sci.math
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.math
Mathematical discussions and pursuits.enRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA/HaofJQ7KBQAJ
I am quite famous for the inductive prOOf of base_one accounting; just so that, y'know, you know that, and I may finsih the following, latersvillationally > An _essential property_ P of a set natural numbers is a > property which, if N lacks it, N cannot be a set of > natural numbers. (I'mhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA
abu.ku...@gmail.comFri, 29 Jul 2016 03:04:08 UTCRe: Euler's Continuation of the Zetafunction
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/i-LsGY06GSA/Z5IvucrJBQAJ
has any work been done with, uh, homogenous planar coordinates, in three variables, or is that not wrong, mod two? > > It is sometimes claimed that Euler knew the functional equation that > > Riemann found in 1859, but there seems to be no source for this and it > > seems unlikely, since Eulerhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/i-LsGY06GSA
abu.ku...@gmail.comFri, 29 Jul 2016 02:59:19 UTCnot in your seat, f**l
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/OmVnMBAsxpc/9S-c0IbJBQAJ
I think that I got the ideal of using both minus and plus one, either form you, or just form twin primes always being -\+ 1 = n6, and you should go with that, and stop trying to predefine the elements of binary arithmetic, which is isomorphic to the predicate calculus since Boole; it is nmerelyhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/OmVnMBAsxpc
abu.ku...@gmail.comFri, 29 Jul 2016 02:54:27 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA/QBgx-xnJBQAJ
modern mathematics. > > What makes you think that? Perhaps I should begin by asking, what do > you mean by a basis for mathematics? > > You enter Peano's Axioms as the first few lines of a proof and the sky is the limit. You can the construct the integers, the rationals, the reals, thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA
Dan ChristensenFri, 29 Jul 2016 02:46:39 UTCRe: Seekind advice on notation
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/DErSJ3D4Jlc/1wNePqrIBQAJ
Em quinta-feira, 28 de julho de 2016 19:59:48 UTC-3, Freda Parkins escreveu: > "Victor Porton" <por...@narod.ru> wrote in message > news:nne22o$1if6$1@gioia.aioe.org... > > If it wasn't a slip of the finger then it's seeking not seekind. on this "kind" of joke, cascade :-/https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/DErSJ3D4Jlc
Vinicius Claudino FerrazFri, 29 Jul 2016 02:38:40 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA/bQ3m31nCBQAJ
>>> PA gives us the essential properties of the set of natural >>> numbers from which it seems all of modern number can be derived, >>> so it is an _intensional definition_. Thanks for clearing that up. >> >> It sounds as though by " _the_ essential properties" you mean >> " _all_ thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA
Jim BurnsFri, 29 Jul 2016 00:42:57 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires intelligence
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/VaPSLfXBBQAJ
0, the path 0.1000... is the rational number 1/10. >> >> 0.000... is not a sequence of sequences of rational numbers. It is >> therefore not a path in this context. > > It is a path in my context. If you have another one, please spare it for your own thread. It's not a path in the contexthttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
Martin ShobeFri, 29 Jul 2016 00:35:45 UTCRe: The idiot called John Von Neumann proved using his ordinals that 1 = 2.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/ohb50UbnaG8/1AsfL7PBBQAJ
On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:41:29 AM UTC+2, John Gabriel wrote: > [...] Still WRONGLY claiming that {} U {{}} = {{}, {{}}} "in set theory"? You simply tell LIES in your video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkSE6NoOptQhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ohb50UbnaG8
MeFri, 29 Jul 2016 00:31:01 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA/0-nGGpzABQAJ
includes the theorem 1 + 1 = 2 and that includes the meaning of +. >>>>>> >>>>>> Definitions aren't theorems, so you still are cheating. >>>>> >>>>> The theorem 1 + 1 = 2 is based upon the only definition of addition that is true in the natural numbers (many others would be possible, forhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA
Martin ShobeFri, 29 Jul 2016 00:11:03 UTCRe: Seekind advice on notation
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/DErSJ3D4Jlc/U3mt3Li8BQAJ
"Victor Porton" <por...@narod.ru> wrote in message news:nne22o$1if6$1@gioia.aioe.org... If it wasn't a slip of the finger then it's seeking not seekind.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/DErSJ3D4Jlc
Freda ParkinsThu, 28 Jul 2016 22:59:48 UTCSeekind advice on notation
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/DErSJ3D4Jlc/HKxc-RO8BQAJ
(1) I used to denote the filter of neighborhood of a real number $a$ as $\Delta(a)$ (that it it is the filter generated by the base consisting of open intervals ]x;y[ where x<a and y>a. (2) I am also interested in filters $\Delta_+(a)$ which is generated by the base consisting of half-openhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/DErSJ3D4Jlc
Victor PortonThu, 28 Jul 2016 22:48:00 UTCRe: zero, one etc.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/87TAE-S6BQAJ
228 posts and nobody said P(N) = R = N ^ N the power set of naturals = reals = functions from naturals to naturals sqrt 2 <--> {1, 14, 141, 1414, 14142, ...} sqrt 200 <--> {14, 141, 1414, 14142, ...} This yields R <--> A \subset P(N) Then we use Bernstein Schröder theo.. Sincerely,https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
Vinicius Claudino FerrazThu, 28 Jul 2016 22:26:15 UTCRe: The Next Game
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/2cxMv60Hgxc/pvmjeNq6BQAJ
Like for example... Suppose you wanted to scan your brain and upload it to your computer.. first you have to convert your brain to zeros and ones.. Do you even know where the 0's, 1's are at???? Okay, I'll make it simple for you... it's on your north pole and your south pole. I'm tryinhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2cxMv60Hgxc
The StarmakerThu, 28 Jul 2016 22:25:34 UTChave your been
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/xU_3aCuwtx8/sqoiFc65BQAJ
o is a zero-d particle, I take it; any way, if the frequency is the same it would reflect the same, omnidirectionally per ordinary wavey behaviors > o <o> > \ ^ > \ / > O~> > > PHOTON DISLODGES PARTICLE TO REFLECT > > > Hence the UNKNOWN SCALE VALUE of where/whenhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/xU_3aCuwtx8
abu.ku...@gmail.comThu, 28 Jul 2016 22:06:21 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA/cxDqOZa5BQAJ
Dan Christensen wrote: > [...] Peano's Axioms actually work as a basis for most if not all of modern mathematics. What makes you think that? Perhaps I should begin by asking, what do you mean by a basis for mathematics? -- Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, tohttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA
Peter PercivalThu, 28 Jul 2016 22:02:20 UTCif a.p could do that
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/9ZUi7u8o0TM/ygesSGa5BQAJ
also note that there are two ways to derive kappa, from the cicle & from the sphere, both modulo the diameter > kappa is the reciprocal of diameter ... as for the numbers, > let Archie do it > > > [SpaceTime] Curvature \propto 1/Radiushttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/9ZUi7u8o0TM
abu.ku...@gmail.comThu, 28 Jul 2016 21:58:55 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA/-tMKnh-5BQAJ
ordinality in base_one accounting sEEms to be adequate; again, oo is a joke about it, how ever old it is > 2 is DEFINED to mean 1 + 1, not theorized to mean 1 + 1. > And, indeed, the common decimal numeral representation of any natural > number greater than 1 is purely a matter of definition,https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA
abu.ku...@gmail.comThu, 28 Jul 2016 21:53:51 UTCRe: Euler's Continuation of the Zetafunction
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/i-LsGY06GSA/K4gWSNq4BQAJ
polemic about what, whenat > This continuation is analytic and as such unique. > > It is sometimes claimed that Euler knew the functional equation that > Riemann found in 1859, but there seems to be no source for this and it > seems unlikely, since Euler never considered Zeta as a complexhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/i-LsGY06GSA
abu.ku...@gmail.comThu, 28 Jul 2016 21:48:54 UTCzero, one etc.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/daknoq-4BQAJ
just as one over zero can be said to define infinitessimality, so, two, can the, sideways eight ... to either side, of course, or from the opposite side of the paper ... oo can be taken as a joke about base_one accounting > "Therefore every number that, when multiplied with 100, does nothttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
abu.ku...@gmail.comThu, 28 Jul 2016 21:45:50 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires intelligence
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/BpFZKZq4BQAJ
In article <f4d558a9-cad4-44c2-b58e-fb1fa78aefce@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > for instance when all rational numbers have got their index in the correct > way WM here implies, falsely as usual, that there is only one way to index the set of rationals sohttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
VirgilThu, 28 Jul 2016 21:44:18 UTCe to the power of pi times i, to teh secondpower, is e^i*pi*2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/FzDQHUvOcFE/QTiZYEi4BQAJ
I may have found a new property of complex one, whether that extends to -i, -j, -k, will have to wait til I can deal with octonions > > > a-hem, I found a closed form for the sum of the reciprocals > > > of the twin-primes; it is irrational, thushttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/FzDQHUvOcFE
abu.ku...@gmail.comThu, 28 Jul 2016 21:38:27 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires intelligence
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/RvATEfu3BQAJ
In article <177b7fbc-1bf4-4235-9f17-16a575e1f992@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2016 18:37:34 UTC+2 schrieb Jürgen R.: > > On 28.07.2016 16:14, WM wrote: > > > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2016 12:30:23 UTC+2 schrieb Jürgen R.: > > > > > > >https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
VirgilThu, 28 Jul 2016 21:32:55 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA/D51tBdm3BQAJ
In article <87c2b225-8a1d-4ff2-8386-84aa384f8672@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2016 21:50:36 UTC+2 schrieb Dan Christensen: > > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 3:40:03 PM UTC-4, WM wrote: > > > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2016 19:38:55 UTC+2https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA
VirgilThu, 28 Jul 2016 21:30:29 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires intelligence
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/qjRJrXa3BQAJ
correct way. Then the limit set of remaining natural numbers is empty. >>>> >>>> Sorry. Now you have lost me. You mean the rational numbers were not all >>>> gone? Just the integers? >>> >>> Did I say so in this post? Did your reversal of implication strike again? >> >> I don't know whathttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
Jürgen R.Thu, 28 Jul 2016 21:23:26 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA/EVOViwu3BQAJ
In article <48816072-7673-41d1-8690-2e7bd5da4355@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2016 19:38:55 UTC+2 schrieb Dan Christensen: > > > > As far as we now know, Peano's Axiom would seem to represent ALL the > > essential properties of the sethttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA
VirgilThu, 28 Jul 2016 21:15:46 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA/gH99J6q1BQAJ
essential properties of the set of natural numbers. > > > > They do not even define that the successors are numbers or can be attached numerical values at all! > > These days, the successor relation is usually given as a function mapping N to itself. Written as S: N --> N OR For all x in N:https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA
WMThu, 28 Jul 2016 20:50:28 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires intelligence
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/jCJRM2m1BQAJ
correct way. Then the limit set of remaining natural numbers is empty. > >> > >> Sorry. Now you have lost me. You mean the rational numbers were not all > >> gone? Just the integers? > > > > Did I say so in this post? Did your reversal of implication strike again? > > I don't know what youhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
WMThu, 28 Jul 2016 20:45:50 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires intelligence
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/cRoGLfG0BQAJ
most > >> preposterous assertion from Mückenheim, Professor > > > > of Physics and Mathematics at the University of Applied Sciences, Augsburg. > > ... where there is no Physics department There was a physics department under my predecessor and under me as long as I was interested inhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
WMThu, 28 Jul 2016 20:37:14 UTCRe: General non-numeric solution methods for an arbitrarily given non-recursive trancendental equation in finite real or complex terms with one variable?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Z9PhogFXZ_I/oneO5eSzBQAJ
IV wrote: IV wrote: >quasi wrote: >>IV wrote: >>> >>>which general non-numeric solution methods are there for an >>>arbitrarily given non-recursive trancendental equation in >>>finite real or complex terms with one variable? >> >>You've asked essentially the same question many times in thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Z9PhogFXZ_I
quasiThu, 28 Jul 2016 20:18:02 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA/hR-V2WWyBQAJ
essential properties of the set of natural numbers. > > They do not even define that the successors are numbers or can be attached numerical values at all! Wrong again, Mucke. These days, the successor relation is usually given as a function mapping N to itself. Written as S: N --> N OR Forhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA
Dan ChristensenThu, 28 Jul 2016 19:50:36 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires intelligence
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/SRbcyv2xBQAJ
correct way. Then the limit set of remaining natural numbers is empty. >> >> Sorry. Now you have lost me. You mean the rational numbers were not all >> gone? Just the integers? > > Did I say so in this post? Did your reversal of implication strike again? I don't know what you said in thishttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
Jürgen R.Thu, 28 Jul 2016 19:43:10 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA/pCvBX9KxBQAJ
Am Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2016 19:38:55 UTC+2 schrieb Dan Christensen: > As far as we now know, Peano's Axiom would seem to represent ALL the essential properties of the set of natural numbers. They do not even define that the successors are numbers or can be attached numerical values at all!https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA
WMThu, 28 Jul 2016 19:40:03 UTCPAGE20 Ivars Peterson then, G Polya attempts at Euclid's Infinitude of Primes /Correcting Math textbook, 5th ed
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/OmVnMBAsxpc/wl6-iVSvBQAJ
PAGE20 Ivars Peterson then, G Polya attempts at Euclid's Infinitude of Primes (-25-) --- quoting THE MATHEMATICAL TOURIST, 1988 Ivars Peterson, page 21 --- Euclid's argument is instructive. His proof relies on establishing a result that contradicts his initial assumption. The proof beginshttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/OmVnMBAsxpc
Archimedes PlutoniumThu, 28 Jul 2016 18:54:24 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires more intelligence than WM has
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/REouqwCvBQAJ
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 8:34:46 PM UTC+2, Virgil wrote: > the sequence {1}, {2}, {3}, ... does not have any limit at all Nope, Virgil. The "set sequence" (S_n)_(n e IN) with S_n = {n} (n e IN), has the "set limit" {}: LIM S_n = {} . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-theoretic_lhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
MeThu, 28 Jul 2016 18:48:23 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires more intelligence than WM has!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/fq0N99iuBQAJ
In article <dfee53b6-a2fa-4023-bd45-5ee79ff326da@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2016 12:30:23 UTC+2 schrieb Jürgen R.: > > > > The entire point of this usenet group is to see who can elicit the most > > preposterous assertion fromhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
VirgilThu, 28 Jul 2016 18:45:33 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires intelligence
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/oHRh3I-uBQAJ
In article <853dae58-2dfd-4ff7-9622-49863e3a2923@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2016 18:20:50 UTC+2 schrieb Jürgen R.: > > > > > for instance when all rational numbers have got their index in the > > > correct way. Then the limit set ofhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
VirgilThu, 28 Jul 2016 18:40:19 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires more intelligence than WM has
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/sr44R0KuBQAJ
In article <f885e120-7671-400e-a8c8-de886e6794e0@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2016 12:33:42 UTC+2 schrieb Jürgen R.: > > On 27.07.2016 23:01, WM wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, 27. Juli 2016 21:39:14 UTC+2 schrieb Jürgen R.: > > > > > > > >https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
VirgilThu, 28 Jul 2016 18:34:46 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires intelligence
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/Lm5wIKStBQAJ
In article <25344cc4-e825-4a47-8a32-fa62df5275e4@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2016 04:16:50 UTC+2 schrieb Martin Shobe: > > > > >> 1) Every path is a sequence of sequences of rational numbers. 2) > > >> Every path is not a rationalhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
VirgilThu, 28 Jul 2016 18:23:26 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA/TduPvb-sBQAJ
In article <8e65030c-3234-4d62-975f-426d90cd1051@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2016 04:16:48 UTC+2 schrieb Martin Shobe: > > On 7/27/2016 6:43 AM, WM wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, 27. Juli 2016 04:33:06 UTC+2 schrieb Martin Shobe: > > >> Onhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA
VirgilThu, 28 Jul 2016 18:07:05 UTCRe: The union of the empty set with any set S is just S itself (in DC Proof format)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/aJjsBwp8i-4/aDvikiWsBQAJ
Good point. The only set theory I use here is on line 7 where I used the equivalent of extensionality in ZFC. The unary predicate Set denotes objects assumed to be sets. Unlike ZFC, not everything is assumed to be a set. My set theory is based very roughly on ZFC -- something closer to ahttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/aJjsBwp8i-4
Dan ChristensenThu, 28 Jul 2016 17:56:04 UTCRe: General non-numeric solution methods for an arbitrarily given non-recursive trancendental equation in finite real or complex terms with one variable?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Z9PhogFXZ_I/Ey5012KrBQAJ
arbitrarily > >> given non-recursive trancendental equation in finite real or complex > >> terms with one variable? > > But by now (probably the 4th or 5th time), it's a stupid question. > > ... > > Most of the equations you allude to will not have "closed form" solutions. > Please specifyhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Z9PhogFXZ_I
Ray VicksonThu, 28 Jul 2016 17:42:07 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA/XIIhOTarBQAJ
As far as we now know, Peano's Axiom would seem to represent ALL the essential properties of the set of natural numbers. > So, anything that has > the property(ies) of satisfying the Peano axioms has _all_ > the properties needed to be the set of natural numbers. > Don't get me wrong, Jim.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/S9ERjaXguYA
Dan ChristensenThu, 28 Jul 2016 17:38:55 UTCRe: A proof that infinite set theory is flawed - by Prof. W. Mueckenheim.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/M94zQP_OlYw/fKCuan2pBQAJ
"Bill" <BILL_...@whoknows.net> wrote in message news:nnd6sc02gg8@news6.newsguy.com... > Freda Parkins wrote: >> "John Gabriel" <thenewc...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:f92817a8-8be3-4a5c-9323-71ced49bddad@googlegroups.com... >> <https://groups.google.com.br/forum/#!topic/sci.math/0BBeS-whttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/M94zQP_OlYw
Freda ParkinsThu, 28 Jul 2016 17:07:22 UTCRe: The Next Game
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/2cxMv60Hgxc/9iOGnUCpBQAJ
you have to ask yourself the question "Where did they get the idea that magnets have a north pole and a south pole?" Is it colder in the north pole of the magnet than the south pole? Is there a big magnet at the south pole that makes the compass point north??? There is no magnet on eitherhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2cxMv60Hgxc
The StarmakerThu, 28 Jul 2016 17:03:01 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires intelligence
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/-CWrPseoBQAJ
Am Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2016 18:20:50 UTC+2 schrieb Jürgen R.: > > for instance when all rational numbers have got their index in the correct way. Then the limit set of remaining natural numbers is empty. > > Sorry. Now you have lost me. You mean the rational numbers were not all > gone? Justhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
WMThu, 28 Jul 2016 16:54:20 UTCRe: Open Question to LIGO: Why No Gravitational Waves from Neutron Stars?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/E8cWqMuX9nI/c4udgOqnBQAJ
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Einstein-will-continue-to-be-relevant-/articleshow/53434554.cms Clifford Will: "I must say that when they found the waves, proving Einstein right, I thought it came from an unexpected source (the black holes). I thought it would be neutron stars."https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/E8cWqMuX9nI
Pentcho ValevThu, 28 Jul 2016 16:38:32 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires intelligence
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/BIU09NynBQAJ
Augsburg. ... where there is no Physics department of department of Mathematics and no license to be called a 'University' except in English and only with the qualifier "of Applied Sciences". That's because it isn't a real University but a technical college. Real universities have departmentshttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
Jürgen R.Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:37:34 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires intelligence
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/ImXim0WnBQAJ
Yes, that's pretty good. But I like the "to arrive there where ...". I know it is unkind to laugh at his English, but this is so neatly reminiscent of Mme Stein's complaint that there is no there there. I think she meant Philadelphia though, not Wolkenmückenheim. > > Such an approach allowshttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
Jürgen R.Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:26:44 UTCRe: Enumerating of infinite sets requires intelligence
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c/RyAtRvOmBQAJ
sequence of singletons 1, 2, 3, ... has limit empty set. Therefore is is possible to arrive there where all numbers vanish, isn't it? >>>> >>>> Yes, and I believe that's where you are. The place is called >>> >>> Cantor's paradise. If you don't believe in set limits consult wikipedia or myhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mYCxp7VbL6c
Jürgen R.Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:20:50 UTCRe: The union of the empty set with any set S is just S itself (in DC Proof format)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/aJjsBwp8i-4/dJz2EYOlBQAJ
Oh, sorry. I didn't notice your reference to DCProof in the header earlier. Still, it might be better to be more explicit, and in the body of your post as well. On 7/28/2016 11:51 AM, Jim Burns wrote: > On 7/28/2016 11:00 AM, Dan Christensen wrote: > >> Contrary to a certain troll's claimhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/aJjsBwp8i-4
Jim BurnsThu, 28 Jul 2016 15:54:29 UTC