https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.mathsci.mathMathematical discussions and pursuits.Google GroupsPentcho Valev2017-08-23T07:19:14Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/g-y5SkKcEw8How Einstein's General Relativity PredictsThe "prediction" of the Mercury anomaly is paradigmatic - it was the result of endlessly adjusting and amending the model until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached: Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of theArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-23T05:40:20Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/nyjJ6Jv_3KcRe: explaining 22*1/7 Re: There are two irrational classifications-- algebraic, transcendental, but, the Gelfond-Schneider input is a fakeryOn Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 12:13:37 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > This happens often in science, not just math or physics but almost all science, where, the moment you resolve some crisis problem, you resolve it satisfactorily, is the moment another vexing problem jumps up andArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-23T05:13:37Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/nyjJ6Jv_3KcRe: explaining 22*1/7 Re: There are two irrational classifications-- algebraic, transcendental, but, the Gelfond-Schneider input is a fakeryThis happens often in science, not just math or physics but almost all science, where, the moment you resolve some crisis problem, you resolve it satisfactorily, is the moment another vexing problem jumps up and out, at you. The only good thing I can say about this phenomenon, which most peopleWilliam Elliot2017-08-23T04:49:11Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7jvQe6L4ODERe: ----- ----- physical dimension ofa systemOn Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Deepkdeb wrote: > A physical system is represented by (1) > > kd^k = z^(k-1)[cos(kD/cosD] (1) > Given: > d is a real physical parameter, z is an integer > k, > prime k > 5, 0 < D < pi/2 , unit of z is ft. > > To be dimensionally consistent unit of dArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-23T04:30:57Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/nyjJ6Jv_3KcUniversity of California, Berkeley, student guide to math departmentsOn Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 9:36:37 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote: > Just STUDY the relevant math, ..... > Jan Jan Bielawski asks why University of California, Berkeley, UC Berkeley. Archimedes Plutonium's Student Guide of Math Education Student Guide for Colleges to avoid in mathematics StillArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-23T03:48:08Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/sX4oJ2Vfu2wUniversity of Gottingen, Germany Re: _Student Guide for Colleges to avoid in mathematicsOn Monday, August 21, 2017 at 6:23:14 AM UTC-5, Me wrote: > Actually, this is the hard part! (I tried!) Maybe that's the step where Franz says University of Gottingen, Gottingen Germany Subject: ,,,,,,,Yale University, New Haven Connecticut From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.comArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-23T03:32:20Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/s_Yzud63Vs4Jan Burse says Yale University, New Haven ConnecticutWhy Yale University, New Haven Connecticut ? Student Guide for Colleges to avoid in mathematics Still getting the Table of Errors up and running. This table of errors is just a small sample of errors in mathematics, but enough of a sample to Warn students of what they are up against withdrhu...@gmail.com2017-08-23T03:27:08Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/BHkcsEqpcl0Re: Is there more bugs in Wolfram Alpha than in Mathematica 7 itself?disagree. if 2x is the variable as a whole, just write sin'(y) is better as set y=2x. reference math handbook www.mathHandbook.comJan2017-08-23T02:36:37Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/nyjJ6Jv_3KcRe: There are two irrational classifications-- algebraic, transcendental, but, the Gelfond-Schneider input is a fakeryOn Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 4:00:00 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Newsgroups: sci.math > Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 01:24:13 -0700 (PDT) > > Subject: Re: is x_1*x_2 different from C*(1/D) Re: changing COURSE-- there > maybe a classification of Transcendental Irrational, after all >Me2017-08-23T01:19:41Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/b7V0j-Iosf4Re: Mathematical PonderyOn Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 2:50:15 AM UTC+2, conway wrote: > would it the be better to say that ( 2 x 3 ) actually means.... > > 2 in three spaces then add. oo | oo | oo => oooooo How many "spaces"? => 3 (!) Oppps, it's still there, the number 3. :-) > or... > > 3 in two spacesburs...@gmail.com2017-08-23T01:12:00Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/nyjJ6Jv_3KcRe: There are two irrational classifications-- algebraic, transcendental, but, the Gelfond-Schneider input is a fakeryrepaste alarm, same shit again and again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ Am Mittwoch, 23. August 2017 01:00:00 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium: > Newsgroups: sci.math > Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 01:24:13 -0700 (PDT) > > Subject: Re: is x_1*x_2 different from C*(1/D) Re: changingconway2017-08-23T00:50:15Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/b7V0j-Iosf4Mathematical PonderyCan it be suggested that in a binary expression of multiplication "one" of the numbers given does not exist? if say we have ( 2 x 3 )....It for a fact means.... (2 + 2 + 2 )....the number 3 does not exist or it means... (3 + 3 )....the number 2 does not exist no matter which we choseArchimedes Plutonium2017-08-23T00:01:48Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/nyjJ6Jv_3Kcexplaining 22*1/7 Re: There are two irrational classifications-- algebraic, transcendental, but, the Gelfond-Schneider input is a fakeryOn Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 6:00:00 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (snipped) > > Alright, so, looking at the Gelfond Schneider theorem for it is a fakery. If we have sqrt2 being two different Rationals acting as one number 1.414 Rational times 1.415 Rational to equal to 2.000 in 1000mathman12017-08-22T23:20:12Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7jvQe6L4ODERe: ----- ----- physical dimension ofa systemThe right side has dimension ft^(k-1). Why does d have to have a fixed dimension, independent of k?Jan2017-08-22T23:16:33Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/vuW47APQ0WkRe: So the AP Equations of EM are six// reviewing themOn Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 3:41:18 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Newsgroups: sci.physics > Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 19:48:08 -0700 (PDT) > > Subject: if you have been reading all along Re: So the AP Equations of EM are > six// reviewing them > From: Archimedes Plutonium