https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.mathsci.mathMathematical discussions and pursuits.Google GroupsGary Ho2015-05-23T02:17:11Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/P1vEXaTS23gRe: Bignumber conversion and arithmetic on unsigned operand pairs using +,-,* now work in anybase.The same number in whatever bases is essentially the same number, you should use whatever naively supported by processor/emulator. Base conversion is only useful for interacting with human in the user interface.Gary Ho2015-05-23T02:07:35Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/P1vEXaTS23gRe: Bignumber conversion and arithmetic on unsigned operand pairs using +,-,* now work in anybase.wrote: > > > > > Well it is performing arithmetic with anysize of number and anysize of base > > > so i thought it would be interesting. > > > > I think it's a great exercise to do this sort of thing, especially because > > you can now extend your code to try out the following: > > > > 1res0...@gmail.com2015-05-23T02:01:27Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/q9uyhFk7ElYRe: I didn't invent the New Calculus but I was the first to discover it.On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 6:23:14 PM UTC-7, John Gabriel wrote: [more stuff about his calculus materials] Sorry to repeat myself, but where is your answer to the fact that your calculus methods, in thier current state, are unteachable to our students? Your methods cannot provide derivativexdre...@gmail.com2015-05-23T01:54:05Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/eq4L5BUd3aksolution uniqueness of non-linear Fredholm equationsthe equation is F(x)=G(int(k(x,y)f(y)dy)) where f(x)=dF(x)/dx, so with iintegral by parts we'll have the form of a fredholm equation. In addition, k(x,y) is positive, square integrable, k_x=dk(x,y)/dx<0, k_y=dk(x,y)/dy<0; And G is a continuous, weakly increasing function with finite range. IJohn Gabriel2015-05-23T01:28:56Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/HAkaN-AWBBYRe: JG abolished 'if and only if' definitions "because they are stupid!" ?being > > stupid, yelling & screaming > > for attention pathetically). > > > In this group on usenet and over the past several years, I have read some > accusations of a very, very serious nature leveled against the baboon. > > I do not know whether the accusations were true, somewhat exaggeJohn Gabriel2015-05-23T01:23:14Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/q9uyhFk7ElYRe: I didn't invent the New Calculus but I was the first to discover it.Hey chimp, thanks! I missed that. Of course it would not work, you require a password. The following links work: Articles: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-mOEooW03iLUUlFR0ZwMjNNVjg&usp=sharing General applets referred to at the New Calculus site: https://drive.google.com/folderabu.ku...@gmail.com2015-05-23T00:58:06Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/EVMn48xfoqgRe: can calculus tie together Polynomial theory to Divisionomial theory?godd luck with t.h.a.tabu.ku...@gmail.com2015-05-23T00:56:19Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/HAkaN-AWBBYgive it **hte offer is still open, iff you give-up your allegiance to a.h > nasty boy. anyway, I've got a nice, > consitutional equation for logarithms, > that also shows, how to do some modular arithmetic > (a quarter of the quadrivium, since Fermat created the theory > of numbersA Nony Mouse2015-05-23T00:04:57Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/c33wSyC_H10Re: Stone tools older than man foundIn article <555F9B...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Let me put it this way, evolution has nothing to do with life on > earth. That opinion, though widely held, is demonstrably false!The Starmaker2015-05-22T23:57:57Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/c33wSyC_H10Re: Stone tools older than man foundwrote: > >> On 5/21/2015 3:01 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> Stone tools older than man found: Were our ancient ancestors already ... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> "Stone tools that are older than man have been found - suggesting that > >>> our ancient ancestors were already skilled toolmakers beDavid Petry2015-05-22T22:09:07Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/MTqJ5JHnUJsRe: surd challengeOn Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 5:19:03 AM UTC-7, Justin Thyme wrote: > The problem > is not solve z^5 - 5az^3 + 5a^2 z + a^3 + 1 = 0 but rather solve z^5 - > 5az^3 + 5a^2 z + a^5 + 1 = 0. (a^5 _not_ a^3.) Let z = p + a/p, then a little algebra gives z^5 - 5az^3 + 5a^2z = p^5 + (a/p)^5 TheGreg Goss2015-05-22T21:46:49Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/c33wSyC_H10Re: Stone tools older than man foundHVAC <Mr....@gmail.com> wrote: >On 5/21/2015 3:01 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >> Stone tools older than man found: Were our ancient ancestors already ... >> >> >> >> "Stone tools that are older than man have been found - suggesting that >> our ancient ancestors were already skArchimedes Plutonium2015-05-22T21:32:39Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/pRTa8IPB1eMShow me a construction of right triangle hypotenuse of length pi or 1/pi(snipped) > > > > Alright, well, let me ask you a question here. It is not a trick > > question, nor a philosophy question. It is just a simple commonsense > > practical question. > > > > So, you are brand new to the world and not been propagandized or > > biased to anything, and handed a lenabu.ku...@gmail.com2015-05-22T21:18:40Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2D2hR261P2Yinequality/irrationalI may be repeating myself (and Brian, but that it just root(16)/root(2), which is root(16/2), which is < 8 > constant, the New-Square constant is 4/sqrt2. In other words, the diagonal is always irrational. > > In Old Math circle, either the circumference is always irrational or the diameterabu.ku...@gmail.com2015-05-22T21:14:29Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/VL0yCQHkotYRe: Is there a metric space in which...because, 2^0 = -1 mod 2 > > > (or - 1, clocks are a mystery to me).]The Starmaker2015-05-22T21:13:59Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/XiSVHkguf1ACeres2These astronomer crooks are still trying to pass this fraudalent photo http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2984962/thumbs/o-CERES-BRIGHT-SPOTS-900.jpg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/22/ceres-bright-spots-nasa-photo_n_7422262.html Notice in the above photo how they 'greyed out' *all* the highligPort5632015-05-22T21:12:55Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/HAkaN-AWBBYRe: JG abolished 'if and only if' definitions "because they are stupid!" ?being > stupid, yelling & screaming > for attention pathetically). In this group on usenet and over the past several years, I have read some accusations of a very, very serious nature leveled against the baboon. I do not know whether the accusations were true, somewhat exaggerated or false.abu.ku...@gmail.com2015-05-22T21:10:01Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/P1vEXaTS23gRe: Bignumber conversion and arithmetic on unsigned operand pairs using +,-,* now work in anybase.ah, the <<, <unquote > Well it is performing arithmetic with anysize of number and anysize of base so i thought it would be interesting. > > There is alot of stupid things in it like a counter where it should be a division or search. A counter finding the digit in a big base is of course notThe Starmaker2015-05-22T21:09:51Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/c33wSyC_H10Re: Stone tools older than man foundalready ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Stone tools that are older than man have been found - suggesting that > > > > our ancient ancestors were already skilled toolmakers before they evolved into humans." > > > > > > > > Stupid scientist are Not allowed to be wrong so they have to coArchimedes Plutonium2015-05-22T21:09:09Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/EVMn48xfoqgcan calculus tie together Polynomial theory to Divisionomial theory?If I can show that Divisionomial theory is a more general theory of the "derivative of Calculus" where instead of A/B we have dy/dx. And if I can show that Polynomial theory is a more general theory of the "integral of Calculus" where we have addition, a bit of subtraction as to counting of areabu.ku...@gmail.com2015-05-22T21:07:33Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Dcy_CwLInVAif it is not piwhat is the definition of (3n)^n = _!abu.ku...@gmail.com2015-05-22T21:05:47Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/vioJZlqiyPYe,g is Latin for (i forgoTquite pathetiq ... this makes no difference, at all, to the method of Eudoxus e.g > It does NOT care whether the 3s are all there, or even there at all. It is a known fact that 1/3 is NOT measurable in base 10 because it is not a prime factor of 10. When one expresses numbers in decimal form, oJustin Thyme2015-05-22T21:05:00Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/pRTa8IPB1eMRe: can compass & straightedge bisect a straightline segment of length pi or "e"pi is a number. > If I take a diameter that is rational length say 1 and if pi exists > only within curved segments, then the circumference being curved > would contain pi. But Justin is assuming that pi can exist in a > straightline segment that has no curvature. Is that a wrong and > muddleabu.ku...@gmail.com2015-05-22T21:02:58Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/s7OW8YROpXctautochrone (Huyghensthere are no new ton ian roc kto ns <comma whoich faulty conception is akin to an error of Descartes (see Snell's laW > Light has been mysterious to me since they told me at school that it can be > particles or waves. And the double slit experiment still gets an > interference pattern if youPort5632015-05-22T21:02:18Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/q9uyhFk7ElYRe: I didn't invent the New Calculus but I was the first to discover it.The link does not work. Chuckle. >> Pay me a visit! You will learn much from me. >> Yes, the New Calculus is easy, but that does not mean you can just learn >> it in a flash. Chuckle. .. > But the methods you describe in this very short course do not work > for the trigonometric functions.Archimedes Plutonium2015-05-22T20:57:56Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/pRTa8IPB1eMcan compass & straightedge bisect a straightline segment of length pi or "e"Alright, well, let me ask you a question here. It is not a trick question, nor a philosophy question. It is just a simple commonsense practical question. So, you are brand new to the world and not been propagandized or biased to anything, and handed a length of 1 unit which you go to compose aabu.ku...@gmail.com2015-05-22T20:55:21Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/_x0DKPtES2wgroundcontrol to ... hello?in base_3, infinity is represented by ...2222.0, although it seems to be an acceptable infinity, in any base_>3 (up only to base_ooabu.ku...@gmail.com2015-05-22T20:49:25Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/L7mGp9c01AIishe couldn't seem to handle the mehtod of Eudozus, the 1st time that he tried it, and gave "up > standard, "Univalency" should be > pointed out to only hold true for > differentiable systems (no new > features of real analysis from set > theory mute on measure theory), > counter-framewoabu.ku...@gmail.com2015-05-22T20:47:05Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/x4b4W6j9IkIintractable; b)htis guy, j.g-uy, abolished iff, because he thought taht it was a) > Did you ever notice that comment at the end of each comment I used to post? I stopped because most of you could not read! Choke. > > > > > > ... benefiting from my contributions... > > Contributions? I must have missed theres0...@gmail.com2015-05-22T20:34:47Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/q9uyhFk7ElYRe: I didn't invent the New Calculus but I was the first to discover it.On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 1:18:07 PM UTC-7, John Gabriel wrote: > > You should have remembered that before you responded so foolishly! > > > A sane measured response would be welcome. It is a genuine issue with your notes. You must surely have thought about this and have a genuine answerJustin Thyme2015-05-22T20:28:50Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/pRTa8IPB1eMRe: the barbwired question, is a circle circumference always a transcendental number length?The circumference of a circle is 1 (one) if the diameter is 1/pi. -- Shall we only threaten and be angry for an hour? When the storm is ended shall we find How softly but how swiftly they have sidled back to power By the favour and contrivance of their kind? From /Mesopotamia/ by RudDan Christensen2015-05-22T20:22:34Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/HAkaN-AWBBYRe: JG abolished 'if and only if' definitions "because they are stupid!" ?On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 4:00:24 PM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote: > > > > > "I abolished 'if and only if' definitions because they are stupid!" - John > > > > > Gabriel, August 7, 2014 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The moron belatedly denies having written this, I believe. > > > >Archimedes Plutonium2015-05-22T20:21:34Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/pRTa8IPB1eMthe barbwired question, is a circle circumference always a transcendental number length?Alright, I feel all tangled up in barb wire on this topic, this question of whether the circle circumference is always a irrational number length, regardless of whether the diameter is rational or irrational length? So, what is the answer to that question? We have Polynomial theory that says aJohn Gabriel2015-05-22T20:18:07Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/q9uyhFk7ElYRe: I didn't invent the New Calculus but I was the first to discover it.including STATU. See: > > > > http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one-442.html#post25653 > > > > > Also there is no chain rule and so differentiation of sin(sin x) would > > > also be problematic. > > > > Chuckle. That's nonsense. > > > > > Nearly all of the thoJohn Gabriel2015-05-22T20:02:03Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/q9uyhFk7ElYRe: I didn't invent the New Calculus but I was the first to discover it.perfect > >> > > > > > > ideas. I was the first to realise the idea - that is a > >> > > > > > > significant accomplishment. If you claim otherwise, then > >> > > > > > > you may as well dismiss all the so-called "great" > >> > > > > > > mythmaticians that preceded me. It is because of their >John Gabriel2015-05-22T20:00:24Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/HAkaN-AWBBYRe: JG abolished 'if and only if' definitions "because they are stupid!" ?- John > > > > Gabriel, August 7, 2014 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The moron belatedly denies having written this, I believe. > > > > > > > > But Google yields us: > > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/FcQGZm77U4o/XGsKemzRt9sJ > > > > > > > > which tells another storkonyberg2015-05-22T19:37:42Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/HAkaN-AWBBYRe: JG abolished 'if and only if' definitions "because they are stupid!" ?John > > > Gabriel, August 7, 2014 > > > > > > > > > > > > The moron belatedly denies having written this, I believe. > > > > > > But Google yields us: > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/FcQGZm77U4o/XGsKemzRt9sJ > > > > > > which tells another story. > > > > > > WhateveDorothy J Heydt2015-05-22T19:15:13Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/c33wSyC_H10Re: Stone tools older than man foundWell, here's a link from BBC News. Make of that what you will. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress. Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.HVAC2015-05-22T17:00:40Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/c33wSyC_H10Re: Stone tools older than man foundinto humans." Don't go all Ed Conrad on me now, StarBoy. -- Cut off one head, two more shall take its place. HAIL HYDRA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224res0...@gmail.com2015-05-22T16:34:20Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/q9uyhFk7ElYRe: I didn't invent the New Calculus but I was the first to discover it.On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 8:51:58 AM UTC-7, John Gabriel wrote: > > That's definitely your problem. I have explained this on several forums including STATU. See: > > http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one-442.html#post25653 > > > Also there is no chain rule aDavid C. Ullrich2015-05-22T15:56:04Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/q9uyhFk7ElYRe: I didn't invent the New Calculus but I was the first to discover it.On Fri, 22 May 2015 05:33:13 -0700, res0eiah wrote: > On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 3:33:48 AM UTC-7, John Gabriel wrote: >> On Friday, 22 May 2015 02:02:01 UTC+2, res0...@gmail.com wrote: >> > On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 4:31:44 PM UTC-7, John Gabriel wrote: >> > > On Friday, 22 May 2015 01:21:John Gabriel2015-05-22T15:51:58Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/q9uyhFk7ElYRe: I didn't invent the New Calculus but I was the first to discover it.wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, 21 May 2015 23:06:36 UTC+2, res0...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:08:26 PM UTC-7, John Gabriel wrote: > > > > > > > > Often one hears of the ideas, inventions and designs of others. But are any of these things new? > > > > > >John Gabriel2015-05-22T15:44:03Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/HAkaN-AWBBYRe: JG abolished 'if and only if' definitions "because they are stupid!" ?- John > > > > Gabriel, August 7, 2014 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The moron belatedly denies having written this, I believe. > > > > > > > > But Google yields us: > > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/FcQGZm77U4o/XGsKemzRt9sJ > > > > > > > > which tells another storThomas2015-05-22T14:58:13Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/AK_S7X2vKHgRe: Does this differential equation have a solution?... > [...] But maybe one can prove > my claim (*) in a direct way without computing any expansions. OK, maybe this works: Let x0 > 0, y0 > 1/x0. Let y(x) be the solution of the diff. eqn. with these initial conditions. Since dy/dx = - sqrt(y - 1/x) <=0 y(x) is decreasing for all x inJustin Thyme2015-05-22T14:48:45Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/MTqJ5JHnUJsRe: surd challengeShould be -(aw_5^3 + w_5^2) > = -(aw_5^4 + w_5) > > -- Shall we only threaten and be angry for an hour? When the storm is ended shall we find How softly but how swiftly they have sidled back to power By the favour and contrivance of their kind? From /Mesopotamia/ by Rudyard KipDan Christensen2015-05-22T14:18:28Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/HAkaN-AWBBYRe: JG abolished 'if and only if' definitions "because they are stupid!" ?On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 10:04:38 AM UTC-4, Gary Ho wrote: > DC's job to warn others about me and to keep a record of quotes I never made. Now you deny you ever said the following. Who could blame you for trying, but you did indeed say the following here at sci.math on the dates indicated.Thomas2015-05-22T14:05:52Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/AK_S7X2vKHgRe: Does this differential equation have a solution?I must correct myself. If one could show that this _is_ an asymptotic expansion, that is y(x) = 1/x + O(1/x) as x->oo (we really do not need any more terms) it follows that y(x) -> 0. But right now I'm not sure whether equating coefficients will do the job. -- ThomasGary Ho2015-05-22T14:04:38Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/HAkaN-AWBBYRe: JG abolished 'if and only if' definitions "because they are stupid!" ?John > > > Gabriel, August 7, 2014 > > > > > > > > > > > > The moron belatedly denies having written this, I believe. > > > > > > But Google yields us: > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/FcQGZm77U4o/XGsKemzRt9sJ > > > > > > which tells another story. > > > > > > WhateveSam Sung2015-05-22T13:52:12Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/XImC_TuNOq4Re: The Sayings of the Prefosser (6)"Jürgen R." schrieb: > Prefosser: There is an axiom of logic that states: Every > expression that is not changed remains unchanged. > > Simplicius: No, there isn't. > > Prefosser: Then an expression that is not changed becomes > changed? Or has it to remain unchanged without an axiom? > >Justin Thyme2015-05-22T13:47:28Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/MTqJ5JHnUJsRe: surd challengeI have been reading the body of Chapter III hoping to find something relevant to the cubic at least and possibly the quintic too. I have just discovered that the previous example leads directly to solutions of both equations. Apologies for being dim witted. I am probably the only person inte