https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.mathsci.mathMathematical discussions and pursuits.Google Groupsjosh...@gmail.com2016-08-30T16:51:42Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/sn4wNUhH6E0Re-learn math at the age of 50?I am not a mathematician. Except for this group, I am in no contact of a mathematician. I used to be a decent student of math and statistics - all A's but never a math genius. Then, I realized that I don't know math at all. Most basic math I took for granted earlier, generated more questionsJohn Gabriel2016-08-30T15:45:37Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/8SGIMnleUxAIn order to understand mythmatics, you first need to know what are its fallacious foundations.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...John Gabriel2016-08-30T15:45:03Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/NbT8ypkMWHEWhy the idea of limit is flawed and fraudulent.There are many problems with the concept of limit, but the first and foremost problem is that it requires that "real" numbers actually exist in theory. Alas, real numbers do not exist in theory or otherwise. Since the Ancient Greeks, ZERO progress has been made with the understanding andJohn Gabriel2016-08-30T15:31:00Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/h3lORP9T_JYWhy you can never understand math using the 13 fallacies.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...John Gabriel2016-08-30T14:35:31Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/a5PhmGBKiDoThe 13 fallacies that form the foundation of modern mythmatics (mainstream mathematics)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...Simon C. Roberts2016-08-30T05:21:07Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/_E8-2GdKyGcE_0(s) = [2^(2s) - 2^(s-1) - 1] / [2^s[2^(s-1) - 1]] == Euler zeta function.Result: E_0(s) = [2^(2s) - 2^(s-1) - 1] / [2^s[2^(s-1) - 1]] E_0(s) is Euler's zeta function. p_m prime. s complex. *1) E_m(s) = 1/(p_m)^s + 1/(p_m + 1)^s + 1/(p_m + 2)^s + 1/(p_m + 3)^s + ... *1.1) E_0(s) = 1 + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s + ... E_0(s) is Euler's zeta function. set ofVinicius Claudino Ferraz2016-08-29T22:21:47Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/5qJ2SXHdg20New GraveYardhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-37211298?ocid=socialflow_twitter My today's thesis: They have killed the wrong John. Vinicius twitter.com/mathspiritualFredJeffries2016-08-29T12:01:05Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/nOXw3NUs4WIWorkshop on Potential Infinityhttp://nylogic.org/talks/set-theoretic-potentialism http://jdh.hamkins.org/set-theoretic-potentialism-cuny-logic-workshop-september-2016/ <quote> In analogy with the ancient views on potential as opposed to actual infinity, set-theoretic potentialism is the philosophical position holding thatArchimedes Plutonium2016-08-29T04:10:51Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/DC3ykqynlwoTALK: quantized angles in New Math, since numbers are quantizedTALK: 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 ifbassam king karzeddin2016-08-28T17:32:11Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Whr8rRzOrksGiven a sufficient time, can a monkey hits on a proof of unsolved problem in mathematics?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 byJohn Gabriel2016-08-28T16:52:19Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/q79s-nSPMnEThe 13 pillars of mythmatics (aka as mainstream mathematics).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...John Gabriel2016-08-28T16:41:28Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/O6UpRPF_rCgStudents: So you hate epsilonics? Well, you don't need to learn that bullshit!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 analyticdrhu...@gmail.com2016-08-28T16:14:25Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/M3hOxX5_Zroone click solve differential equation, one click test its solutioninput equation y' = sin(x-y-c) into www.mathHandbook.com, click the dsolve button to get solution, click the odetest button to test its solutionPentcho Valev2016-08-28T08:54:53Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/A2UkEUd7VloFraudulent Teaching of Einstein's Relativityhttp://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-94-009-3875-5.pdf "When one turns to introductory texts, the situation is as one might expect: Those books which, prior to World War II, mentioned the theory of relativity, took the position that it was a theory which was suggested by theSimon C. Roberts2016-08-28T07:56:12Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/goGfbV9fzk4A number's basej(Pi) = j(3.141...) (base 10) = 1 (base j(Pi)). j = sqrt(-1).Simon C. Roberts2016-08-28T07:30:37Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/nf8PX2jGZ8MAxioms of 0 and oo.Axioms of 0 and oo. (1) y_0 = 1 (2) y_0 - y_0 = +/-(y_1) g, z, and x are any real numbers (3) 1/y_g = oo_g (4) y_{g-1} - y_{g-1} = +/-(y_g) (5) oo_{g+1} - oo_{g+1} = +/-(oo_g) (6) (y_g)^x = y_{gx} (7) (y_x)(y_g) = y_{x+g} (8) y_g / y_x = y_{g-x} (9) (oo_g)^x = oo_{gx} (10)Simon C. Roberts2016-08-28T07:29:16Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/H4J5fKRl--oa^j = 1 (mod p) (edited)The minimum j > 0, such that a > 1, p prime, satisfying a^j = 1 (mod p) implies j|(p-1) and for any m satisfying, a^m = 1 (mod p) implies j|m. Proof. Given: j is the minimum such that a^j = 1 (mod p), p is prime and a > 1. Assume j does not divide (p-1). There is a k such k is theliav832016-08-28T05:35:10Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7pPiXFny6Dotriviality in elementary euclidean geometryHi 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 of proof? Thnx in advancemarkra...@gmail.com2016-08-28T04:40:45Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/UcygspFSc94College Physics 4th Edition INSTRUCTOR SOLUTIONS MANUAL; GiambattistaThe Instructor Solutions manual is available in PDF format for the following textbooks. These manuals include full solutions to all problems and exercises with which chapters ended, but please DO NOT POST HERE, instead send an email with details; title, author and edition of the solutionsmarkra...@gmail.com2016-08-28T04:39:17Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/QwuN9KyaRH8Chemical, Biochemical, and Engineering Thermodynamics, 4th Ed INSTRUCTOR SOLUTIONS MANUAL; SandlerThe Instructor Solutions manual is available in PDF format for the following textbooks. These manuals include full solutions to all problems and exercises with which chapters ended, but please DO NOT POST HERE, instead send an email with details; title, author and edition of the solutionsJohn Gabriel2016-08-27T23:21:27Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/SPkm5ogdjfYNews: 100% accurate image recognition using a New Calculus feature in image recognition algorithm.A new calculus user has developed an image recognition algorithm that 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 andJohn Gabriel2016-08-27T17:12:35Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/EaqQhhD1YmEThe definition of pseudomathematics.The 13 fallacies that form the foundation of mythmatics: 1. There is an infinite set. 2. Non-terminating radix representation can be used to represent any "real number". 3. There are irrational numbers. 4. An infinite sum is possible. 5. 1/3 = 0.333... 6. 1 = 0.999... 7. The integral is anmarkra...@gmail.com2016-08-27T09:03:43Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/40nne9IqaKEA First Course in the Finite Element Method, 5th Edition INSTRUCTOR SOLUTIONS MANUAL; loganThe Instructor Solutions manual is available in PDF format for the following textbooks. These manuals include full solutions to all problems and exercises with which chapters ended, but please DO NOT POST HERE, instead send an email with details; title, author and edition of the solutionsDr. Jai Maharaj2016-08-26T22:38:09Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/N_JJKS6xRMEThe Funky Math of the Electoral College - Scientific AmericanThe Funky Math of the Electoral College Everyone knows it's a weird way to elect presidents -- but it's even crazier than you think By Randyn Charles Bartholomew Scientific American, scientificamerican.com August 24, 2016 You might already know we have a pretty weird system for electingSimon C. Roberts2016-08-26T17:00:41Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/2QtcTxdrvVgfunction for generating, the m-th prime.Formula for generating the next prime, p_m: PRODUCT_{j = 1 to (m-1)}[1/(1 - p_j)] =p_m(1 - p_m). --------------------------------------------------- E_0(s) = 1 + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + .... E_0(s) = PRODUCT_{j = 1 to oo}[1/(1 - p_j^(-s))] Instead of starting the series at p_0 = 1 a new series,John Gabriel2016-08-26T13:46:31Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/hsWSeczQppwWhat is pseudomathematics?In short, it's what I call mythmatics. Here are some examples: 1. There is an infinite set. 2. Non-terminating radix representation can be used to represent any "real number". 3. There are irrational numbers. 4. An infinite sum is possible. 5. 1/3 = 0.333... 6. 1 = 0.999... 7. The integralJohn Gabriel2016-08-26T13:42:53Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/sYCdjWEAt3wFor a civil debate with me, go here: https://sites.google.com/site/thenewcalculus/questions-and-answersAs most will know already, I have nothing but the utmost disdain and contempt for the morons on this site. I will answer questions at this link: https://sites.google.com/site/thenewcalculus/questions-and-answers I am the moderator of that site, so morons from this site needn't even try to joinArchimedes Plutonium2016-08-26T06:35:07Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/3Qma7pFKSbQPAGE48, 6-1, True Geometry, PreCalculus, Calculus / Correcting Math textbook 5th ed.PAGE48, 6-1, True Geometry, PreCalculus, Calculus / Correcting Math textbook 5th ed. TRUE GEOMETRY PRECALCULUS CALCULUS Chapter 6: True Geometry for High School & College, Precalculus, Calculus Alright, this is New Math and so much that is taught in High School Geometry is junk thatSimon C. Roberts2016-08-26T00:25:55Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/iqZTN2Til7EA million dollar note.A million dollar note. ==================================================== Let, 1.) E(s) = PRODUCT_p[1/( 1 - p^(-s))]. where s is complex and p is prime. Let, 2.) F(s) = PRODUCT_p[1/(p^(-s) - 1)]. 3.) F(s) / E(s) = E(s) / F(s) = PRODUCT_p[-1]. Define X = PRODUCT_p[-1]. 4a.) F(s)Anna Bolika2016-08-25T20:40:49Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7_Kuwmii3yUTerrifichttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belt_Trick.gifPentcho Valev2016-08-25T08:34:39Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/7WJ2OfISa7YEinstein Schizophrenic World: Emergent Space-timeSpacetime has emerged from Einstein's 1905 (false) light postulate - it can have no other origin: http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/ "Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independenSimon C. Roberts2016-08-24T23:36:58Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ZxqHXjoy_JIJamesJames is simple. Q.E.D.Simon C. Roberts2016-08-24T17:09:49Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/cST9JF1kVw0Leonhard Euler. My idol. Where did he go?Leonhard Euler (15 April 1707 – 18 September 1783) Euler sum that is related to the Riemann Zeta Function. Version 3.10 E(s) = [1 + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s + ....]. and s is a complex variable. Euler showed: E(s) = PRODUCT_p[1/( 1 - p^(-s))]. p is prime. E(s) = PRODUCT_p[p^s/( p^s - 1)].WM2016-08-24T13:33:53Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/jdVQ_tgQ1l0Limits of sequences of setsThe sequence of sets {n/n} has limit 1 if the fractions are evaluated. The sequence of sets {n/n} has limit { } if the fractions are not evaluated. Regards, WMmina_world2016-08-24T12:18:13Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/aF4wDtxrEvMLimit question..Hello. teacher~ It's been a long time. I have a question. lim{x->0} {cos(tan 4x)} / {tan 4x} = 1/0 = oo It's the wrong approach. Why?Pentcho Valev2016-08-24T10:59:48Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/gizFhtlm8oIEinstein's General Relativity: Deductive Theory or Empirical Concoction?Einstein informs the gullible world that his approach is deductive: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap03.htm Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuousSimon C. Roberts2016-08-24T10:57:02Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/oxxTWYC32-sA Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (Version 3)I really don't understand what happened today. I am taking very little credit for "finding" the proof. -------------------------------------------------- Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (Version 3) Statement: (1.) a^p + b^p + c^p = 0. Given: a, b, and c are non-zero pairwise co-primevasuin...@gmail.com2016-08-24T09:58:13Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/T3r5DH8WJjAHadoop Training In Bay AreaHadoop is a very common and powerful (raised, flat supporting surface) for working with data, but it can be a little hard to get a grip exactly on what it is and what it does. Hadoop Training In Bay Area It's a collection of software computer programs that are used to work with big data. HadoopJohn Gabriel2016-08-24T08:40:30Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Mz-_jo69It8Cauchy was an idiot.Watch how I debunk the mainstream notion of limit in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6roMXD4w3RY Mainstream morons hate that video because it exposes their ignorance, incompetence and stupidity. The idea of limit is a very ill-formed and failed attempt by Cauchy to fix Newton's andSimon C. Roberts2016-08-24T06:01:42Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/kFc4fd7HUgAf(s) = g(c - s) revisited. conjectures included.Conjecture: The following is never true for all x, f(x) = g(c - x). x is a real variable. c is a real non-zero constant. f and g are different functions of one real variable. f and g are defined for all x. f and g are different functions. ----------------------------------------Simon C. Roberts2016-08-24T05:44:54Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/CCE1tVd8B5ca^2 + b^2 = 0 (mod p)p is an odd prime, a and b are non zero integers. Can a^2 + b^2 = 0 (mod p) or a^2 = -b^2 (mod p) ? Under what conditions TRUE and under what conditions FALSE? Thank You. -Simon Roberts rete...@gmail.comSimon C. Roberts2016-08-24T05:07:46Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/4olppAYyepkEuler sum that is related to the Riemann Zeta Function.Version 3.5 E(s) = Sum_{1 to oo}[1 + 1/2^s + 1/3^s + 1/4^s + ....] and s is a complex variable. Euler showed: E(s) = PRODUCT_p[1/( 1 - p^(-s))]. p is prime. E(s) = PRODUCT_p[p^s/( p^s - 1)]. F(s) = PRODUCT_p[1/(p^s - 1)] = -/+E(-s) E(s) / [F(s)] = +/-E(s)/E(-s) = +/-PRODUCT_p[p^s] Let s =Dan Christensen2016-08-24T03:32:25Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/5fhfibtZ9p4A definition of the set of prime numbers without reference to the natural numbers?Can we list the essential properties of the set of prime numbers without any reference to the natural numbers, properties from which we might formally derive all of modern number theory as we know it? IIUC Jim Burns claims it is possible, but has yet to present them here. How about it Jim?John Gabriel2016-08-24T01:44:06Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/_9VLGB-duU4Despite all the attempts to libel and denigrate my work, the New Calculus flourishes: more subscribers, more views and likes.Well-formed knowledge always defeats ignorance. Find out more here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClBbBVLs3M-d3dNgU4Vop_A Now 81 subscribers and over 16000 in less than 9 months.Simon C. Roberts2016-08-24T01:42:20Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ul4hDwdlsr8Please, for the love of "God", [quasi] fill in the blanks.Assume, (1.) a^p + b^p + c^p = 0 a, b, and c are non-zero pairwise co-prime. p is an odd prime. (2.a) (a+b) | (a^p + b^p = -c^p). (2.b) (a+c) | (a^p + c^p = -b^p). (2.c) (b+c) | (b^p + c^p = -a^p). From (2.a), (2.b), and (2.c) (3.) (a+b)(a+c)(b+c) | (abc)^p (4.) Y = (b+a)(b+c)(a+c)John Gabriel2016-08-23T23:47:53Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/lwYrBIDG6uEUnfair to attack me.If any of you had to deal with an infinitude of morons in mainstream academia, as I have over many decades, perhaps you might realise why I have no patience and ZERO tolerance for dishonest and stupid academics. Watch how I am libeled by idiots who know shit about mathematics: https://www.youtSimon C. Roberts2016-08-23T22:33:13Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/CXPLvprzVjoProof of Fermat's Last Theorem.Version (2016.08.23:18:31) August, 23, 2016 approx: 6:30 pm (New York) Fermat's Last Theorem (proof by contradiction) -------------------------------------------------- Assume, (1.) a^p + b^p + c^p = 0, (1.a) a, b, and c are non-zero, pairwise co-prime. (1.b) p is an odd prime.bassam king karzeddin2016-08-23T13:15:15Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/k6MDC-8CQ2AMathematics and the long illusionWhat is the true story behind most of the mathematical science being based on obvious fallacies and common illusions, started by accepting (Pi) and inventing cube root of (2) as real existing numbers on the real number line (with rigorous proof of impossibility of any locations on the real linePaul Elliott2016-08-23T10:05:22Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/oYX4GZtvXgU3 4 5 right triangles in An Introduction to the history of mathematics?I have An introduction to the History of Mathematics, by Howard Eves 1952 revised edition. Amazon says there is now a 1990 6th Edition so my problem may have been corrected. On page 50: "2.12 The 3, 4, 5 Right triangle There are reports that the ancient Egyptian surveyors laidPentcho Valev2016-08-23T09:21:37Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/qlcDloBWs18Einstein's Twin Paradox: Absurdity Over Absurdityhttp://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B