sci.math
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.math
Mathematical discussions and pursuits.enRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/PJjudEweCwAJ
Well, actually, in SET THEORY IN is a SET not a /process/.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
MeSun, 28 Aug 2016 21:49:13 UTCRe: Diophantine equation : x^{2n} + y^{2m} = z^2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/09CVV8u5X00/R6qVf0ceCwAJ
In article <qui6sb9qi7ulol8f30cm0q5poc4v45n98a@4ax.com>, quasi <quasi@null.set> wrote: > Peter Percival wrote: > >quasi wrote: > >>quasi wrote: > >>>bassam king karzeddin wrote: > >>>> > >>>>Conjecture: If (x, y, z) are nonzero coprime integers, > >>>>and (n, m) are positive integers > 1,https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/09CVV8u5X00
VirgilSun, 28 Aug 2016 21:48:52 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/Tp5Nch8eCwAJ
No, a chamber pot!https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
MeSun, 28 Aug 2016 21:46:00 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/yjocfhkeCwAJ
In article <c58630ea-84d1-40b9-9bb8-7aac08907373@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Sonntag, 28. August 2016 16:57:14 UTC+2 schrieb wpih...@gmail.com: > > On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 10:51:18 AM UTC-3, Martin Shobe wrote: > > > > > No, there's no FISON thathttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
VirgilSun, 28 Aug 2016 21:45:34 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/kbOs6v4dCwAJ
In Wonderland? (Which inference, btw?) Note that in *set theory* for any set S {} U S = S .https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
MeSun, 28 Aug 2016 21:43:40 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/DK8W0KMdCwAJ
In article <0badf07d-0dd2-4eab-aed7-be9e28619e14@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Sonntag, 28. August 2016 15:51:18 UTC+2 schrieb Martin Shobe: > > > > >> True but convoluted. You could simply note that F(n) is a subset of > > >> F(n+1). > > > > > > That ishttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
VirgilSun, 28 Aug 2016 21:37:09 UTCRe: Diophantine equation : x^{2n} + y^{2m} = z^2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/09CVV8u5X00/FparJZsdCwAJ
Will you eventually post your proof in sci.math? >But, to save time, I posted a formula at SME, which is quite >relevant in this regard > >And before they delete it, please see here at this link: > >http://mathoverflow.net/questions/208169/quintic-equation?sgp=2 I don't see how it relateshttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/09CVV8u5X00
quasiSun, 28 Aug 2016 21:36:32 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/vQlAXvEbCwAJ
>> |N is not a FISON > > So what were your many claims that |N is a FISON? > > -William Hughes Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitmanhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
Jim BurnsSun, 28 Aug 2016 21:06:03 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0/1ase4JgbCwAJ
>>> Actually, it's people with a lot of patience (or free time) >>> who are trying to correct your misconceptions in spite of >>> your extreme stubbornness and hostility. >>> Many are just fed up with your >>> - continued condescending attitude, >>> - blatant double standard of you deem ashttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0
Jim BurnsSun, 28 Aug 2016 20:59:43 UTCRe: Diophantine equation : x^{2n} + y^{2m} = z^2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/09CVV8u5X00/oGxtWr0aCwAJ
It's an added condition. Of course, for positive integers m,n gcd(m,n) > 1 => n,m > 1 so in that sense, it could be viewed as a replacement. quasihttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/09CVV8u5X00
quasiSun, 28 Aug 2016 20:44:00 UTCRe: triviality in elementary euclidean geometry
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do/o_-x8acaCwAJ
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'shttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 20:42:28 UTCRe: triviality in elementary euclidean geometry
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do/96dmGyMaCwAJ
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. >>> >>> Usual??? The usual way is equivalence classes of bivectors under >>> action of directhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do
Peter PercivalSun, 28 Aug 2016 20:32:58 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/q6xsENUZCwAJ
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 5:14:28 PM UTC-3, WM wrote: > |N is not a FISON So what were your many claims that |N is a FISON? -William Hugheshttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
wpih...@gmail.comSun, 28 Aug 2016 20:27:22 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/_5qP5SIZCwAJ
Am Sonntag, 28. August 2016 15:51:18 UTC+2 schrieb Martin Shobe: > >> True but convoluted. You could simply note that F(n) is a subset of > >> F(n+1). > > > > That is inclusion monotony. > > It's not all of it since you apply it to U{F(n) | n in N} as well. I apply it to the sequencehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
WMSun, 28 Aug 2016 20:14:37 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/V4iE1iAZCwAJ
|N is not a FISON but the process to run through an increasing set of FISONs. > The alternative would be this: 1 1, 2 1, 2, 3 ... By moving any line into the first line, you never obtain |N. But if you move all lines together into the first line, then you obtain |N. Regards, WMhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
WMSun, 28 Aug 2016 20:14:28 UTCRe: Simplest proof that WM is a liar!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/_XowUZ4VCwAJ
On Sunday, 28 August 2016 11:57:08 UTC-7, Virgil scribbled: > WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > "Infinity is just an indication of a direction > NOT on the real line. True. There is no such thing as a real number line. > Any two distinct real points determine an uncountablehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 19:10:09 UTCRe: Peano Structures Prove WM wrong!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/mW2_2q2cByo/rrW1kH8VCwAJ
In article <ef0a39d9-4801-48fb-9477-c67da871808b@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Sonntag, 28. August 2016 00:31:54 UTC+2 schrieb Me: > > On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 6:29:43 PM UTC+2, WM wrote: > > > > > The basic property is that there is the difference ofhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/mW2_2q2cByo
VirgilSun, 28 Aug 2016 19:07:57 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0/hUd_kCoVCwAJ
In article <fabc77b9-cccc-48e3-8493-11fca0e81cc5@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Samstag, 27. August 2016 20:58:12 UTC+2 schrieb Python: > > Le 27/08/2016 à 18:00, Jim Burns a écrit : > > > > > So, how much mathematics and logic do you know, Python? > > > >https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0
VirgilSun, 28 Aug 2016 19:01:52 UTCRe: Simplest proof that WM is a liar!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/I8FYVugUCwAJ
In article <3eb32599-0572-46cd-8996-e25721a752a3@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > "Infinity is just an indication of a direction NOT on the real line. Any two distinct real points determine an uncountable real infinity of points BETWEEN them, rather than ina nayhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
VirgilSun, 28 Aug 2016 18:57:08 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0.999... is well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/GvYgx6sUCwAJ
In article <be482341-0d7c-4bad-a015-f4fcb8af1aab@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Samstag, 27. August 2016 23:42:15 UTC+2 schrieb Martin Shobe: > > On 8/27/2016 12:02 PM, WM wrote: > > > Am Samstag, 27. August 2016 16:13:55 UTC+2 schrieb Martin Shobe: > > >>https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
VirgilSun, 28 Aug 2016 18:52:48 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0.999... is well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/i9jqiJITCwAJ
In article <b377c5b5-4909-4df3-b966-3366b4606077@googlegroups.com>, WM <wolfgang.m...@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Sonntag, 28. August 2016 02:30:30 UTC+2 schrieb wpih...@gmail.com: > > > Trivially as no FISON contains the potential, the cardinality > > of the potential is greater than thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
VirgilSun, 28 Aug 2016 18:32:40 UTCRe: Diophantine equation : x^{2n} + y^{2m} = z^2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/09CVV8u5X00/vnckJBcSCwAJ
> > Oops -- I take it back. > > My proof has a silly (essentially unfixable) error. > > But my previously announced proof (that there are no solutions > for the case where gcd(m,n) > 1) is still good. > > >It's actually quite easy (but fun, nevertheless). > > Everything's easy to provehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/09CVV8u5X00
bassam king karzeddinSun, 28 Aug 2016 18:05:30 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/B0P2XHYRCwAJ
My today's thesis is that an intuitionist is trying to get new adepts. Proselitism. Please do create an intuitionist group and make intuitionism grow. And let classical cathegorical logicists, for exemple, grow. Too. With ones against other ones, nothing grows. Nature obbeys Solidarityhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
Vinicius Claudino FerrazSun, 28 Aug 2016 17:53:58 UTCGiven a sufficient time, can a monkey hits on a proof of unsolved problem in mathematics?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/Whr8rRzOrks/rLnqo0UQCwAJ
According to infinite monkey theorem, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem A monkey can produce an elegant proof of any unsolved problem, by typing randomly on a typewriter, provided that sufficiently large time is given! And this point of view generally accepted byhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Whr8rRzOrks
bassam king karzeddinSun, 28 Aug 2016 17:32:11 UTCRe: The 13 pillars of mythmatics (aka as mainstream mathematics).
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/q79s-nSPMnE/Wf7BLwkQCwAJ
"real number". > 4. There are irrational numbers. > 5. An infinite sum is possible. > 6. 1/3 = 0.333... > 7. 1 = 0.999... > 8. The integral is an infinite sum. > 9. Numbers can be derived using sets. > 10. The derivative is a limit. > 11. Natural numbers came first. > 12. dy/dx is anhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/q79s-nSPMnE
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 17:27:51 UTCRe: Remembering the stupidity, dishonesty and morally bankrupt fool Prof. Gilbert Strang of MIT (aka Port563).
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/y1T-Fy2gvBg/hLYpgGUPCwAJ
instantaneous rate. The video proves there is no such thing. 8/28/16https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/y1T-Fy2gvBg
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 17:16:08 UTCRe: Did you know? Neither the word "axiom" nor "postulate" appears anywhere in the Elements by Euclid?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/40hnTSHwjuA/tQ-LdF4PCwAJ
8/28/16https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/40hnTSHwjuA
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 17:15:38 UTCRe: More juvenile hate spam from JG
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/SPkm5ogdjfY/F1Mbaz4PCwAJ
On Sunday, 28 August 2016 10:01:16 UTC-7, Dan Christensen wrote: <shit snipped> It didn't take long for the troll to start barking again, did it? Chuckle. What a fucking loser. Tsk, tsk.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/SPkm5ogdjfY
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 17:13:21 UTCMore juvenile hate spam from JG
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/SPkm5ogdjfY/QWHwnZUOCwAJ
John Gabriel is a buffoon. He knows NOTHING about mathematics, but seems to delight in confusing and misleading students here, "messing with their minds" as he probably thinks of it. What readers should know about Psycho Troll John Gabriel, in his own words: JG's God Complex: “I am thehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/SPkm5ogdjfY
Dan ChristensenSun, 28 Aug 2016 17:01:16 UTCStudents beware!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/q79s-nSPMnE/Nu55_HMOCwAJ
Don't listen to JG. He cannot even prove that 2+2=4 in his goofy system. Danhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/q79s-nSPMnE
Dan ChristensenSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:58:51 UTCStudents beware!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/O6UpRPF_rCg/qNPK7DwOCwAJ
Students beware! Do not attempt to use John Gabriel's “system” here in any course work in any high school, college or university on the planet. You will fail miserably. His system is certainly no “shortcut” to success in mathematics. It is truly a dead-end. John Gabriel is a buffoon. He knowshttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/O6UpRPF_rCg
Dan ChristensenSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:54:55 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/sDDSGDQOCwAJ
potentially infinite set |N the same is expressed by > {1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U ... = |N > > > > Suppose that PI1 and PI2 are potentially infinite collections. > > > > Under what conditions do we have PI1 = PI2 ? > > |N means a pot. Not an empty brown paper bag? :-) > infinitehttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:54:17 UTCThe 13 pillars of mythmatics (aka as mainstream mathematics).
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/q79s-nSPMnE/jYkvwxgOCwAJ
The 13 fallacies that form the foundation of mythmatics: 1. Infinity is a well-formed concept. 2. There is an infinite set. 3. Non-terminating radix representation can be used to represent any "real number". 4. There are irrational numbers. 5. An infinite sum is possible. 6. 1/3 = 0.333...https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/q79s-nSPMnE
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:52:19 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/PbexcvkNCwAJ
stands > > > for the limit of sums of the form 0.9 + ... + 0.00...9. > > > > How would you write all aleph_0 terms of the series which are less than the limit? > > > > Regards, WM > > For a constructive proof of the stupidity, one can watch this video: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:50:05 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/epGLQfENCwAJ
This is the general case. There is no more generality. Using the potentially infinite set |N the same is expressed by {1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U ... = |N > > Suppose that PI1 and PI2 are potentially infinite collections. > > Under what conditions do we have PI1 = PI2 ? |N means a pot.https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
WMSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:49:29 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/xGAGHuQNCwAJ
Rightly claiming! You infinitely stupid moron. The inference follows directly. It cannot be fixed by adding another RULE you dead dog moron. Every time you repeat this, you remove all doubt that you are a fucking idiot. Tsk, tsk. Shut up twerp!https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:48:33 UTCRe: News: 100% accurate image recognition using a New Calculus feature in image recognition algorithm.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/SPkm5ogdjfY/lWBjVdANCwAJ
determines whether any two given images are the same or not with 100% accuracy. > > > > The idea is based on use of a polynomial curve that is rotated and scans both images with random selected locations which are then compared and the determination of sameness, based on this comparison. > >https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/SPkm5ogdjfY
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:47:08 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/WLs_AMUNCwAJ
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 6:33:12 PM UTC+2, John Gabriel wrote: > Set theory ... Still wrongly claiming that in set theory {} U S =/= S ???https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
MeSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:46:19 UTCRe: Students: So you hate epsilonics? Well, you don't need to learn that bullshit!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/O6UpRPF_rCg/H1NGKKMNCwAJ
using any inequalities: > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLMDAtai1rcE9jV1E > > Also, check out my powerful new theorem for the flawed mainstream calculus which enables you to prove limits entirely through analytic geometry: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjHv3HkIJqs > >https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/O6UpRPF_rCg
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:43:54 UTCStudents: So you hate epsilonics? Well, you don't need to learn that bullshit!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/O6UpRPF_rCg/8yClEoENCwAJ
I devised a new method that can be used to show a limit exists without using any inequalities: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLMDAtai1rcE9jV1E Also, check out my powerful new theorem for the flawed mainstream calculus which enables you to prove limits entirely through analytichttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/O6UpRPF_rCg
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:41:28 UTCRe: triviality in elementary euclidean geometry
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do/izWNITwNCwAJ
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 16:36:31 UTCRe: Peano Structures
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0/A_wfQBsNCwAJ
He was responding to Dan's sock puppet. Does that make a difference? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU,https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/cP4tz4fIoF0
Jack CampinSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:34:10 UTCRe: Simplest proof that 0 999 is not well defined as being equal to 1.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM/JbAQnw0NCwAJ
He thinks correctly that every FISON has a last element. > |N does not have a fixed last element. He makes no assumptions about |N. Set theory destroys itself without any effort on WM's part. Potential infinity as inferred by set theory suggests that |N has a last element, but no, WMhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/JmjpEXUVolM
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:33:12 UTCRe: triviality in elementary euclidean geometry
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do/EVcoEMQMCwAJ
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 16:27:56 UTCRe: triviality in elementary euclidean geometry
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do/H1Ca-I8MCwAJ
Don't miss C.Ullrich's contribution to this thread. Giggle. -- Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain to me what you really mean. I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fanhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do
Peter PercivalSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:24:12 UTCRe: triviality in elementary euclidean geometry
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do/9RZee2UMCwAJ
Bwaaa Haaa Haaa. Not even wrong you imbecile!https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do
John GabrielSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:21:00 UTCRe: triviality in elementary euclidean geometry
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do/nl2cZGEMCwAJ
One can only hope that the World's Greatest Mathematician reads the above. -- Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain to me what you really mean. I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere'shttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do
Peter PercivalSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:20:52 UTCone click solve differential equation, one click test its solution
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/M3hOxX5_Zro/6U_lPgcMCwAJ
input equation y' = sin(x-y-c) into www.mathHandbook.com, click the dsolve button to get solution, click the odetest button to test its solutionhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/M3hOxX5_Zro
drhu...@gmail.comSun, 28 Aug 2016 16:14:25 UTCRe: triviality in elementary euclidean geometry
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do/q9l4GBgLCwAJ
On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 13:10:02 +0100, Peter Percival wrote: > liav83 wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> given a circumference, then there is direct relation of proportionality >> between the lenght of the arc of circumference and the corresponding >> centre angle. >> >> Can you give me a sketch ofhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Do
David C. UllrichSun, 28 Aug 2016 15:57:18 UTCRe: Mathematics and the long illusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/k6MDC-8CQ2A/jvVDULsICwAJ
John Gabril said: sqrt(2) cuberoot(2), pi, e, etc, are NOT numbers, but INCOMMENSURABLE MAGNITUDES, and that is NOT equivalent to IRRATIONAL NUMBERS. Stupid, stupid morons! In short: sqrt is (2) INCOMMENSURABLE MAGNITUDES I do agree about other numbers you mentioned or any otherhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/k6MDC-8CQ2A
bassam king karzeddinSun, 28 Aug 2016 15:14:00 UTC