https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.mathsci.mathMathematical discussions and pursuits.Google GroupsPentcho Valev2015-03-03T12:07:14Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/LTyGrAsuTPsL'IDIOTIE FONDAMENTALE DE LA PHYSIQUEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkmfPrR_KUU 9:54 : "Quelle que soit votre vitesse, la lumière se déplacera par rapport à vous à la vitesse de la lumière. (...) Accepter une telle conclusion réclame une certaine ouverture d'esprit..." Réclame une certaine dégradation de l'esprit plutôt: http:J. Clarke2015-03-03T11:46:46Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/t3JDtlNVL_ARe: a Dusty Galaxy That Shouldn't ExistOf course you were sitting there in your TARDIS the whole time watching it happen. Cracks me up when people make such statements as yours--we don't know how the Big Bang came to pass so stating that it "has no cause" is just wishful thinking.HVAC2015-03-03T11:43:22Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/t3JDtlNVL_ARe: a Dusty Galaxy That Shouldn't ExistThe big bang had no cause. -- Cut off one head, two more shall take its place. HAIL HYDRA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224remy2015-03-03T11:37:29Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rX0hPrTINioRe: crypto asymetriqueI have just broken the algorithm That will teach me to want to simplify http://remyaumeunier.chez-alice.fr/pdf/cryptoasymetrique.pdf remy -- http://remyaumeunier.chez-alice.fr/HVAC2015-03-03T11:31:43Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/QJt4yG8VopARe: Past and Futureall >>> action in the universe is created by some "prime moving principle"? You >>> probably even believe in the big bang! That makes you a kook and >>> ignorant. Did I ever tell you about my BBB theory? It's a given. >> >> >> Again you are being disingenuous. To say that god is the universewpih...@gmail.com2015-03-03T11:31:27Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/6bAkaMQMb1YRe: A strange result<snip> > > >That the set [F] is removed > > > > leaving {} > > > > > when all its elements have been removed is proven, subsequently, by the axiom > of extensionality. > > > > That the set F can be removed leaving |N is not > > shown. > <snip effort to talk about new stuff> You need toArchimedes Plutonium2015-03-03T11:18:30Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/AzalCqLfSkwRe: geometry explanation of integral counting cells Re: chat: chasing the elusive antiderivativequestion of y=3 and why Int:y=3x works. > As I said before, let us go slowly, very slowly in explaining how the antiderivative counts up cells of a small finite area inside. In Old Math, the cells are called partitions and the integral is a Riemann Integral where the limit forces the cells asJustin Thyme2015-03-03T11:02:09Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/P68eJMPi46cRe: Solns to Mac Lane's Categories for the working mathematicianMe too. But some enterprising person might have done them all and document the result. (Ooh look... a flying pig.) > (most graduate level texts > don't have such). > > Why not just ask questions here when you're not sure? > > We could use more actual math questions. > > quasi > --quasi2015-03-03T10:56:27Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/P68eJMPi46cRe: Solns to Mac Lane's Categories for the working mathematicianI doubt there is a solutions manual (most graduate level texts don't have such). Why not just ask questions here when you're not sure? We could use more actual math questions. quasiJustin Thyme2015-03-03T10:40:29Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/P68eJMPi46cSolns to Mac Lane's Categories for the working mathematicianIf anyone knows where I can find solutions to the exercises in Mac Lane's 'Categories for the working mathematician' I'll be pleased to be told. Googling turns up nothing useful, but perhaps I'm no good at googling... -- But you're right: ZFC *was*always* consistent EVEN BEFORE the Big Bang hquasi2015-03-03T10:29:36Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Kold1RILrPYRe: Closed ComponetsNo. cl (\/_n A_n) also includes {1}x[0,1]. >B = {1}x[1,2]. In which case K = A, so K is closed. Your example doesn't work. A counterexample may exist, but if so, proving its existence may not be so easy. quasiJürgen R.2015-03-03T10:08:52Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0WGlUdBTOZ0Re: Transmutation of setshave cut the essential parts of my posting: > >> Nonsense at Harvard: >> http://logic.harvard.edu/woodin_meeting.html > > and also here > > http://www.harvard.edu/searches?searchtext=Divinity > > Regards, WM > You know that we have a betting pool going where the winner is the person whodavid...@gmail.com2015-03-03T10:05:58Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/-hlTrL2kQYIRe: The Halting problem is meaningless> > If we take the constructivist position that rejects the Law of the > > Excluded Middle, then the Halting Problem is indeed, meaningless. > > Why so? > > It's meaningful to ask for a particular instance of Law of Excluded > Middle if it holds or not. It's not the case that the negation >Jürgen R.2015-03-03T09:51:16Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/j5mqJBAIAAUMueckenheim's Collected FallaciesUsually Mueckenheim hides his misunderstandings in a fog of ambiguous notation and incomprehensible verbiage. Here is an instance where he forgot to obfuscate: Simplicius: In matheology it is easy to prove that the set limit of a monotone increasing sequence is the union. Is that also true forWilliam Elliot2015-03-03T09:24:09Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Kold1RILrPYRe: Closed ComponetsOn Mon, 2 Mar 2015, quasi wrote: > Let A,B be closed subsets of a compact topological space. > > Let K be the union of all components of A whose intersection > with B is nonempty. > > Must K be closed? No. Let S = [0,1]x[0,2], A_n = { (x, x^n + 1/n) | x in [0,1] }, A = cl \/_n A_n = \/_The Starmaker2015-03-03T09:03:21Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/t3JDtlNVL_ARe: a Dusty Galaxy That Shouldn't Existhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-black-hole-blast-biggest-science-galaxies-space/ > > > > Now, the above link/article is completely wrong. > > > > "Shouldn't Exit"??? What do Astronomers know about what should or not should exist? > > > > The the subheadline reads: > >remy2015-03-03T08:59:13Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/rX0hPrTINioRe: crypto asymetriqueI wonder even if we can find algo , by raw strength http://www.cjoint.com/15ma/ECdkiV7WNin.htm or http://remyaumeunier.chez-alice.fr/pdf/cryptoasymetriqueExplication.pdf remy -- http://remyaumeunier.chez-alice.fr/Virgil2015-03-03T08:26:02Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/6bAkaMQMb1YRe: A strange resultIn article <md3p8m$ipn$1...@solani.org>, "Michael Klemm" <mf_k...@t-online.de> wrote: > WM wrote: > > >> > There exist a set S that contains F(1) and with F(n) it contains > >> > F(n+1). > >> > Its elements satisfy U(F \ {F(1), ..., F(n)}) = |N (if UF = |N). > > >> Precisely the second senVirgil2015-03-03T08:20:40Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/vboSszW24eURe: One proof with two different results, WM's false one and the true one.In article <mailto:ca157e49-8102-46ea-aa7f-a45f9eea0fd5@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Monday, 2 March 2015 20:49:37 UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote: > > > > > Nevertheless you believe that induction creates the completed infinite > > > set |N although for each of those FVirgil2015-03-03T08:02:36Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/vboSszW24eURe: One proof with two different results. (The important progress thread has grown too fast.)In article <mailto:0db08373-74fd-41e0-8c5d-951e7f6bc4ed@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Monday, 2 March 2015 21:08:43 UTC+1, Jürgen R. wrote: > > > > Let S_n = Sum_{k=1}^n s_k; n = 1, 2, 3, ...; > > s_n any sets; S_0 = {}. > > > > Let S = lim_{n->inf} S_n = Sum_{n=1Archimedes Plutonium2015-03-03T07:58:13Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/HdgsPHJ9jF8What is the right-number of humans-- linked to topsoil? Re: Humanities greatest problem and challenge to date-- Human OverpopulationAlright, so what would be a scientific marker for what is a suitable human population that remains somewhat constant for Earth to maintain a great life for all humans? I believe the number should be tied to the resource of Food production and that should be tied to the amount of good Topsoil fVirgil2015-03-03T07:54:35Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/6bAkaMQMb1YRe: WM's impossible results!In article <mailto:50664aa0-3656-4bf6-a2d2-9fd2ca442fd6@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Monday, 2 March 2015 20:22:31 UTC+1, wpih...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 2:25:11 PM UTC-4, WM wrote: > > > > >The proof by induction does not concern the set FMichael Klemm2015-03-03T07:52:59Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/6bAkaMQMb1YRe: A strange resultWM wrote: >> > There exist a set S that contains F(1) and with F(n) it contains >> > F(n+1). >> > Its elements satisfy U(F \ {F(1), ..., F(n)}) = |N (if UF = |N). >> Precisely the second sentence should be: >> Its elements F(n) satisfy U(F \ {F(1), ..., F(n)}) = |N. > My expression is preciVirgil2015-03-03T07:49:09Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/6bAkaMQMb1YRe: A strange resultIn article <mailto:fd94eca7-8ed6-4d0b-9668-c37b5a37518d@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On Monday, 2 March 2015 20:32:58 UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote: > > On 3/2/2015 11:14 AM, WM wrote: > > > On Monday, 2 March 2015 15:27:08 UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote: > > > > > > > > >>Archimedes Plutonium2015-03-03T07:44:02Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ZwfMEaFRwQMneed computer confirmation Re: 295 wedged between 271 and 314, outlines of "e" and pi294, 4.41493*10^599, 4.41493*10^-1165 295, 1.30241*10^602, 1.30241*10^-1168 296, 3.85512*10^604, 3.85512*10^-1172 So let us see what happens when you apply a constant increase of 3 place values 297, N*10^-1175 298, M*10^-1178 299, L*10^-1181 300, P*10^-1184 301, Q*10^-1187 302, R*10^-11Virgil2015-03-03T07:31:40Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/6bAkaMQMb1YRe: A strange resultIn article <mailto:b9dccc52-0393-4bd2-81f1-4fdd7c23afb9@googlegroups.com>, WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > Set S is the collection of its elements F(n). Subtracting all elements F(n) > from set F leaves the empty set. (Axiom of extensionality.) Which is precisely what proves U(F \ {FISWilliam Elliot2015-03-03T07:14:16Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/iLepbsgnu2wRe: n+e =n^2On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, djoyce099 wrote: > Using exponential e then n+e = n^2 > Is there a general formula to find n? n^2 - n - e = 0 n = (1 +- sqr(1 + 4e))/2Bill2015-03-03T06:52:45Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/iLepbsgnu2wRe: n+e =n^2Yes, it starts with a q. and is closely related to factoring. > > I found one using the third negative quadrant of the Cartesian coordinate > system where it involves completing the square in the negative realm. > > e +.5 = > 3.218281828459045235360287471352662497757247093699959574966967627G Cornelius2015-03-03T06:44:18Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/iLepbsgnu2wRe: n+e =n^23.218281828459045235360287471352662497757247093699959574966967627724076630353547594571382178525166427427466391932003059921817413596629043572900334295261 > > *(4)-1 = > > 11.8731273138361809414411498854106499910289883747998382998678705108963065214141903782855287141006657097098655677280122396872WM2015-03-03T06:29:32Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/vboSszW24eURe: One proof with two different results. (The important progress thread has grown too fast.)On Monday, 2 March 2015 21:08:43 UTC+1, Jürgen R. wrote: > Let S_n = Sum_{k=1}^n s_k; n = 1, 2, 3, ...; > s_n any sets; S_0 = {}. > > Let S = lim_{n->inf} S_n = Sum_{n=1}^inf S_n. > > Now S = Sum_{n=0}^inf (S - S_n) != S - Sum S_n = {}. > > This shows that Muecke's error arises essentiallWM2015-03-03T06:28:12Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/vboSszW24eURe: One proof with two different results. (The important progress thread has grown too fast.)On Monday, 2 March 2015 20:49:37 UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote: > > Nevertheless you believe that induction creates the completed infinite set |N although for each of those FISONs {1, ..., n} there is an element n+1 which is not in it. There is absolutely no difference. > > Don't lie about whatWM2015-03-03T06:20:04Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/6bAkaMQMb1YRe: A strange resultthat > >> is in dispute. So where's the proof that U(F\F) = N. > > > > Go through the thread. There you will find it. (It is worth searching for it.) > > I went through the thread. You provided no proof that U(F\F) = N there. Look at the inductive proof. Induction is valid for all elementsWM2015-03-03T06:20:04Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/6bAkaMQMb1YRe: A strange resultIt concerns all its elements. F is the collection of all its elements, and nothing more. > > >That the set [F] is removed > > leaving {} > > > when all its elements have been removed is proven, subsequently, by the axiom > of extensionality. > > That the set F can be removed leaving |N isWM2015-03-03T06:20:03Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/6bAkaMQMb1YRe: A strange resultF(n+1). > > Its elements satisfy U(F \ {F(1), ..., F(n)}) = |N (if UF = |N). > > Precisely the second sentence should be: > Its elements F(n) satisfy U(F \ {F(1), ..., F(n)}) = |N. My expression is precise, yours is not. > > What is your claim for the set S? Set S is the collection of itsMartin Shobe2015-03-03T05:47:28Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/-s4Qa-b5yYoRe: The Halting Decidability Decider is (apparently) Irrefutableby >>>>>>>>>>>>> adding >>>>>>>>>>>>> another final state (to the two existing final states of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Accept >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> Reject) >>>>>>>>>>>> This is not part of the Turing Machine model. A Turing Machine >>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> compute >>>>>>>>>>>> much mordjoyce0992015-03-03T05:29:47Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/iLepbsgnu2wn+e =n^2Using exponential e then n+e = n^2 Is there a general formula to find n? I found one using the third negative quadrant of the Cartesian coordinate system where it involves completing the square in the negative realm. e +.5 = 3.2182818284590452353602874713526624977572470936999595749669676277Archimedes Plutonium2015-03-03T05:19:15Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ZwfMEaFRwQMalmost comprehending the Cell theory and how Grid Systems increase the accuracyOn Monday, March 2, 2015 at 7:53:48 PM UTC-6, rtoff...@gmail.com wrote: (snipped) > There is something else you might notice. > > If you do your version of integration using "1 cells" then the > answer will not be particularly accurate. If you then do ten times > the work with "2 cells" the aDan Christensen2015-03-03T05:08:23Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Th1VwE1M78ERe: Just a question...Nope. Danquasi2015-03-03T05:04:27Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Th1VwE1M78ERe: Just a question...No, not the same. Same in name only. quasiArchimedes Plutonium2015-03-03T05:03:22Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ZwfMEaFRwQM295 wedged between 271 and 314, outlines of "e" and piOn Monday, March 2, 2015 at 7:53:48 PM UTC-6, rtoff...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > For six decimals > > > 294, 4.41493*10^599, 4.41493*10^-1165 > > > 295, 1.30241*10^602, 1.30241*10^-1168 > > > 296, 3.85512*10^604, 3.85512*10^-1172 > > > (snipped) > > Six decimals around 10^-1208 > 305,Alan Smaill2015-03-03T04:50:16Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/-hlTrL2kQYIRe: The Halting problem is meaninglessdavid...@gmail.com writes: > On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 3:39:41 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: >> The halting problem is meaningless because [...] > > If we take the constructivist position that rejects the Law of the > Excluded Middle, then the Halting Problem is indeed, meaningless. Why so? ItPeter Olcott2015-03-03T04:18:46Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/8j5M4IptbRMRe: Fallacy of equivocation of halting problem proofonly >>>>>>> if the it's input is one of the states M3 uses to indicate >>>>>>> halting. So >>>>>>> the counter-example to your M3 is now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CE(p) >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> if (M3_ReportedHalt(M3(p, p)) == TRUE) >>>>>>> while (true); >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin ShobePeter Olcott2015-03-03T03:56:01Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/-s4Qa-b5yYoRe: The Halting Decidability Decider is (apparently) Irrefutablethey > deserve. They are complete bunk. Is it possible for you or anyone else to provide something besides empty assertions bereft of reasoning (EABoR)? > You are using vaguely formed conjectures as weapons to try to attack the > results of major proofs. That pretty much means you are automatdavid...@gmail.com2015-03-03T03:50:57Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/-hlTrL2kQYIRe: The Halting problem is meaninglessIf we take the constructivist position that rejects the Law of the Excluded Middle, then the Halting Problem is indeed, meaningless. If we take the classical position that mathematics is a game of using meaningless rules to manipulate meaningless symbols, then the Halting Problem, like all ofPeter Olcott2015-03-03T03:26:32Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/-s4Qa-b5yYoRe: The Halting Decidability Decider is (apparently) IrrefutableFor the above input I am *only* referring to a single M3. > There are potential M3s (potential since none of which meet your > requirements) that return TRUE. For those machines, the correct answer > is FALSE. There are potential M3s that return FALSE. For those > machines, the correct answerPeter Olcott2015-03-03T03:13:36Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/-s4Qa-b5yYoRe: The Halting Decidability Decider is (apparently) Irrefutable*Since the simplification of this* On 2/28/2015 6:38 PM, Martin Shobe wrote: > CE(p) > { > if (M3(p, p)(p, p) == TRUE) > { > while (1) ; > } > } *Results in this* // Simplifying by getting rid of HX CE(p) { if (M3(p, p) == TRUE) while (true); } If M3(CE, CEKaz Kylheku2015-03-03T02:22:02Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/8j5M4IptbRMRe: Fallacy of equivocation of halting problem proof["Followup-To:" header set to comp.theory.] On 2015-03-03, Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote: > On 3/2/2015 4:57 PM, Martin Shobe wrote: >> On 3/2/2015 4:36 PM, Peter Olcott wrote: >>> On 3/2/2015 3:23 PM, Martin Shobe wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2015 2:44 PM, Peter Olcott wrote: >>>>> On 3/2/2015 1:27 PChris M. Thomasson2015-03-03T02:03:59Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Th1VwE1M78EJust a question...Is the Dan Christensen here, the same person found here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week285.html Just wondering! :^)rtoff...@gmail.com2015-03-03T01:53:48Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ZwfMEaFRwQMRe: has pi crept into the proof? Re: a cascade of mistakes by me; Is it 295! to .0295! of 10^4 GridThey are extremely helpful > And I promise not to make as many mistakes here. I often make too many errors just before bedtime. > > > > > For three decimals > > 294, 4.41493*10^599, 4.41493*10^-283 > > 295, 1.30241*10^602, 1.30241*10^-283 > > 296, 3.85512*10^604, 3.85512*10^-284 > > > > FoSylvia Else2015-03-03T01:13:08Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/QJt4yG8VopARe: Past and FutureIt's absurd to seen to take the word "in" literally in such a context. Like I said. A wind-up. Sylvia.