sci.math
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.math
Mathematical discussions and pursuits.enTALK: quantized angles in New Math, since numbers are quantized
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/DC3ykqynlwo/mJ6s0R8zCwAJ
TALK: quantized angles in New Math, since numbers are quantized Since numbers are quantized in New Math-- discrete, then angles must be discrete and quantized. Let me pry into how the angles are quantized. So, now, in New Math the borderline of infinity defines what numbers exist, so that ifhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/DC3ykqynlwo
Archimedes PlutoniumMon, 29 Aug 2016 04:10:51 UTCRe: triviality in elementary euclidean geometry
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do/vs1MoFAuCwAJ
Just because the BIG STUPID don't like me, do you think others should follow the direction of the BIG STUPID? You moron, cannot think for yourself. You never could. You'll never be able to in future.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do
John GabrielMon, 29 Aug 2016 02:42:44 UTCRe: triviality in elementary euclidean geometry
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do/I7S54x0uCwAJ
On Sunday, 28 August 2016 17:57:09 UTC-7, idiot Python wrote: > Nice to see you've made a new friend, in the person of John Gabriel, > Peter. I hope you'll have fun together. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwwxcVTjt3Qhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do
John GabrielMon, 29 Aug 2016 02:39:06 UTCRe: triviality in elementary euclidean geometry
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do/TIuFOvQtCwAJ
Piss off YBM.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do
John GabrielMon, 29 Aug 2016 02:36:07 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/eNk_ed8tCwAJ
theory. > > Uhhh... that's not nice of you, man! > > On the other hand if you put all the things which are in an empty brown bag and all the things which are in a non-empty brown bag in another brown bag (previosly empty), what do you get? > > Hint: > > ( ), (a, b, c) ====> (a, b, c) .https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
John GabrielMon, 29 Aug 2016 02:34:37 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0/ctHMB-8rCwAJ
Liar. I have actually posted formal proof here that within every Dedekind-infinite set, there exists a subset that is a Peano-like structure, complete with induction, a structure that is order-isomorphic to the set of natural numbers N, but not necessarily identical to N. WITHIN THE CONTEXT OFhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0
Dan ChristensenMon, 29 Aug 2016 01:59:05 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0/lGiQhcEpCwAJ
Mr Burns, I would like you to take for granted, once and for all, that I am not Dan in disguise. Defaming your contradictors is the only path you could find at that point? And you wonder why I found your manners properly disgusting? Moreover, I'm far to agree with every of Dan's points ofhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0
PythonMon, 29 Aug 2016 01:19:11 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0/NkdQhygpCwAJ
I may conclude, then, that "Jack Campin" and "Kiwi Squash" are sock puppets of Jim Burns, or could be of Peter Parcival, or perhaps both? I won't, but with your line of "reasoning" I could. It says a lot about you guys, especially it's lighting up the sloppyness of most of your "rigorous"https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0
PythonMon, 29 Aug 2016 01:08:14 UTCRe: triviality in elementary euclidean geometry
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do/JPS4ro0oCwAJ
Nice to see you've made a new friend, in the person of John Gabriel, Peter. I hope you'll have fun together.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do
PythonMon, 29 Aug 2016 00:57:09 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/95JVSXUoCwAJ
theory. Uhhh... that's not nice of you, man! On the other hand if you put all the things which are in an empty brown bag and all the things which are in a non-empty brown bag in another brown bag (previosly empty), what do you get? Hint: ( ), (a, b, c) ====> (a, b, c) . Too difficulthttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
MeMon, 29 Aug 2016 00:55:23 UTCCalculus graduates able to write Calculus textbook Re: A paragraph summary of all of Calculus; PreCalculus TALK
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/3Qma7pFKSbQ/49jG4QEkCwAJ
Yes, now, time to reflect. This is a beautiful result, and the question has to be, why did it take so long, after years and years of editing this textbook, that only now, in the 10th edition of True Calculus, am I able to clearly tell you what all of Calculus is all about in just one paragraph.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/3Qma7pFKSbQ
Archimedes PlutoniumSun, 28 Aug 2016 23:33:50 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/00odMoQjCwAJ
I would like to put you in a boiling pot and test the boiling frog theory. Now, do you need to pottie? I think you do because you are full of it! Chuckle.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 23:24:50 UTCRe: triviality in elementary euclidean geometry
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do/z1vMTE8jCwAJ
proportionality > > >> between the lenght of the arc of circumference and the corresponding > > >> centre angle. > > >> > > >> Can you give me a sketch of proof? > > > > > > How do you define that angle? Because the usual way makes it > > > proportional to that arc length. > > > > Actuallyhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 23:21:03 UTCRe: triviality in elementary euclidean geometry
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do/Ii2GDS8jCwAJ
proportionality > >> between the lenght of the arc of circumference and the corresponding > >> centre angle. > >> > >> Can you give me a sketch of proof? > > > > How do you define that angle? Because the usual way makes it > > proportional to that arc length. > > Actually it's possible tohttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 23:18:45 UTCquantized angles in New Math, since numbers are quantized Re: triviality in elementary euclidean geometry
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do/QpoyV3ghCwAJ
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 4:26:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (huge snip) > > So what angle does this 1 by 1 by .1 form? Is it a 360/100 = 3.6 degree angle? And so, in 10 Grid, the smallest nonzero angle is 3.6 degrees and we cannot have any angles other than quantized 3.6https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do
Archimedes PlutoniumSun, 28 Aug 2016 22:47:21 UTC