and stop trying to predefine the elements of binary arithmetic, which is isomorphic to the predicate calculus since Boole; it is nmerelyDan Christensen2016-07-29T02:46:39Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYARe: Peano Structuresmodern mathematics. > > What makes you think that? Perhaps I should begin by asking, what do > you mean by a basis for mathematics? > > You enter Peano's Axioms as the first few lines of a proof and the sky is the limit. You can the construct the integers, the rationals, the reals, theVinicius Claudino Ferraz2016-07-29T02:38:40Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/DErSJ3D4JlcRe: Seekind advice on notationEm quinta-feira, 28 de julho de 2016 19:59:48 UTC-3, Freda Parkins escreveu: > "Victor Porton" <por...@narod.ru> wrote in message > news:nne22o$1if6$1@gioia.aioe.org... > > If it wasn't a slip of the finger then it's seeking not seekind. on this "kind" of joke, cascade :-/Jim Burns2016-07-29T00:42:57Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYARe: Peano Structures>>> PA gives us the essential properties of the set of natural >>> numbers from which it seems all of modern number can be derived, >>> so it is an _intensional definition_. Thanks for clearing that up. >> >> It sounds as though by " _the_ essential properties" you mean >> " _all_ theMartin Shobe2016-07-29T00:35:45Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6cRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires intelligence0, the path 0.1000... is the rational number 1/10. >> >> 0.000... is not a sequence of sequences of rational numbers. It is >> therefore not a path in this context. > > It is a path in my context. If you have another one, please spare it for your own thread. It's not a path in the contextMe2016-07-29T00:31:01Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ohb50UbnaG8Re: The idiot called John Von Neumann proved using his ordinals that 1 = 2.On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:41:29 AM UTC+2, John Gabriel wrote: > [...] Still WRONGLY claiming that {} U {{}} = {{}, {{}}} "in set theory"? You simply tell LIES in your video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkSE6NoOptQMartin Shobe2016-07-29T00:11:03Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYARe: Peano Structuresincludes the theorem 1 + 1 = 2 and that includes the meaning of +. >>>>>> >>>>>> Definitions aren't theorems, so you still are cheating. >>>>> >>>>> The theorem 1 + 1 = 2 is based upon the only definition of addition that is true in the natural numbers (many others would be possible, forFreda Parkins2016-07-28T22:59:48Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/DErSJ3D4JlcRe: Seekind advice on notation"Victor Porton" <por...@narod.ru> wrote in message news:nne22o$1if6$1@gioia.aioe.org... If it wasn't a slip of the finger then it's seeking not seekind.Victor Porton2016-07-28T22:48:00Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/DErSJ3D4JlcSeekind advice on notation(1) I used to denote the filter of neighborhood of a real number $a$ as $\Delta(a)$ (that it it is the filter generated by the base consisting of open intervals ]x;y[ where x<a and y>a. (2) I am also interested in filters $\Delta_+(a)$ which is generated by the base consisting of half-openVinicius Claudino Ferraz2016-07-28T22:26:15Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6cRe: zero, one etc.228 posts and nobody said P(N) = R = N ^ N the power set of naturals = reals = functions from naturals to naturals sqrt 2 <--> {1, 14, 141, 1414, 14142, ...} sqrt 200 <--> {14, 141, 1414, 14142, ...} This yields R <--> A \subset P(N) Then we use Bernstein SchrÃ¶der theo.. Sincerely,The Starmaker2016-07-28T22:25:34Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2cxMv60HgxcRe: The Next GameLike for example... Suppose you wanted to scan your brain and upload it to your computer.. first you have to convert your brain to zeros and ones.. Do you even know where the 0's, 1's are at???? Okay, I'll make it simple for you... it's on your north pole and your south pole. I'm tryinabu.ku...@gmail.com2016-07-28T22:06:21Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/xU_3aCuwtx8have your beeno is a zero-d particle, I take it; any way, if the frequency is the same it would reflect the same, omnidirectionally per ordinary wavey behaviors > o <o> > \ ^ > \ / > O~> > > PHOTON DISLODGES PARTICLE TO REFLECT > > > Hence the UNKNOWN SCALE VALUE of where/when