sci.math
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.math
Mathematical discussions and pursuits.enIF LIGHT BEHAVES LIKE A BASEBALL... EINSTEIN OR NEWTON?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/TmvJoDpHrYE/5GjbgzAuBmsJ
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf David Morin: "...it's easy to imagine a universe where the speed of light depends on the reference frame. Light could behave like a baseball, for example. So let's drop the speed-of-light postulate now and see what we can say about thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/TmvJoDpHrYE
Pentcho ValevSat, 01 Aug 2015 12:04:35 UTCZero at C n.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/S60HhUQm98Q/cU5FaKPNe4YJ
Let f(x) = a0 + A1 sin(x) + A2 sin(sqrt(2) x) + ... On the real line f(x) = 0 IFF x = C n. C is a nonzero real , a_i are also nonzero reals. N is any integer. Find entire solutions f(x) and The corresponding C. Regards Tommy1729https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S60HhUQm98Q
timmy1729Sat, 01 Aug 2015 11:26:19 UTCRe: An advantage of RSA encryption
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/86XTPzh-zDY/S_rK9nCb_EYJ
If the journalist is Greenwald and the activist (anonymous/confidential source) is Snowden, what if Greenwald creates his public/private key pair, then sends it to a key-server? Then Snowden (the anonymous source) can get Greenwald's public key from a key-server, and then send his (Snowden'shttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/86XTPzh-zDY
David BernierSat, 01 Aug 2015 09:58:08 UTCAn advantage of RSA encryption
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/86XTPzh-zDY/mdvzvYoCA0QJ
The fact that anyone could send an encrypted message to the owner of a RSA public key in asymmetric encryption could be highly valuable in cases e.g. activists in non-democratic countries send (if they manage to anonymously send, eventually from an Internet cafe etc.) encrypted messages to thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/86XTPzh-zDY
Mok-Kong ShenSat, 01 Aug 2015 09:32:44 UTCRe: Inhabiting actual infinity aleph_0
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/G2Mtn5EuZeI/OCxxC_R8whIJ
You are assuming a contradiction and not deducing anything. > > The set of rationals has measure zero. Lebesgue measure is the extension of the notion of length, area, volume ..., in R, R^2, R^3 ..., in the most natural way, to sets that are not simply intervals, namely 1) intervals [a,b]https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/G2Mtn5EuZeI
Jürgen R.Sat, 01 Aug 2015 09:27:03 UTCInfinity borderline Proofs/ Cornell Univ--/ arxiv
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/tUnUGXHJ1fA/b-8k9zitnFoJ
Cornell Univ math professors: invite Infinity Borderline Proofs by AP to arxiv Hope ArXiv editors do not edit the way that Canadian Dan Christensen edits, for it is a sin in academia to quote a phrase out of context especially when it changes the entire meaning. On Friday, July 31, 2015 athttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/tUnUGXHJ1fA
Archimedes PlutoniumSat, 01 Aug 2015 08:35:40 UTCRe: EINSTEIN ADMITS KILLING PHYSICS
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7ZxoQUHmm6c/8TkQsxqQ2gMJ
The assumption that the speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the light source was false but easy to believe in 1905 insofar as this was the central tenet of the ether field theory. Combined with the principle of relativity, however, this assumption entails thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7ZxoQUHmm6c
Pentcho ValevSat, 01 Aug 2015 08:00:03 UTCEINSTEIN ADMITS KILLING PHYSICS
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7ZxoQUHmm6c/lDyPYtdHb-4J
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, includinghttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7ZxoQUHmm6c
Pentcho ValevSat, 01 Aug 2015 06:58:57 UTC-- "my history" of discovery that Gravity = chemical dipole bonding
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/BrOLe28MH24/qwLvH6RCmkUJ
One more post of 2001 that shows my thinking by 2001. What I am trying to fathom myself, is why I did not put 2 and 2 together by 2001 to make 4. What I mean is that why did I wait until a decade after 2001 to realize the distances of nucleus is of order 10^-16 meters while orbital electrons ishttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/BrOLe28MH24
Archimedes PlutoniumSat, 01 Aug 2015 05:53:34 UTC1st valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Algebra & via Math-Induction #177 Correcting Math 4th ed
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/qv0B4S8FZAc/kW-y8H59ppcJ
1st VALID PROOF OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF ALGEBRA, & using Math-Induction, by AP Since this proof is long, I decided to split it into three parts. And there is something special about the Riemann Hypothesis, Prime Number Theorem and Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, in that all three require ahttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/qv0B4S8FZAc
Archimedes PlutoniumSat, 01 Aug 2015 05:24:33 UTCretracing my "my history" of discovery that Gravity = chemical dipole bonding
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/BrOLe28MH24/1AYB2Jek9CEJ
Now below is a post of 2001 where I directly call for gravity to be a Van Der Waals force, a dipole force. Now why did I not unify Strong Nuclear with EM back in 2001 and had to wait more than a decade later to do that by showing the ratio of atomic distances of 10^-16 versus 10^-10 meters andhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/BrOLe28MH24
Archimedes PlutoniumSat, 01 Aug 2015 02:22:58 UTCRe: Digits of Pi and precision
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/N4nTM6C0LoY/twQZZmVozAgJ
In article <9bc8fd19-f79d-4028-acc9-46b2ad5f85a3@googlegroups.com>, "pian...@gmail.com" <pian...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 12:22:43 PM UTC-4, Barry Schwarz wrote: > > First, distinguish between precision and accuracy. > > > > Then read up on topics such as "sources ofhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/N4nTM6C0LoY
VirgilFri, 31 Jul 2015 23:57:44 UTCRe: stOOpid
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/2VhW2Teg1mI/j9PXzdNbpYAJ
In article <ab52552d-e575-4142-9aeb-feda95f79462@googlegroups.com>, ten...@gmail.com wrote: > My post is all one needs to think about but if you want to get technical, > then as real numbers you have either the Dedekind cut construction or the > Cauchy sequence construction. In the latter, 1https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2VhW2Teg1mI
VirgilFri, 31 Jul 2015 23:53:10 UTCRe: Potential infinity vs actual infinity for the last time
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/8m6PazPLWec/lhGIVn1b8wQJ
In article <9c5002f9-a45a-4323-9c49-d0a1d4ac5ba9@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Freitag, 31. Juli 2015 19:15:38 UTC+2 schrieb Virgil: > > > > > There is no row with aleph_0 such columns. > > > > WM is referring to the diagram: > > 1 > > 1 2 > > 1 2https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/8m6PazPLWec
VirgilFri, 31 Jul 2015 23:49:16 UTCRe: Digits of Pi and precision
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/N4nTM6C0LoY/cZbJxfAGM2sJ
precise? > Okay the more I thought about this the better I understand Barry's suggestion above about accuracy vs precision. So I'm confusing the two. And here I thought I understood that idea. > > So now I'm thinking the number significant figures is the precision, and the smallness of thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/N4nTM6C0LoY
BillFri, 31 Jul 2015 23:03:20 UTC