mm-159 > Express the following as a single fraction:>> 4/3ab - 5/6bc> (m^2 + 2)/(m^2 + m) - (m - 2)/m>> You do it the same way you do it for fractions in arithematic.> The general formula is derived thus> a/b + r/s = as/bs + br/bs = (as + br)/bs>> Yep, I understand the basic priniciple, but I just don't know how to put it> in practise with these types of fractions.>Show us how you make 1/5 + 1/3 and 3/4 + 1/6 into a single fractions.Show us what you've done trying to make 4/3ab - 5/6bc (m^2 + 2)/(m^2 + m) - (m - 2)/minto a single fraction.What have you tried => How do I do this?> Express the following as a single fraction:> 4/3ab - 5/6bc> and> (m^2 + 2)/(m^2 + m) - (m - 2)/m> (1) 'nd a common denominator. The least common denominator is a good one to use.(2) convert each fraction to an equivalent fraction, all having the same (common) denominator found in step 1.(3) Add (or subtract) numerators and put the result over the common denominator from step 1.(4) Reduce the result to lowest terms. Note that if you have used the least common denominator, the fraction may already be in lowest terms. =>> How do I do this?>> Express the following as a single fraction:>> 4/3ab - 5/6bc>> (1) 'nd a common denominator. The least common denominator is a> good one to use.What, for example in the 'rst one, is the lowest common denominator? Is it(3ab)(6bc)? If it is, do I then multiply that out? If not, what is it? =>> How do I do this?>> Express the following as a single fraction:>> 4/3ab - 5/6bc>> (1) 'nd a common denominator. The least common denominator is a> good one to use.> What, for example in the 'rst one, is the lowest common denominator? Is it> (3ab)(6bc)? If it is, do I then multiply that out? If not, what is it?> 6abc = (3ab)(2c) = (6bc)(a), so 6abc is a common multiple of 3ab and 6bc.Since (2c) and (a) have no common factor greater than 1, nothing can be left out of 6abc and still have a common multiple of 3ab and 6bc, so 6abc is the least common multiple. =John E I do this?>> Express the following as a single fraction:>> 4/3ab - 5/6bc> (1) 'nd a common denominator. The least common denominator is a>> good one to use.>> What, for example in the 'rst one, is the lowest common denominator?> Is it (3ab)(6bc)? If it is, do I then multiply that out? If not, what> is it?Factorize all denominatars as much as possible, including numbers:3ab = 3*a*b6bc = 2*3*b*cThe lowest common denominator is the lowest common multiple of thedenominators. To get it, take all factors raised to the greatest exponentthat appears. In this case,lcm(3ab, 6bc) = 2*3*a*b*c = 6abcThen multiply and divide each fraction by the quotient between the commondenominator and its denominadtor:4/(3ab) - 5/(6bc) = 4*(2c)/((3ab)*(2c) - 5*a/((6bc)*a) = (8c - 5a)/(6abc)-- Ignacio Larrosa Ca.96estroA Coru.96a (Espa.96a)ilarrosaQUITARMAYUSCULAS@mundo-r.com => How do I do this?>> Express the following as a single fraction:>> 4/3ab - 5/6bc> (1) 'nd a common denominator. The least common denominator is a>> good one to use.>> What, for example in the 'rst one, is the lowest common denominator?> Is it (3ab)(6bc)? If it is, do I then multiply that out? If not, what> is it?>> Factorize all denominatars as much as possible, including numbers:>> 3ab = 3*a*b>> 6bc = 2*3*b*c>> The lowest common denominator is the lowest common multiple of the> denominators. To get it, take all factors raised to the greatest exponent> that appears. In this case,>> lcm(3ab, 6bc) = 2*3*a*b*c = 6abc>> Then multiply and divide each fraction by the quotient between the common> denominator and its denominadtor:>> 4/(3ab) - 5/(6bc) = 4*(2c)/((3ab)*(2c) - 5*a/((6bc)*a) = (8c - 5a)/(6abc) =Examining a table of factors and primes, I found that for any sequenceof consecutive composite numbers there is always one integer that hasa prime factor larger than any other prime factor of any of the otherintegers. Further, this prime is not raised to any power. My questionis: Is this true for all consecutive composite sequences and if so, isthere a proof?(Here's an example: 1500, 1501, ... 1509. The last integer has theprime factor 503.) => Examining a table of factors and primes, I found that for any sequence> of consecutive composite numbers there is always one integer that has> a prime factor larger than any other prime factor of any of the othersNice conjecture!It is equivalent to saying (more neatly perhaps) that in any adjacentsequence of numbers, the largest prime factor occurs only once.It seems obviously true, though I can't see a slick proof off-hand.I'm sure there must be one. It is possible to produce a heuristicdemo that can doubtless be turned into a formal proof with effort.Suppose your two largest equal prime factors are P, and we may as wellput them at the ends of the interval WLOG. Then we have an interval o§ength P which must be 'lled up by factors less than P. This would meanthe P interior numbers have to be removed one-by-one by ditching the evens,then the 3-multiples, then the 5-multiples, and so on up to P.But we can remove at most (1/2)*(2/3)*(4/5)*(6/7)*...*(1 - 1/P) this way;and a quick heuristic integral integral shows this to be 1/(log P).So the most numbers we can reduce to by removing those with (even at least one!) small prime factor is one log-Pth of the lot, and the lot is of size P. That's P/logP. Nowhere near zero or one.So it can't be done... not by a huge amount!Nice question though.- -- Bill Taylor W.Taylor@math.canterbury.ac.nz-- - Chebychev said it -- I'll say it again; There is always a prime between n and 2n. =>Examining a table of factors and primes, I found that for any sequence>of consecutive composite numbers there is always one integer that has>a prime factor larger than any other prime factor of any of the other>integers. Further, this prime is not raised to any power. My question>is: Is this true for all consecutive composite sequences and if so, is>there a proof?>(Here's an example: 1500, 1501, ... 1509. The last integer has the>prime factor 503.)How does the Further,... apply to this example: 8, 9? Robert Israel israel@math.ubc.caDepartment of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2 =>Examining a table of factors and primes, I found that for any sequence>of consecutive composite numbers there is always one integer that has>a prime factor larger than any other prime factor of any of the other>integers. Further, this prime is not raised to any power.>> How does the Further,... apply to this example: 8, 9?>Perhaps he intended maximal sequence, 8,9,10 has 5 as max.However the maximal sequences 4 and 12 have 2 squared andthe maximal sequence 18 has 3 squared.Thus the conjecture needs be limited tomaximal sequences of composite numbers longer than 1. =>>Examining a table of factors and primes, I found that for any sequence>>of consecutive composite numbers there is always one integer that has>>a prime factor larger than any other prime factor of any of the other>>integers. Further, this prime is not raised to any power.>> How does the Further,... apply to this example: 8, 9?>Perhaps he intended maximal sequence, 8,9,10 has 5 as max.But the example he gave was 1500, 1501, ... 1509 which is not maximal.Robert Israel israel@math.ubc.caDepartment of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2 =>Examining a table of factors and primes, I found that for any sequence>of consecutive composite numbers there is always one integer that has>a prime factor larger than any other prime factor of any of the other>integers. Further, this prime is not raised to any power.> How does the Further,... apply to this example: 8, 9?>>Perhaps he intended maximal sequence, 8,9,10 has 5 as max.> But the example he gave was 1500, 1501, ... 1509 which is not maximal.Also, the largest prime factor of a number in that range is 751, not503. The conjecture still holds, but not for the reason given.-- Dave SeamanJudge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. =well, isn't this teensy duality the same,for any proof that one hasn't actually read,all the way through (or to the point whereone can see it through, already) ??> you're saying that the L-wing thing is just an argument> *about* an actual (R-wing) proof?--les ducs de Buffet et Schulz (R&D Chair Assoc.Intl.);vote NONE OF THE BELOWon Trickier Dick Cheney's California Recall/e-Dereg!http://larouchepub.comhttp://members.tripod.com /~american_almanac/ =it's not even wrong. it's just simple numbertheory --skipcodes are that, and they were apparently usedby (some?) Torah writers/copyists to ensure accuracy,as with the old CRC in 8-bit communications programs.I read taht they summed the letters on every 70th,or skipped to every 70th, or some thing. the computer can be set to 'nd any messagein any ring of an alphabet, and Drosnin et al know this ... ormaybe they can't learn it, not because they're dumb. there was ambiguity in _The Bible Code_ taht he ignored,like with the variant translations and the fact thatOld Hebrew has no vowels.repeat, _War and Peace_ or just the 26 letters in any ordercan be used with the in'nite set of co-prime skips,with teh resulting hits being further massagedinto some m by n array (or what ever). >Also, when the code was applied accurate? And does this say something about the New Testament>and the belief in a Christ 'gure? --les ducs de Buffet et Schulz (R&D Chair Assoc.Intl.);vote NONE OF THE BELOWon Trickier Dick Cheney's California Recall/e-Dereg!http://larouchepub.comhttp://members.tripod.com /~american_almanac/ => it's not even wrong. it's just simple numbertheory --> skipcodes are that, and they were apparently used> by (some?) Torah writers/copyists to ensure accuracy,> as with the old CRC in 8-bit communications programs.> I read taht they summed the letters on every 70th,> or skipped to every 70th, or some thing.> the computer can be set to 'nd any message> in any ring of an alphabet, and Drosnin et al know this ... or> maybe they can't learn it, not because they're dumb.> there was ambiguity in _The Bible Code_ taht he ignored,> like with the variant translations and the fact that> Old Hebrew has no vowels.>> repeat, _War and Peace_ or just the 26 letters in any order> can be used with the in'nite set of co-prime skips,> with teh resulting hits being further massaged> into some m by n array (or what ever).>Also, when the code was applied to the new testament, the NEW something about the New Testament>and the belief in a Christ 'gure?>> --les ducs de Buffet et Schulz (R&D Chair Assoc.Intl.);> vote NONE OF THE BELOW> on Trickier Dick Cheney's California Recall/e-Dereg!> http://larouchepub.com> http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/A defective theory when applied does neither prove or disprove a hypothesis.The Code stuff has been applied successfully to Moby Dick to predictmoderns events with Astounding accuracy. (NOT!)rj Pease =modern, but ex post facto,with a few rather repugnant exceptions (Die, Rabin, Die!) the sequel has this doofus, Drosnin,supposedly watching the WTC hit from his hotel room, andimmediately running the program to post-dict it. the second book also shows (I think it was indexed,or I was just lucky in 'nding it, as I didn't *read* the God-am thing) that he got the original idea from oneof Sharon's buddies (presumably) in hte military!yes, the NT can be used to equal effect (on everage). > repeat, _War and Peace_ or just the 26 letters in any order> can be used with the in'nite set of co-prime skips,> with teh resulting hits being further massaged> into some m by n array (or what ever). > The Code stuff has been applied successfully to Moby Dick to predict> moderns events with Astounding accuracy. (NOT!)--le ducs d'Enron!http://larouchepub.com =R E D L18 5 4 12 = 39 I went out to Broadway Ave. (the street with the penis poster poles) tooffer my mathematical services to people passing by. Wade was the second ofover 150 people to provide personal information to me during the month ofJuly.145 Wade 13 6 80 165/201 8517Wade 33 Joseph 73 Redl 39 Wade was born 45% into the year, his full name adds to 145, his 'rstname adds to 45% of his middle name. Wade was born in 80. The consonants in his given names add to 80. And theand last names add to 33 and 39, these Bible Books contain an average of 80verses.Primes Non-Primes Numbers 2 1 1 3 4 2 5 6 3 7 8 4 11 9 5 13 10 6 17 12 7 19 14 8 23 15 9 29 16 10 31 18 11 37 20 12 41 21 13 43 <-14th-> 22 <-14th-> 14 281 176 105 Wade was born with 201 days remaining in the year (Joshua 14), he has 14letters adding to 145. He was born 36 days closer to the beginning of theyear than to the end of the year, and his 'rst and last names average 36,or 14 plus the 14th non-prime (22), the number of chapters in Bible Book 14.73, these are the 22nd non-prime and the 21st prime, together for 43 (the14th prime). Note that Bible Book 14 contains 822 verses, pretty as 22 isthe 14th non-prime, 14 is the 8th non-prime, and 22 exceeds 8 by 14. Wade was born on day 165 (5x33), his 'rst name adds to 33. Wade's 'rst 7 letters add to 77, his last 7 letters add to 68 (the 7x7thto Numbers 28 (1 through 7).Lucas 1 3 4 7 11 18 29 -- 73 <-the Lucas numbers up to 29 add to the 73 verses of Bible Book 29J O E L <-Bible Book 2910 15 5 12 = 42 <-29th non-primeC O P P E R <-29th element3 15 16 16 5 18 = 73 <-Book 29 and is the Lucas numbers up to 29, there is a copper riding a horse on the 1973 Canadian 25 cent pieceC E N T <-made out of 29th element3 5 14 20 = 42 <-29th non-prime Wade was born on the 13th (6th prime) day of the 6th month, his last nameadds to 39 (13+13+13), his 'rst and last names differ in value by 6 andadds to the 73 verses of Bible Book 29 (6+6p+6np). You will 'nd 29 chaptersin Bible Book 13 (6th prime) and 29 verses in Bible chapter 666, pretty as29 is 6 plus the 6th prime (13) plus the 6th non-prime (10), or simply6+6p+6np. Wade was born on day 165, or 26 plus the 26th prime (101) plus the 26thnon-prime (38), or simply 26+26p+26np. The vowels in his given names add to26. The prime valued letters in his given names add to 52 (26+26). He wasborn on the 13th, that's aluminum with an atomic weight of 26.981538.187 Dar 17 2 57 48/317 00Daryl 60 Shawn 65 Kabatoff 62187 Marcia 6 8 80 219/147 8571Marcia 45 Veronica 87 Acevedo 55 In 1988 I pointed out that the penis poster poles on Broadway Ave. arerepresentations of penises, and that the obelisks at the Vatican, TheWhitehouse and on church roofs are Egyptian representations of penises, andI was repeatedly arrested and tortured (Protestants and Catholics were upsetwith my words and lobbied my abusive parents to have me arrested andtreated). If you people think you have the right to arrest and torture mebecause I am not married, then I think I should have the right to ask thenubile sweeties to marry me, and Marcia. If Wade has a sister that ends upmarrying Marcia and me, then Wade is goink to win himself a brand spankin'new Cadillac, it's now included in my suit against the Protestants,Saskatoon City Police Force, The City of Saskatoon, and the Liberal, PC andthe NDP political parties. Good luck and may God bless you!!!Daryl Shawn KabatoffBox 7134Saskatoon SaskatchewanCanadaS7K 4J1Isaiah 45:4, Ephesians 3:15 - God gives you your name!!! =what is found at your site is known as Sophistry. the fact thatFernat's Last Theorem is negative is not problem, just asproofs (of neg or pos statements) by contradiction are good. of course, three per cent is rational by de'nition.Negative statements about numbers are unveri'able. Take thede'nition of an irrational as a number that is not rational, wherebeing rational means having periodic decimal expansion. Supposesomeone wants to verify that %3 is irrational. Since the indirectproof is out he computes its decimal expansion to the trillionth digitand, satis'ed that no evidence of periodicity looms on the horizon,declares that %3 is irrational. A mischievous fellow quickly forms aperiodic decimal whose 'rst period is that 'rst trillion > http://www.users.bigpond.com/pidro/home.htm > --les ducs de Buffet et Schulz (R&D Chair Assoc.Intl.);vote NONE OF THE BELOWon Trickier Dick Cheney's California Recall/e-Dereg!http://larouchepub.comhttp://members.tripod.com /~american_almanac/ =sorry; I guess that you meant the second root of 3 by %3 -- butit's still a rather silly use of the law of large numbers. an example that may apply, since I don't recall what that is:there's a proof that li(x) goes less than pi(x),the number of prime numbers less than x, in'nitely often, althoughthere is (was) no known place in the sequence where it occurs.the second (skware) root of 3 is irrational by *de'nition*. > Fernat's Last Theorem is negative is not problem, just as> proofs (of neg or pos statements) by contradiction are good.> of course, three per cent is rational by de'nition.> Negative statements about numbers are unveri'able. Take the--les ducs de Buffet et Schulz (R&D Chair Assoc.Intl.);vote NONE OF THE BELOWon Trickier Dick Cheney's California Recall/e-Dereg!http://larouchepub.comhttp://members.tripod.com /~american_almanac/ =D A U K4 1 21 11 = 37 I went out busking on Broadway Ave. (the street with the penis posterpoles) and met Robert, he was headed to The Yard and Flagon, probababbly todrink beer. Robert stopped long enough to inform me about his sisters, it'sa high probably they are nubile sweeties, or even a yet higher probababbly.92+ Ralph 30 10 53 303/62 +1206Ralph 55 Dauk 3777+ Linda 11 3 54 70/295 +1074Linda 40 Dauk 37166 Robert 3 12 78 337/28 7959Robert 78 Michael 51 Dauk 3737+ Bro 1 5 81 121/244 883937+ Sis 1 5 81 121/244 883937+ Sis 7 1 84 7/359 9820Primes Non-Primes Fibonacci Lucas 2 1 0 1 3 4 1 3 5 6 1 4 7 8 2 7 11 9 3 11 13 10 5 18 17 12 8 29 19 14 13 47 23 15 21 76 29 16 34 123 31 18 55 199 37 20 89 322 41 <-13th-> 21 <-13th-> 144 <-13th-> 521 238 154 <-Lamentations Actually I went out lookink for wives for Marcia and me, and Robert camealong and told me about his sisters. Dauk adds to 37 (37 chapters in theBible contain the length of 13 verses). The parents were born in monthsadding to 13 and on days of the month adding to 41 (13th prime). The parentswere born on days of the year adding to 373, the kids on days of the yearadding to 586 (a difference of 213), prettier as 213 is the 166th non-primewhile Robert's full name adds to 166. The Gospels are Books 40, 41, 42 and43, together for 166 (the 128th or the 2 to the 7th non-prime). The kidswere born on days of the year adding to 586, corresponding to Psalm 108 (the'rst 6 primes in prime positions). Robert was born in 78, his 'rst namevalued letters add to 84 (the 'rst 13 primes minus the 'rst 13non-primes), his even valued letters add to 82 (twice the 13th prime).Robert's youngest sister was born in 84 (the 'rst 13 primes minus the 'rst13 non-primes). Robert and the twins were born on days of the week adding to13. The family was born on days 30, 11, 3, 1, 1, and 7, together these BibleBooks contain 179 chapters (the 41st prime or the 13th prime in primeposition). Anyway, pretty that 37 chapters in the Bible contain the lengthof 13 verses. for these are the 6th and 6+6th primes, and they differ invalue by the 24 (6+6+6+6) chapters of Old Testament Books 6 and 10 (6thnon-prime). Primes In Prime Primes Positions 1 2 2 3 <- 3 3 5 <- 5 4 7 5 11 <- 11 6 13 7 17 <- 17 8 19 9 2310 2911 31 <- 3112 3713 41 <- 41 108 The Dauk (37) parents were born on days of the year adding to 373, itends in the 73 verses of Bible Book 29 (and is the Lucas numbers up to 29).The parents were born in 53 and 54, these are the 14th and 15th Books of theNew Testament (together for 29), these Bible Books differ in length by 66verses. The parents and the kids were born on days of the month adding to 41and to 12, it's a difference of 29, prettier as 12 is 29.26% of 41. Thevowels in Robert's given names add to 35 and Robert's initials add to 35,Genesis 29 contains 35 verses, Genesis 35 contains 29 verses and there are35 chapters in the Bible that contain the length of 29 verses. In Robert'sgiven names, his even valued letters exceed his odd valued letters by 29.All of his consonants add to 109 (29th prime). All 12 unrepresented lettersadd to 209.Lucas 1 3 4 7 11 18 29 -- 73 <-the Lucas numbers up to 29 add to the 73 verses of Bible Book 29J O E L <-Bible Book 2910 15 5 12 = 42 <-29th non-primeC O P P E R <-29th element3 15 16 16 5 18 = 73 <-Book 29 and is the Lucas numbers up to 29, there is a copper riding a horse on the 1973 Canadian 25 cent pieceC E N T <-made out of 29th element3 5 14 20 = 42 <-29th non-primeCopper and Zinc are elements 29 and 30 (togetherfor 59), and together they make Brass (59):B R A S S2 18 1 19 19 = 59 The Dauk (37) parents were born on days of the year adding to 373. RobertDauk (37) was born on the 337th day of the year. The Fibonacci valuedletters in his given names add to 37. In Robert Dauk's (37's) given names,his unrepeated letters exceed his unrepeated letters by 37. Dad was born in 53, he gets twins on the 1st (Genesis with 1533 verses).The family was born on days of the month adding to 53. Mom gave birth when9033, 9913, 9913 and 10894 days old, together for 39753 days. Mom was born on the 11th, she gave birth on the 121st (11x11th) day ofthe year. The parents were born on the 30th and on the 11th, together theseBible Books contain 31 (11th prime) chapters. Bible Books 9 and 20 (differby 11) both contain 31 chapters (11th prime). The parents were born on daysof the week adding to 11 while the family was born on days of the weekadding to 31 (11th prime). The twins were born in 81, corresponding toExodus 31 (11th prime). The kids were born in years adding to 324 (SecondKings 11), it's an average of 81, corresponding to Exodus 31 (11th prime).The parents were born in 53 and 54, together these Bible Books contain 160verses (the 'rst 11 primes). The twins are 101 days closer in age to Robertthan to the last of the kids (Leviticus 11). Either twin and the last of thekids were born on days of the year adding to 128 (Numbers 11). Don't behappy, 11 is a number of disorder.Primes Non-Primes Fibonacci Lucas 2 1 0 1 3 4 1 3 5 6 1 4 7 8 2 7 11 9 3 11 13 10 5 18 17 12 8 29 19 14 13 47 23 15 21 76 29 16 34 123 31 <-11th-> 18 <-11th-> 55 <-11th-> 199 160 113 143 518 Dad was born on the 30th day of the month. Mom was born in 54, Bible Book54 contains 113 verses (30th prime). The parents have 'rst names adding together for the 95 verses of BibleBook 51. Robert's middle name adds to 51. Twins on the 1st day of the month and on the 11x11th day of year 81, andare separated by 1 minute. Dad's combined ages when the kids were born amounts to 40281 days, prettyas there were 2 in 81. Robert (78) was born in 78 (57th non-prime), his vowels add to 57. Theparents were together born with 357 days remaining in their years (thenumber of verses in Daniel). The 57's are at chapters 41, 104, 220 and 1008,together for 1373, while the parents were born on days of the year adding to373. Dad was an average age of 27.57 years old when the kids were born.389 <-77th prime104 <-77th non-prime 77 <-77570 The Four 57'sGenesis 41 -> 41Leviticus 14 -> 104Judges 9 -> 220 <-I dreamt of 220 roofs blownJohn 11 -> 1008 off homes in the Dakotas - 1373 <-220th primeChapter 57 is Exodus 7 with 25 verses Book 57 is Philemon with 25 verses -- -- 41st non-prime 16th non-prime <-together for 57->Major Books of End-Times Prophecy (Daniel and Revelation are in part about666 while Isaiah contains 66 chapters):Daniel - 357 versesRevelation - 404 verses <-57 plus the 57th prime plus the 57th non-primeIsaiah - 1292 verses <-an average of 19.575757... verses per chapter The second and the third (together for 5) kids are twins. These twinswere born on day 121 (the 5th prime squared). The family was born on days ofthe month adding to the 959 verses of Bible Book 5. Pretty that Book 5 wouldcontain 959 verses, for 9 is the 5th non-prime. Old Testament Book 9 (5thnon-prime) and New Testament Book 9 (5th non-prime) together contain 959verses, the number of verses in Bible Book 5. I am 7959 days older thanRobert.Non-Primes 1 27 50 72 93 4 28 51 74 94 6 30 52 75 95 8 32 54 76 96 9 33 55 77 9810 34 56 78 9912 35 57 80 10014 36 58 81 10215 38 60 82 10416 39 62 84 105 <-78th18 40 63 85 10620 42 64 86 10821 44 65 87 11022 45 66 88 11124 46 68 90 11225 48 69 91 11426 49 70 92 115non-primes, and to the 12th prime, together for 105 (78th non-prime). Theeven valued letters in his given names add to 78.187 Dar 17 2 57 48/317 00Daryl 60 Shawn 65 Kabatoff 62187 Marcia 6 8 80 219/147 8571Marcia 45 Veronica 87 Acevedo 55 If you people think that you have the right to use my abusive parents astools and arrest and torture me, then I think that I should have the rightto ask women to marry me, or to marry Marcia and me (the nubile sweety wasborn on the 6th and has a 6 lettered 'rst name). Isaiah is the Book with 66chapters, pretty as it is Book 23, or the 6th prime plus the 6th non-prime(13+10=23). Isaiah 4, 12 and 20 (adds to 6x6) each contain 6 verses. Isaiah4:1 is about Marcia (and me), and 6 other women who are capable of feelingshame rather than pride, greed or lust, or who limit their love fortraditions and for people who abide by their traditions. You people haveEgyptian penises on the roofs of your churches and lined city streets withrepresentations of penises, and had me tortured for years for saying so,others just sat back in silence while they were doing this to me, andsimilarly you remain silent and compassionless now that the arrests andtorture have ceased.Daryl Shawn KabatoffBox 7134Saskatoon SaskatchewanCanadaS7K 4J1Isaiah 45:4, Ephesians 3:15 - God gives you your name!!! =I'm trying to prove the following theorem:Let P be a polynomial with real coef'cients such that P(x) >=0 forevery real x. Then, there are polynomials R and S such that P(x) =R^2(x) + S^2(x) for every complex x.It's easy to see that the degree of P must be even. If r is a realroot of P, then the restriction of P to the reals has an absoluteminimum at r and, from the differentiability of P, it follows there'san even number k such that the k-1 'rst derivatives of P vanish at rand the k_th is positive. Therefore, the k-1 derivatives admits theroot r with multiplicity 1, which implies P admits r as a rooth withmultiplicity k. So, we see every real root of P, when they exist, musthave an even multiplicity (I think we could come to this sameconclusion a bit faster, considering only the continuity of polynomialfunctions).Corollary - If all of the roots of P are real, then, P = Q^2 for somepolynomial Q. So, for this particular case the theorem has just beenproved.To prove the theorem, for the general case, I tried to usemathematical induction. It didn't work, that's why I'm asking forhelp. What I did is as folows:the previous paragraph, it's also enough to cover the case ofeven-degree polynomials with real coef'cients and no real roots. It'swell known that every monic trinomial T of the 2nd degree thatsatis'es such conditions can be written as T(x) = (x-a)^2 + C^2,where a and C<>0 are real. Therefore, for such trinomials the theoremholds trivially. Now, suppose there's a natural k such that thetheorem holds for i=1,...k-1 for every 2i-degree polynomial with realcoef'cients and no real roots. If P is a 2k-degree polynomial withthese same properties, then at some (or several) real r's therestriction of P to the reals attains an absolute minimum m>0. Thisimplies that, for every real x, the polynomial P-m is non-negative,has one (or several) real root(s) and (i) P(x) - m = (x-r_1)^p1*...(x-r^_n)^p_n * Q(x), where r_1, ..r_n are the real roots and thenumbers p_1,...p_n are even. In addition, Q is monic, has even degree< 2k, has no real root and is strictly positive on the real line. Bythe induction assumption, the theorem holds for Q and, in virtue of(i), also holds for P-m. But now, to complete the induction, itremains to prove the theorem is good for P, in other words, it remainsto prove that if the theorem holds for some polynomial P then it holdsfor P+m for every m>0. That's where I got stuck.Actually, I think I chose a very cumbersome way to prove the theorem,there certainly is a neater proof.Any suggestions are welcome.Amanda. => I'm trying to prove the following theorem:> Let P be a polynomial with real coef'cients such that P(x) >=0 for> every real x. Then, there are polynomials R and S such that P(x) => R^2(x) + S^2(x) for every complex x.Show P factors over the reals as a product of irreducible quadratics times a product of squares of linear polynomials. Show that an irreducible quadratic is a sum of 2 squares. Show that a product of two sums of two squares is a sum of two squares.-- => I'm trying to prove the following theorem:> > Let P be a polynomial with real coef'cients such that P(x) >=0 for> every real x. Then, there are polynomials R and S such that P(x) => R^2(x) + S^2(x) for every complex x.> Show P factors over the reals as a product of irreducible quadratics > times a product of squares of linear polynomials. > Show that an irreducible quadratic is a sum of 2 squares. > Show that a product of two sums of two squares is a sum of two squares.Sure. I almost got there! All I had to do to complete my proof was show that a product of two sums of two squares is a sum of twosquares.This is simple: (a^2+b^2)*(c^2+d^2) = (ac)^2 + (ad)^2 + (bc)^2 +(bd)^2 = (ac)^2 + 2abcd+ (bd)^2 + (ad)^2 -2abcd + (bc)^2 = (ac + bd)^2+ (ad - bc)^2.Thak you all for the helpAmanda =>>I'm trying to prove the following theorem:>>Let P be a polynomial with real coef'cients such that P(x) >=0 for>every real x. Then, there are polynomials R and S such that P(x) =>R^2(x) + S^2(x) for every complex x.>>It's easy to see that the degree of P must be even. If r is a real>root of P, then the restriction of P to the reals has an absolute>minimum at r and, from the differentiability of P, it follows there's>an even number k such that the k-1 'rst derivatives of P vanish at r>and the k_th is positive. Therefore, the k-1 derivatives admits the>root r with multiplicity 1, which implies P admits r as a rooth with>multiplicity k. So, we see every real root of P, when they exist, must>have an even multiplicity (I think we could come to this same>conclusion a bit faster, considering only the continuity of polynomial>functions).>>Corollary - If all of the roots of P are real, then, P = Q^2 for some>polynomial Q. So, for this particular case the theorem has just been>proved.>>To prove the theorem, for the general case, I tried to use>mathematical induction. It didn't work, that's why I'm asking for>help. What I did is as folows:>>the previous paragraph, it's also enough to cover the case of>even-degree polynomials with real coef'cients and no real roots. It's>well known that every monic trinomial T of the 2nd degree that>satis'es such conditions can be written as T(x) = (x-a)^2 + C^2,>where a and C<>0 are real. Therefore, for such trinomials the theorem>holds trivially. Now, suppose there's a natural k such that the>theorem holds for i=1,...k-1 for every 2i-degree polynomial with real>coef'cients and no real roots. If P is a 2k-degree polynomial with>these same properties, then at some (or several) real r's the>restriction of P to the reals attains an absolute minimum m>0. This>implies that, for every real x, the polynomial P-m is non-negative,>has one (or several) real root(s) and (i) P(x) - m = (x-r_1)^p1>*...(x-r^_n)^p_n * Q(x), where r_1, ..r_n are the real roots and the>numbers p_1,...p_n are even. In addition, Q is monic, has even degree>< 2k, has no real root and is strictly positive on the real line. By>the induction assumption, the theorem holds for Q and, in virtue of>(i), also holds for P-m. But now, to complete the induction, it>remains to prove the theorem is good for P, in other words, it remains>to prove that if the theorem holds for some polynomial P then it holds>for P+m for every m>0. That's where I got stuck.>>Actually, I think I chose a very cumbersome way to prove the theorem,>there certainly is a neater proof.I believe there is. The real roots all have even order and the complexroots come in conjugate pairs - this means there exists a polynomialF (with complex coef'cients) such that P is the product of F and thecomplex conjugate of F...>Any suggestions are welcome.>Amanda.************************David C. Ullrich =is there a non-Hausdorff space locally homeomorphic to R^n? = >is there a non-Hausdorff space locally homeomorphic to R^n?No. I use theorem locally closed Hausdorff S ==> S HausdorffS locally closed Hausdorff when for all p in S, some open U nhood p for which cl U is a Hausdorff subspaceLet the non-Hausdorff space be S. As I don't know de'nition of locallyhomeomorphic I'll do my best to intuit what it means.If p in S, then there's some open U nhood p homeomorphic to an a nhood V of R^n about q, the image of pAs R^n is normal, we can 'nd a closed nhood K of q contained in V.Now the homeomorphic image of K is a closed Hausdorff nhood of p.Thus I hope I've shown S is locally closed Hausdoff, hence Hausdorff.- =>is there a non-Hausdorff space locally homeomorphic to R^n?> No. I use theorem> locally closed Hausdorff S ==> S HausdorffSo what do you do about the real line with double origin?(Quotient of R x {0,1} by the smallest equivalence ~with (x,0) ~ (x,1) for x =/= 0 ).-- Robin Chapman, www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.htmlNeedless to say, I had the last laugh. Alan Partridge, _Bouncing Back_ (14 times) =>is there a non-Hausdorff space locally homeomorphic to R^n?Sure thing. Look for a current thread which mentionsdoubling points in one of the posts (I think by (from approve@localhost) by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h973a2W15776; =I've been trying to 'nd a generalized (open) formula for the integral of x^x dx.....does anyone know if approve@localhost) by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h974dnb19740; =Can you construct a set E in [0, 1] s.t. for every open interval I in [0,1] m(I intersect E) > 0 & m(I intersect E^c) > 0 m is lebesgue measure E^c is the complement of E This is so tricky! I was thinking something with the generalized Cantor set but everything I'm trying isn't working. Any suggestions? Ideas? =>Can you construct a set E in [0, 1] s.t. for every open interval I in [0,1] m(I intersect E) > 0 & m(I intersect E^c) > 0 >m is lebesgue measure >E^c is the complement of E >This is so tricky! I was thinking something with the generalized Cantor set but everything I'm trying isn't working. Any suggestions? Ideas?I have previously posted an example of such a set, which isBorel measurable. Use the Cantor set idea, but with differentsized parts removed from the intervals still in, and added tothe intervals already removed. It can be done in terms of thedigits to any base.-- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these viewsare those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University => Can you construct a set E in [0, 1] s.t. for every open interval I in [0,1] m(I intersect E) > 0 & m(I intersect E^c) > 0 > m is lebesgue measure > E^c is the complement of E A doubt. You say the Lebesgue measure. Are you implying that theconstructed set must be Lebesgue measurable? Or the problem somehowgives us a notion that, even if the wording Lebesgue measure isreplaced by Lebesgue outer measure,it is impossible to 'nd aLebesgue immeasurable set satisfying the condition as the problemindicates?> This is so tricky! I was thinking something with the generalized Cantor set but everything I'm trying isn't working. Any suggestions? Ideas? =>> Can you construct a set E in [0, 1] s.t. for every open interval I in>[0,1] m(I intersect E) > 0 & m(I intersect E^c) > 0 >>> m is lebesgue measure >> E^c is the complement of E >A doubt. You say the Lebesgue measure. Are you implying that the>constructed set must be Lebesgue measurable? Or the problem somehow>gives us a notion that, even if the wording Lebesgue measure is>replaced by Lebesgue outer measure,it is impossible to 'nd a>Lebesgue immeasurable set satisfying the condition as the problem>indicates?By saying m(...) where m is Lebesgue measure, it's clearly asking formeasurable sets. As far as outer measure m^* is concerned, you can do a lot better: there is a (nonmeasurable) set E such that for every open interval I, m^*(E intersect I) = m(I) and m^*(E^c intersect I) = m(I).Robert Israel israel@math.ubc.caDepartment of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2 => Can you construct a set E in [0, 1] s.t. for every open interval I in [0,1] > m(I intersect E) > 0 & m(I intersect E^c) > 0 > m is lebesgue measure > E^c is the complement of E take away fat disjoint Cantor sets K1 and J1. Now from B2 (K1 U J1) take away fat disjoint Cantor sets K2 and J2. Continue, and set E = ... (If this is a homework problem and you use this hint, be sure to by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h97D3uP19205; = I studied an alternative set theory which dissolves Russel's Paradox. In this theory, it is possible to get good theorems of ordinal number. More description about the set theory is available on my home page. http://boat.zero.ad.jp/~zbi74583/another02.htm I appreciate any comment about it. --@ 1.Axiom of Free Class. @ A. ma [A]A[A]B[A]x[A]y A ma x &@B ma y & A=B -> x=y This axiom means that any Atsumari makes only one class. A. el x[A]A[A]B ([A]a a el A <-> a el B) -> A=B This axiom means that an Atsumari is decided by its members. A.F [E]x{E]B ([A}a a el B <-> F(a)) & B ma x This is the Schema of comprehention axioms. Where A,B,C,...are variables for Atsumari, which means collection or set or pile in Japanese. a,b,c,...are variables for Class, [A] means all, [E] means exist, [E]! means exist only one, ma means makes, el means element, -> means then, <-> means equivalent, V means or, & means and, Atsu is an abbreviation of Atsumari ~ means negation, {a,b,c} means the Atsu which has members a,b,c 2.What does Free Class mean? @ [E]B a el B & B ma b means a el b in ZF (TR) For example if {a,c} ma b & {x,y} ma b are true, then a el {a,c} & {a,c} ma b so [E]B a el B & B ma b it means a el b in ZF. FC ZF {a,c} ma b corresponds a el b, c el b {x,y} ma b x el b, y el b 3. Russel's class [A]a a el R <-> ~([E]B a el B & B ma a) The right side of formula means ~(a el a) in ZF. This Atsu R makes Russel's Class r, so R ma r. Let a=r then, r el R <-> ~([E]B r el B & B ma r) If r el R is true, considering that R ma r is also true,then [E]B r el B & B ma r is true, then right side of formula is false. This is a contradiction. So, the following formulas are gotten. ~(r el R), [E]B r el B & B ma r. This conclusion means that the diagonal logic was dissolved. So, it is possible to think that 2^aleph(0)=aleph(0).@ X-Cise: tanbanso@iinet.net.auX-CompuServe-Customer: YesX-Coriate: admin@interspeed.co.nzX-Ecrate: tanandtanlawyers.comX-Punge: Micro$oft = at 01:04 PM, zbi74583@boat.zero.ad.jp (Yasutoshi Kohmoto) said:> I studied an alternative set theory which dissolves Russel's>Paradox.There are many such. In what way is it more interesting or more usefulthan, e.g., GBN, ZFC?-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOATnot reply to => I studied an alternative set theory which dissolves Russel's Paradox.> In this theory, it is possible to get good theorems of ordinal number.> More description about the set theory is available on my home page> http://boat.zero.ad.jp/~zbi74583/another02.htm>> I appreciate any comment about it.>> .81@ 1.Axiom of Free Class.> .81@>Not using plain text in newsgroup makes reading dif'cult for somebrousers. For example what does ^A@ mean?> A. ma [A]A[A]B[A]x[A]y A ma x &.81@B ma y & A=B -> x=yWhat does that mean? A makes for all A, for all B, for all x, for all y A makes x and ?? B makes y and A = B implies x = yDon't understand. What do you mean by OA makes' ?> This axiom means that any Atsumari makes only one class.> A. el x[A]A[A]B ([A]a a el A <-> a el B) -> A=B> This axiom means that an Atsumari is decided by its members.> A.F [E]x{E]B ([A}a a el B <-> F(a)) & B ma x> This is the Schema of comprehention axioms.>> Where A,B,C,...are variables for Atsumari, which means collection or set or pile in Japanese.> a,b,c,...are variables for Class,> [A] means all, [E] means exist, [E]! means exist only one, ma means makes,> el means element, -> means then, <-> means equivalent,> V means or, & means and, Atsu is an abbreviation of Atsumari> ~ means negation, {a,b,c} means the Atsu which support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h97D48o19230; = I studied a generalized coloring problem. The ordinary coloring problem is de'ned as follows. @ @@Place different colors on two vertices which are next each other in a plane graph. @@How many colors are necessary and enough? @ @@And new coloring problem is the following. @ @@A de'nition @@D.1. @@Place different colors on two vertices which are near each other in a plane graph. @@How many colors are necessary and enough? @ @@The term near is de'ned as follows. @@For different two vertices a and b,@either condition 1. or 2. is 'lled. @@c.1. a is next of b @@c.2. There are three paths of length 2 between a and b. @ @@c.1 and c.2 is represented as (1,1) and (2,3) respectively. @ @@If G is a plane graph and @@if edges are added between all pairs of vertices which satisfy (2,3)@in G, @@then this graph is written as Near_2,3(G) @ @@New problem is also de'ned as follows. @ @@Another de'nition @@D.2. @@What is chr(Near_2,3(G))? @@@@ where chr(x) means the chromatic number of x. @ I proved a theorem as follows. [ The@@7 colors theorem. ] @@T.7C.@@7 colors are necessary and enough. More description about this problem is available on my HP. @ (from approve@localhost) by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h97D4OF19281; =By a stroke of luck, I managed to 'nd the missing piece to thepuzzle of how to solve the resolvent septic. So here is the complete solution:Given: x^8-x^7+29x^2+29 = 0Then,x1=(1+(a-b-c-d+e-f-g))/8x2=(1-(a-b-c-d-e+f+g))/8x3=(1-(a +b-c+d+e-f+g))/8x4=(1+(a+b-c+d-e+f-g))/8x5=(1-(a+b+c-d+e+f-g)) /8x6=(1+(a+b+c-d-e-f+g))/8x7=(1-(a-b+c+d-e-f-g))/8x8=(1+(a-b+c +d+e+f+g))/8where the 7 variables a,b,c,d,e,f,g are the SQUARE ROOTS (positive case) of 4v+1 and the v's are the roots of the septic:8903+47647v+39672v^2+7192v^3-522v^4-174v^5+v^7 = 0 (eq.3)with the solution:v=2(w^11+w^13+w^16+w^18)-2(w+w^12+w^17+w^28)-(w^2+w^5 +w^24+w^27)+(w^3+w^7+w^22+w^26)+(w^4+w^10+w^19+w^25)-(w^8+w^9+ w^20+w^21)where w is ANY complex root of unity <>1 such that w^29=1.Note: Though there would be 28 such roots, the properties of theseroots ensure that v will ONLY have 7 distinct values.I found the solution of v in Dave Rusin's website, and it's by P.Montgomery, though the solution wasn't used in the same way I usedit. Eq.3 wasn't explicitly mentioned there but when I used theInteger Relations applet for a particular v, eq.3 popped out. Itlooked familiar and I realized i saw it before while trying tosolve the resolvent (eq.2) of the prior post, namely:z^7-7z^6-2763z^5-19523z^4+1946979z^3+34928043z^2+ 119557031z-3247^2=0(eq.2)and by letting z=4v+1, we get the new septic:8903+47647v+39672v^2+7192v^3-522v^4-174v^5+v^7 = 0 (eq.3)So there it is. It's so nice to have completion. :)By the way, do SOME solvable 12-deg polys need an 11-deg by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h97D4L919274; => I have recently extended the Quaternions to larger sets by requiring>> some (new) group elements to commute. In doing so, I found this process>> and its results to be very asthetic. For one, the law of association is>> regained. However, the algebra involved is no longer a division algebra,>> i.e. we may not always follow x = 0 or y = 0 from xy=0 (when x and y are>> certain elements taken from a linear combination of group vectors).>...>> Has this type of thing been done before and are its conclusions of>> interest?>>It's obvious that there exist extensions of the quaternions H,>eg H + H (direct sum),>or algebras of matrices with quaternion elements.>>You'd have to say what properties your extension has>before anyone could say if it is of interest.>>I am neither refering to the ring of quaternion matrices nor to the >group>product... have sent you a copy of this work.>>My point was that you seemed surprised to 'nd that >there were algebras extending the quaternions,>and I noted that this wasn't too surprising.>>So the fact that you have constructed such an algebra>could not be considered interesting in itself -->any interest would have to lie in the special properties of the algebra.>-- >Timothy Murphy >tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366Absolutely no need to apologize for not having replied yet; it is good to know you recieved it, as I now asume to be the case. The group diagram picture I made on page 4 or 5 (I forgot) and its explanation in the text should tell a lot about the group's properties very quickly. By the way, the same process of extension (I call it re§ection) can be used again and again to create more group elements, presumably proceeding to higher dimensions in the process- but Im not quite sure if this is somehow equivilant or to the procedure for extending Clifford Algebras (or, indeed, if my group is perhaps a Clifford algebra in disguise. Admitted, I don't know enough about Clifford algebras at the momement and am currently checking this possibility myself). Note also that many types of groups can be re§ected, but this does not always give rise to a new group. For example, the trivial group {1,-1} does not change after re§ection (the complex trivial group {1,-1, i, -i} approve@localhost) by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h97E9gZ23741; =>Take a chessboard (with or without in'netely many squares) let the >distance d((x_1,x_2),(y_1,y_2)) between two squares x and y of the >chessboard be de'ned as the minimum number of moves a knight takes >to reach y from x. >Is d a metric? Not trying to suggest that this is some new>question that hasn't been asked/answered before. Is there a general >formula for calculating d? More generally, the same question may be >asked for the other pieces (queen, king, knight, biship)? Actually, I>asked myself this question a few years ago. If I remember back to the >notes I took, I had something like (x_1-y_1, x_2-y_2)= (even number, >even number), then d(x,y) = even number. If (x_1-y_1, x_2-y_2)= (even>number, odd number), then d(x,y) = odd number. Finally, if (x_1-y_1,>x_2-y_2)= (odd number, odd number), then d(x,y) = even number. In other words, the same rules for adding natural numbers...C.Dement =>Take a chessboard (with or without in'netely many squares) let the>distance d((x_1,x_2),(y_1,y_2)) between two squares x and y of the>chessboard be de'ned as the minimum number of moves a knight takes>to reach y from x.As others have pointed out, this obviously is a metric. As to the function (assume in'nite board):1) you undoubtedly know that the color of the square changes after each move, so you will need to separate into two cases according to the parity of x_1+x_2+y_1+y_2, and2) the sets of squares that can be reached in exactly one or exactly two moves have a special, slightly irregular structure, BUT3) for n>2, the set of squares that can be reached in exactly n moves has a very regular octagonal shape. DRAW IT!!!! (proof by induction)Item 1 and 3 gives you a rule to determine the distance, in the casethat it is at least 3. You only need to check, whether the distancemight be one or two.Jyrki Lahtonen, Turku, Finland =>Take a chessboard (with or without in'netely many squares) let the >distance d((x_1,x_2),(y_1,y_2)) between two squares x and y of the >chessboard be de'ned as the minimum number of moves a knight takes >to reach y from x. As far as I can see, this should give the distances (on an ordinarychessboard). The only exception I see is when your starting point O isat a corner, and you want to reach the next square on the diagonal.Then the distance is 4 and not 2.The paths are O -> P -> X -> A -> W -> S -> T.- - - - S W S W S W S T- - - - W A W A W S W S- - - - A W A W A W S W- - - - X A X A W A W SS X A X A X A X A W A WX A W P X P W A X A W S A W P X A X P X A W A WX A X A O A X A X A W SA X P X A X P X - - - -X A W P X P W A - - - -A X A X A X A X - - - -W A X A X A X A - - - -Karin =>Take a chessboard (with or without in'netely many squares) let the >distance d((x_1,x_2),(y_1,y_2)) between two squares x and y of the >chessboard be de'ned as the minimum number of moves a knight takes >to reach y from x. >Is d a metric? With this distance, the triangular equation is obviously true, and that makes it a metric. > Not trying to suggest that this is some new>question that hasn't been asked/answered before. Is there a general >formula for calculating d? More generally, the same question may be >asked for the other pieces (queen, king, knight, biship)? Actually, I>asked myself this question a few years ago. If I remember back to the >notes I took, I had something like (x_1-y_1, x_2-y_2)= (even number, >even number), then d(x,y) = even number. If (x_1-y_1, x_2-y_2)= (even>number, odd number), then d(x,y) = odd number. Finally, if (x_1-y_1,>x_2-y_2)= (odd number, odd number), then d(x,y) = even number. In other >words, the same rules for adding natural numbers...> support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h97E9jb23746; =>on comp.lang.c:>> Why is this being discussed in comp.lang.c???>>Obviously because IT IS FULL OF JEWS!!! Jews are taking over >comp.lang.c because their greedy grubby need to take over everything is >'nally seeping into the C language. Next thing you know they will be >trying to rewrite the standard. The entire reason for my low IQ and >inability to succeed in life can be attributed to jews. If it wasn't >for all the damn JEWS in science I wouldn't have to study! They keep >taking all the women too, being all nice and treating them with >respect and making me look like a complete ass. They took all the >jobs, now there is no point even looking for one. All I can do is sit >around all day 'lled with self pity and loathing for the damn JEWS who >did this to me. I hate my life and its all the fault of the Jew!> YOU are a total idiot.>>I thought he was being sarcastic.>>-- >/-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.helsinki.') | Kingpriest of The Flying Lemon Tree G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|>| http://www.helsinki.[Capi talThorn]/~ palaste W++ B OP+ |>-- Finland rules! />It sure is cool having money and chicks.> - Beavis and Butt-head If he was, then he is very bad at support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h97FaaV30213; => I have recently extended the Quaternions to larger sets by requiring> some (new) group elements to commute. In doing so, I found this process> and its results to be very asthetic. For one, the law of association is> regained. However, the algebra involved is no longer a division algebra,> i.e. we may not always follow x = 0 or y = 0 from xy=0 (when x and y are> certain elements taken from a linear combination of group vectors).>>...> Has this type of thing been done before and are its conclusions of> interest?>>It's obvious that there exist extensions of the quaternions H,>>eg H + H (direct sum),>>or algebras of matrices with quaternion elements.>>You'd have to say what properties your extension has>>before anyone could say if it is of interest.>>I am neither refering to the ring of quaternion matrices nor to the >group>>product... have sent you a copy of this work.>>My point was that you seemed surprised to 'nd that >>there were algebras extending the quaternions,>>and I noted that this wasn't too surprising.>>So the fact that you have constructed such an algebra>>could not be considered interesting in itself -->>any interest would have to lie in the special properties of the algebra.>>-- >>Timothy Murphy >>tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366>>Absolutely no need to apologize for not having replied yet; it is >good to know you recieved it, as I now asume to be the case. The >group diagram picture I made on page 4 or 5 (I forgot) and its >explanation in the text should tell a lot about the group's>properties very quickly. By the way, the same process of extension> (I call it re§ection) can be used again and again to create more> group elements, presumably proceeding to higher dimensions in the >process- but Im not quite sure if this is somehow equivilant or to >the procedure for extending Clifford Algebras (or, indeed, if my >group is perhaps a Clifford algebra in disguise. Admitted, I >don't know enough about Clifford algebras at the momement and am >currently checking this possibility myself). Note also that many >types of groups can be re§ected, but this does not always give rise >to a new group. For example, the trivial group {1,-1} does not change> after re§ection (the complex trivial [64.191.20.132]) by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) with ESMTP id local (Exim 4.24) id 1A6uP0-0003DA-6d =
 
IGDNYC




News Home

Detailed Statistics and Graphs
Average Prices By Neighborhood
    - Of'ce
    - Retail
    - Industrial
IGDNYC In The News
    - < FONT FACE=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica COLOR=Blue SIZE=1>Business Week

    - Daily Variety

    - The New York Sun

    As Manhattan of'ce retail and industrial vacancies continue to decline, landlords are starting to decrease the concession packages offered to tenants....







To add to our newsletter, please Go Here

To remove post-sci-math@mathforum.org from subsequent newsletters, please Go Here

height=1 width=1>
1841 Broadway, Suite 200, New York, NY COLOR=#000800 size=2>info.com

Home   |   Why Us?   |   Our Clients   |   Useful Information   |   Forms   |   News   |   Testimonials   |   Contact Us
(8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h97JmJl15824; =I know it is a bit stupid, but 1> how do you prove that a discrete topology is metrizable?2> X is an set of all positive integers and T={{},{1,2,3,4...},{2,3,4...},{3,4...},{4...},...} Why is +0300, I. V. Maresin As a topological space spacetime is metrizable, but one does not,> in general, look at any particular metric (in the topological sense)> on it.>> Why Severian thinks that this Hausdorf topology on Space-Time> is adequate to its physical sence and geometrical structure?>> I care nothing for physical sence (sic). All I was doing was pointing> out that the term metric was being used in two different ways> (like many words in mathematics).>> Do you mean as two ways:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::> ### (pseudo-)Riemann metric -- quadratic form> and> ### metric (distance)> ?>> Yes, they're different, but the 'rst is applicable only to manifolds.>> Yes, I know that, but the original poster was confused by these two> distinct concepts having the same word.> Of course the two concepts are related this way. So? The> original poster was talking about one version of metric> in terms of the de'nition of the other version - that's going> to cause confusion, regardless of the fact that the two> are related, so pointing out that they are two different> things seems concepts we are speaking?>>The original poster. In the original question. Where he said something>about metrics that applied to one version, then asked about what>he said in re an instance of the other version.>...And note how these concepts are related and how it can be applied to S.T.>>seems also a good idea...> More precisely:>> The standard topology of Euclidean space is induced by metric.>> You are failing to specify which usage of the term metric you are using> here.>>Directly, I used the metric (distance).>>But the Euclidean distance is a partial case of Riemann distance,>>so not important which I use distance or quadratic form.> The standard topology of Minkowski space isn't.>> Minkowski space is metrizable.>>He didn't say it _was_ metrizable by the Minkowski metric.>He said it was metrizable. It is.>>You said The standard topology of Euclidean space is induced >by metric. The standard topology of Minkowski space isn't.>We assumed that induced by metric meant induced by>some metric.>>What _did_ you mean by induced by metric??? If>induced by metric means induced by Minkowski>metric then the standard topology on euclidean>space is _not_ induced by metric...>You implicitly de'ned on it>>the standart (Hausdorf) topology of 'nite-dimension linear space>>and said that it's metrizable, as all 'nite-dimension linear spaces!>>Original question was NOT ABOUT SUCH TOPOLOGY,>>but IS Minkowski A METRIC on the Space-Time? .>>The answer is:>>_________________________________________________________ __________>>[ Minkowski metric on the Space Time ( dx0^2 -dx1^2 -dx2^2 -dx3^2 )>>[ not leads to any metric (distance function) in classical sence.>>That's correct. Several people have explained this already. Nobody has>disagreed with this.>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~> The standard topology of Euclidean space is> the only (non-trivial) topology invariant to motions (rotation, mirror, shift).>> Is it? Proof?>>Sorry, in general it isn't. I mistaken.>>It's true that any non-one-point and non-discrete invariant topology>>is identical to standard IN ANY BOUNDED DOMAIN,>>Say _exactly_ what this means (and give a hint of the proof.)>>Seriously, I cant 'gure out what it means. Because I can't>see what it means for a topology on a BOUNDED DOMAIN>to be invariant under shifts, for one thing. Nor under rotations,>unless it happens that the domain is invariant under rotations.>but at in'nity exist some different cases...>>Except standard topology, it may be some COMPACTIFIED topologies.>>One of them is like standard but accepts only bounded closed subsets>>(or, the same, only open subsets which are neighbourhoods of in'nity).>>Is there another cases, I don't know yet.>>I would ignore this fact a long time...> The standard topology of Minkowski space is invariant but not unique.>> In Euclidean case, all smooth maps from R to the Space are CONTINIOUS> and may represent a point trajectory in Newtonian mechanics.> In the Space-Time, all smooth maps R->M are continious (in std. top.),> but not all are physically allowed.>> physically allowed!>>This mean that the 4-speed is not space-like:>>( d x / d tau )^2 >= 0>>and that we have a correct time sign:>>( d x0 / d tau ) >= 0> What bullshit.>>*** Anecdote:>>enter expression: cos ( pi / 2 )>>Syntax error!>>enter expression: 1 * 0>>Syntax error!>>enter expression: 2 + 2>>Syntax error!>>enter expression: .8f.9b.90 .99.8c.89.8c>>.8f.9b.90 is not an argument!>>-->>qq~~~~>/ / > /_/ />> ____/> => I know it is a bit stupid, but> 1> how do you prove that a discrete topology is metrizable?Write down a metric for it :-)The simplest possible metric should give the discrete topology ...> 2> X is an set of all positive integers and> T={{},{1,2,3,4...},{2,3,4...},{3,4...},{4...},...} Why is (X,T) not> metrizable?Is it Hausdorff?-- Robin Chapman, www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.htmlNeedless to say, I had the last laugh. Alan Partridge, _Bouncing Back_ (14 support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h97JmW515882; =>>Take a chessboard (with or without in'netely many squares) let the >>distance d((x_1,x_2),(y_1,y_2)) between two squares x and y of the >>chessboard be de'ned as the minimum number of moves a knight takes >>to reach y from x. >>Is d a metric? Not trying to suggest that this is some new>>question that hasn't been asked/answered before. Is there a general >>formula for calculating d? More generally, the same question may be >>asked for the other pieces (queen, king, knight, biship)? Actually, I>>asked myself this question a few years ago. If I remember back to the >>notes I took, I had something like (x_1-y_1, x_2-y_2)= (even number, >>even number), then d(x,y) = even number. If (x_1-y_1, x_2-y_2)= (even>>number, odd number), then d(x,y) = odd number. Finally, if (x_1-y_1,>>x_2-y_2)= (odd number, odd number), then d(x,y) = even number. In other words, the same rules for adding natural numbers...>>C.Dement>Sorry for not quite completing the question above (even though, >perhaps, obvious):>Is d a metric over the product space of whole/natural numbers >(corresponding to two different cases of an in'nite chess board)>or the restriction of the product space of natural numbers to 64 support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h97JmTA15867; =A grammar would beS -> BaBB -> BBB -> aBbB -> bBaB -> lambdaI doubt there is a way to prove it, or 'nd a base case =>A grammar would be>>S -> BaB>>B -> BB>B -> aBb>B -> bBa>B -> lambda>I doubt there is a way to prove it, or 'nd a base caseIt's easy to see that B gives any string with the same numberof a's and b's, so we just need to show that if a string hasone more a's than b's it can be written as BaB.Say s is such a string, and say s[n] is the initial substringof s of length n. Now s = s[length(s)] has more a's thanb's, so there exists an n such that s[n] has this property.Let N be the _smallest_ n such that s[N] has more a'sthan b's. Then s[N-1] must have the same number of a's and b's and the N-th character must be a, approve@localhost) by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h97KV2u19406; =It is possible prove the Ternary Goldbach Conjecture (TGC) and the Twin Prime Conjecture (TPC) are true, if the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis (GRH) is true.Seehttp://www.ams.org/era/1997-03-15/S1079-6762-97-00031- 0/S1079-6762-97-00031-0.pdffor the proof of GRH-->TGC. Is there a similar paper for the converse? If the TGC or TPC is true then, the GRH or (RH) is true. My question is can either of the following be proved?TGC-->GRH orTPC-->GRHJohn Washburn => It is possible prove the Ternary Goldbach Conjecture (TGC) and the Twin Prime > Conjecture (TPC) are true, if the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis (GRH) is > true.GRH implies twin primes? News to me. > Is there a similar paper for the converse? If the TGC or TPC is true then, > the GRH or (RH) is true. Not to my knowledge.-- =>Suppose I want a Olarge' computably enumerable collection of functions>f_i : N --> N with the following properties:>1. Each primitive recursive function is included.>2. Each f_i is total by construction.>3. Given i and n in N, there is a computable function time: N x N -->>N which tells me that the value of f_i(n) will take at most time(i,n)>to compute by a turing machine or equivalent.>[OTake as long as you want, but PLEASE tell me when you will be>done!']>4. The function time is computable in OAckermann + constant' time,>or at least it's behavior is boundedly nasty in some sense. :)There was a paper 40 years ago somewhat along these lines. Ifyou want to be able to predict how long a computation will take,then you have severely restricted the class of functions. Hereis the reference: Robert W. Ritchie Classes of predictably computable functions Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 106 (1963), pp. 139-173It might help.--Herb Enderton => I took a class in basic foundations and computability last year, but> there is a question that has been bothering me.>> Suppose I want a Olarge' computably enumerable collection of functions> f_i : N --> N with the following properties:> 1. Each primitive recursive function is included.> 2. Each f_i is total by construction.> 3. Given i and n in N, there is a computable function time: N x N -->> N which tells me that the value of f_i(n) will take at most time(i,n)> to compute by a turing machine or equivalent.> [OTake as long as you want, but PLEASE tell me when you will be> done!']> 4. The function time is computable in OAckermann + constant' time,> or at least it's behavior is boundedly nasty in some sense. :)>> I feel rather queasy about the prospects for this, but it has been> bothering me for too long. The basic theme is this: I want to know> worst case scenario computation time. Will I not get much besides> primitive recursive functions?>> Rex Butler>> PS I've heard the term Ostrongly computable.' Is this related?Its 10 lines of code (actually a 5 state Turing Machine) and there is noproof if it terminates. Only 10 lines and no value for f_i.In theory your class could be all well de'ned and well behaved functions,but in practice they will only be trivial.Say you are nesting loops, then the invariants at each level would have tobe combined into parallel equations, you have to solve all enumerationsof possible equations, and show they are satis'ed for each loop to terminate.Even then the class of functions has no scope, here is a tiny 3 state TMenough but how do you categorise what function it is? ~ binary counter.Herc =Gauss-Jordan elimination. I know text books are constantly usingone-way traf'c §ow analysis and such, and I really enjoyed thissubject. However, I am taking a technical writing class and wanted todo a paper on using gauss-jordan elimination to solve real worldproblems....The problem is I can't 'nd any resources for my research. Any help would be greatly appreciated.Keith => Gauss-Jordan elimination. I know text books are constantly using> one-way traf'c §ow analysis and such, and I really enjoyed this> subject.I think you are asking when might one use numerical methods tosolve large systems of linear equations.One application is in economic planning using Leontief input-outputplanning. I actually read a science 'ction novel last week jokedabout this application.I have Gauss-Jordan elimination built into my applet for LinearProgramming mentioned in my sig. LPs have a wide variety ofapplications.-- Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/ Bukharin.html To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.htmlr c A game: .../Keynes.html v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth e a e of a man is a question 't perhaps to be discussed by n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly @ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of d o the truth. -- Rousseau =>The peephole you view your world through is very narrow, Longley.>There are many here who think the following matters are the crux of>building AI's:>>How do you recognize what you see? >How do you know how to move your arm? >How do you choose which words to say?>How do you understand what they mean? >How does commonsense reasoning work?> Stop misquoting Lennon & McCartney!> how do you recognize just what you've seen? > i can't tell you but i know it's mine> how do you know how to move your own arm? > i get by with a little help from my friends> how do you choose which big words to say?> lend me your ears and i'll sing you a song> how do you understand what they mean? > i try not to sing out of key > does commonsense reasoning work?> yes i'm certain that it happens all the time> oh building AIs with a little help from my friends> Brilliant, Lisa - I hope the originator of the quotes I gave can makeuse of your added insights. > * * *> weary with foils, i fall into my bed> and sought some rest for limbs with dust attired,> but there began a trial in my head> to obsess, when body's overtired:> my thoughts then race, unlike their daily pace> when they escape and leave me little grace;> for verbal slings and arrows of bon mots> i am left gawking bereft of ripostes.> look in darkness on what might have been said> had i the wits to speak as those admired:> rejoinders, like galaxies, hang in space> and taunt me in my unrestful repose.> this sort of pesky followup is never very far> when you keep sending crosspostings to here, talk dot bizarre.> .> . thank you thank you i'll be here at dogberry's fencing school all weekendWhy this thread was x-posted to the other forums, I don't know - butthere's clearly a lot more humor on t.dot.b than on c.a.p. - bon mots,rather than non bots [... had i the wits ...]. So, I shall assumeCyrano is the patron saint of t.dot.b. =are the limit points of Q exactly R?well, I know this is true, and I can prove it. the reason i ask thoughis because i doubt myself on this.let (xn) be a sequence in the set of all rationals 0<=p<=1. Further,suppose xn is an enumeration of the rationals between 0 and 1. i thinkthat all rationals between 0 and 1 are cluster points of xn, mainlybecause all are limit points. i could also work it from the de'nitionsince a rational lies between any two rationals, but i starteddoubting myself for some reason.can someone tell me if I am wrong about anything in the above? =It actually depends on the valuation you are using. If your valuationis the normal absolute value, then you are correct. But know that foreach prime there exists a valuation called the p-adic valuatian, andin these cases your question can't even be asked. =Sure the question can be asked, it just that the larger 'eld isn't R,it's the p-adic rationals Q_p. And indeed, Q is dense in Q_p withrespect to the p-adic absolute value.Actually, if you de'ne R to be the (unique up to isomorphism)completion of Q with respect to the usual absolute value, then it'spretty immediate that Q is dense in R, and ditto Q being dense in Q_p.More generally, if K is any 'eld and |x| is an absolute value of K,then there is a unique (up to isomorphism) smallest 'eld L containingK with the properties that |x| extends to an absolute value on L and Lis complete wrt this absolute value. Then one can prove that K isdense in L. An interesting example if K = R(X), the 'eld of rationalfunctions with real coef'cients, and the absolute value is |f(x)| =e^{-deg(f)}. The completion of K is often denoted L = R((X)), it's the'eld of formal (i.e., not necessarily convergent) Laurant series.> It actually depends on the valuation you are using. If your valuation> is the normal absolute value, then you are correct. But know that for> each prime there exists a valuation called the p-adic valuatian, and> in these cases your question can't even be asked. => are the limit points of Q exactly R?>Yes. As every open interval about any r in R contains numerous rationalsother than r, r is a limit point of Q.If you want to construct a sequence in Q with limit r.For each integer n > 0, let I_n = (r - 1/n, r + 1/n)and pick a rational q_n in I_n(If r is a rational, pick q_n so it isn't r.)To conclude, show lim(n->oo) q_n = r> well, I know this is true, and I can prove it. the reason i ask though> is because i doubt myself on this.>> let (xn) be a sequence in the set of all rationals 0<=p<=1. Further,> suppose xn is an enumeration of the rationals between 0 and 1. i think> that all rationals between 0 and 1 are cluster points of xn, mainly> because all are limit points. i could also work it from the de'nition> since a rational lies between any two rationals, but i started> doubting myself for some reason.>That is correct, every rational is a cluster point of an enumeration ofthe rationals. How is that used to show the limit points of Q are R?> can someone tell me if I am wrong about anything in the above?> => are the limit points of Q exactly R?> well, I know this is true, and I can prove it. the reason i ask though> is because i doubt myself on this.> let (xn) be a sequence in the set of all rationals 0<=p<=1. Further,> suppose xn is an enumeration of the rationals between 0 and 1. i think> that all rationals between 0 and 1 are cluster points of xn, mainly> because all are limit points. i could also work it from the de'nition> since a rational lies between any two rationals, but i started> doubting myself for some reason.> can someone tell me if I am wrong about anything in the above?Yes: you are wrong to doubt yourself.-- =i'm extremely confused as to how to change the system of ode's into amatrix version.let's say you have the the lorenz system. { x'[t] = - a*y[t] - a*z[t], y'[t] = r*x[t] + y[t] - x[t]*z[t] , z'[t] = x[t]*y[t]- b*z[t]}where a, r, b, are constants, how do i represent the above as a matrix differential equationssystem?and then 'nd the eigenvalues and so on. any => i'm extremely confused as to how to change the system of ode's into a> matrix version.> let's say you have the the lorenz system. > > { x'[t] = - a*y[t] - a*z[t],> y'[t] = r*x[t] + y[t] - x[t]*z[t] ,> z'[t] = x[t]*y[t]- b*z[t]}> where a, r, b, are constants, > how do i represent the above as a matrix differential equations> system?> and then 'nd the eigenvalues and so on. > You want to write [x y z]^T as a column vector: [ x ] X = [ y ] [ z ]and then express the system of DEs as follows: X' = AXwhere A is some 3x3 matrix.Since the ith row of the product AX is the product of the ithrow of the matrix A with the single column of X, and since theindividual equations are sums of (something) times (x,y,z) invarious combinations, what you try to do is to populate thematrix A with suitable coef'cients that make that happen.For instance, x' = -a y - a zcan be written as follows: [ x ] x' = [0 -a -a] [ y ] [ z ]Note how the coef'cient of x (namely, 0) got put into thex position, the coef'cient of y (that is, -a), and thecoef'cient of z (again -a), were placed into the y and zpositions, respectively, of the row vector.The equations for y' and z' are not remarkably different,except for the fact that you can't use constant coef'cients,but then this isn't a DE with constant coef'cients.Once you have each DE written in this form: x_i = R_i*Xwith a row vector R_i, then put them together to build thematrix A, mentioned earlier, john = ... stuff deleted ...Some stuff, with a badly-spaced equation:> For instance,> x' = -a y - a z> can be written as follows:> [ x ]> x' = [0 -a -a] [ y ]> [ z ]> I just have to 'x the spacing here. Won't be a minute. [ x ] x' = [0 -a -a] [ y ] [ z ] Let's see whether that works.> Dale.> ... that's it, I guess ...> Dale =The inertia of a slowly moving object; body or mass of material substancewill increase, or decrease; in proportion to an increase, or decrease in itsspeed, will it not?Can this be plotted as a component of its motion? Maybe called its momentum,or impetus?If so, what would this component look like for a body moving tranverselyacross a slope? =I would greatly appreciate some comments upon the correctness of theassertion about the following equation (1) under the given conditions. y = (a^m + b^m)(a^m - b^m) (1)Conditions: (y, a, b ) = 1; m is a non-integer > 0; prime p > 3.Assertion: If y is a p-th power then both a^m + b^m and a^m - b^mseparately be p-th power. => I would greatly appreciate some comments upon the correctness of the> assertion about the following equation (1) under the given conditions.>> y = (a^m + b^m)(a^m - b^m) (1)>> Conditions: (y, a, b ) = 1; m is a non-integer > 0; prime p > 3.>> Assertion: If y is a p-th power then both a^m + b^m and a^m - b^m> separately be p-th power.It all depends on what you mean by (y, a, b) = 1. Without any context to goby, I'd interpret it to be y=a=b=1, in which case the assertion is true,since whenever lhs (=1) = rhs (=0), anything at all is true. Of course, Icould be misinterpreting the symbols. Why phil@nonospaz.fatphil.org => I would greatly appreciate some comments upon the correctness of the> assertion about the following equation (1) under the given conditions.> y = (a^m + b^m)(a^m - b^m) (1)> Conditions: (y, a, b ) = 1; m is a non-integer > 0; prime p > 3.> Assertion: If y is a p-th power then both a^m + b^m and a^m - b^m> separately be p-th power.If you're happy with 1^p being a p-th power, then the 'rst half of your assertion is unnecessary. If you want the unit to not bedescribed as a p-th power, then your assertion is vacuously true.And what algebraic structure are you working in? I see no reason to not assume you're working in C, and therefore every number is a p-th power.Phil => I would greatly appreciate some comments upon the correctness of the> assertion about the following equation (1) under the given conditions.> y = (a^m + b^m)(a^m - b^m) (1)> Conditions: (y, a, b ) = 1; m is a non-integer > 0; prime p > 3.> Assertion: If y is a p-th power then both a^m + b^m and a^m - b^m> separately be p-th power.Huh? If m is a non-integer then it seems unlikely to me that a^m + b^m will be an integer. In jonam@buffalo.edu =Can the Riemann-Zeta Hypothesis possibly be explained to a math majorwho has only just begun to study Real Analysis? What is thesigni'cance of zero solutions lying on a critical line? And whatsubstantial mathematical theorems are dependent on a hypothesis thathas yet to be proven?I feel like a twelve year old lea'ng through Wiles' proof of Fermat'sLast Theorem.Xevious => Can the Riemann-Zeta Hypothesis possibly be explained to a math major> who has only just begun to study Real Analysis? What is the> signi'cance of zero solutions lying on a critical line? And what> substantial mathematical theorems are dependent on a hypothesis that> has yet to be proven?> I feel like a twelve year old lea'ng through Wiles' proof of Fermat's> Last Theorem.Interestingly, there are no fewer than four recent pop bookson the Riemann Hypothesis. (Probably because of itsappearance on the Clay Mathematics Institute list of problems.)One sees: Derbyshire, Prime Obsession du Sautoy, The Music of the Primes Sabbagh, The Riemann Hypothesis Edwards, Riemann's Zeta FunctionI've read only Derbyshire and du Sautoy, anddespite the fact that Derbyshire is a journalist and columnist,he illustrates (not proves) more math than du Sautoy,who teaches math at Oxford (though he is a journalisttoo). Both of these have a (fairly consistent) accountof the history, but Debyshire spends more time ingiving a taste of complex analysis, while du Sautoyis broader in his approach to the story parts, especiallymore recent stuff. Dennis => Interestingly, there are no fewer than four recent pop books> on the Riemann Hypothesis. (Probably because of its> appearance on the Clay Mathematics Institute list of problems.)> One sees:> Derbyshire, Prime Obsession> du Sautoy, The Music of the Primes> Sabbagh, The Riemann Hypothesis> Edwards, Riemann's Zeta FunctionWhatever your concept of pop book is, it certainly does not applyto Edwards' book. Besides, it is not recent, since it was originallypublished in 1974.Jose Carlos Santos => Xevious wonders in message > Can the Riemann-Zeta Hypothesis possibly be explained to a math major> who has only just begun to study Real Analysis? What is the> signi'cance of zero solutions lying on a critical line? And what> substantial mathematical theorems are dependent on a hypothesis that> has yet to be proven?> Interestingly, there are no fewer than four recent pop books> on the Riemann Hypothesis. (Probably because of its> appearance on the Clay Mathematics Institute list of problems.)> One sees:> Derbyshire, Prime Obsession> du Sautoy, The Music of the Primes> Sabbagh, The Riemann Hypothesis> Edwards, Riemann's Zeta FunctionAnother book that deserves mention here is Julian Havil's book, Gamma. It's about Euler's constant, gamma, but it gets around to some useful material on the zeta function. I think all of these books are reviewed on the MAA website so you can see another opinion before you jump in. Executive summary: the zeta function can be thougnt of as a generating function for the primes. Anything we learn about the zeros of zeta has immediate implications for the distribution of the primes. Just about any quantitative question about prime numbers, or things that depend on prime numbers like divisors, can be answered more precisely the more we know about the zeros of zeta.-- => Is there any algorithm to calculate the deep holes of leech lattice?> Yes, it's not hard to 'nd one that calculates all holes of any lattice.Could you please tell me the method? I probably don't need all the deep holes> Any software can do that? I tried MAGMA but MAGMA gave no result> > I'm sure that on a lattice as complicated as Leech any known> algorithm would be totally intractible.> I read SPLAG however I am not clear about it> Pity.> I wanna have the whole collection of leech lattice deep holes> is the best account you're going to 'nd. Finding> the Leech lattice holes was a major piece of research. Although> 'nding holes is a computable problem, just running some> general-purpose algorithm on Leech would take too much time. =>>> Is there any algorithm to calculate the deep holes of leech lattice?>> >> Yes, it's not hard to 'nd one that calculates all holes of any lattice.> Could you please tell me the method? I probably don't need all the deepSimple but impractical algorithm.Each hole is the circumcentre of some n-simplex with vertices inthe lattice L (of rank n). To 'nd all holes then 'nd all curcumcentres of n-simplices with verticesin L.Problem: in'nitely many of them!Resolution: really only want to 'nd those in a fundamentalparallelotope. If this has diameter D, then only need to considervertices distance <= 2D from origin. Now 'nite problem.Simple, but hopeless in practice.-- Robin Chapman, www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.htmlNeedless to say, I had the last laugh. Alan Partridge, _Bouncing Back_ (14 times) =lim n->oo ((sum n)^n - sum(n^n)) / n!^2 = 1(sum n)^n - sum(n^n) = n! ^2(sum n)^n = sum(n^n) + n! ^2((n^2+n)/2)^n = sum(n^n) + n! ^2(n^2+n)^n = 2^n ( sum (n^n) + n! ^2 )n^n (n+1)^n = 2^n ( sum (n^n) + n! ^2 )The sum of the integers from {1, 2, ..., n ,...} to the n'th power,(1+2+...+n+...)^n is greater than the sum of the numbers of the n'thpower {1^n, 2^n, 3^n, ..., n^n, ...}, (1^n + 2^n + ... + n^n + ... ). Their difference is the square of the factorial of n: 1^2 2^2 ...(n-1)^2 n^2 .... That is to say, lim n->oo ((sum n)^n - sum(n^n)) /n!^2 = 1.Stirling's approximation for n! is as so:lim n->oo ( n! e^n ) / ( n^n sqrt(2pi n) ) = 1Thusly:lim n->oo ( (sum n)^n - sum(n^n) ) e^2n / ( n^2n 2 pi n) ) = 1lim n->oo ( (n+1)^n - ( sum(n^n) / n^n ) ) e^2n / (2^n n^n 2pi n ) =1lim n->oo ( (n+1)^n - (sum(n^n)/n^n) ) e^2n / ( 2^(n+1) n^(n+1) pi) =1As described earlier in this thread, other equations describe n! inthe limit. Euler lived in the 1700's. Euler did some amazing work.I wonder if there is a closed for sum(n^n). There are closed formsfor sum(n^x), they are de'ned in terms of Bernoulli polynomials thecoef'cients of which are generated by recurrence relation.For small values of n, sum(n^n):n = 1, sum (n^n) = 1n = 2, sum (n^n) = 5n = 3, sum (n^n) = 36n = 4, sum (n^n) = 354n = 5, sum (n^n) = 4425With (sum n)^n:n = 1, (sum n)^n = 1n = 2, (sum n)^n = 9n = 3, (sum n)^n = 216n = 4, (sum n)^n = 10000n = 5, (sum n)^n = 759375With n! ^2:n = 1, n! ^2 = 1n = 2, n! ^2 = 4n = 3, n! ^2 = 36n = 4, n! ^2 = 576n = 5, n! ^2 = 14400It appears that as n diverges that (sum n)^n - sum (n^n) ~= (sum n)^n,yet it is of course less than (sum n)^n, and it appears to be n! ^2.I guess I should start calculating ((sum n)^n - sum (n^n)) / n!^2 forsmall and increasing values of n and see if it holds true that ittends towards unity.I read Richmond and Merlini's paper, as mentioned earlier, aboutgeneralizations of Stirling cycle numbers [ n x ] to complexarguments where n-x is an integer, and don't understand it but itlooks interesting. I'm more interested currently in 'nding closedform solutions for [ n+1 n-x+1 ], or rather |s(n+1, n-x+1)|, toevaluate (n+1)(n+2)...(n+n), in the strange case of the reformulatedGamma function.Ross =I got to thinking about sum 2^n and how it was equal to 2^(x+1) - 1. I wonder: does it work for 3? The answer is not quite, no.For example sum 3^0 = 1, 3^1-1= 2* sum 3^0, 3-1=2*1, sum 3^1 = 4,4*2=10-2. Anyways here is a short list of values of sum(3^n):1 = 3^04 = 3^0 + 3^113 = 3^0 + 3^1 + 3^240 = 3^0 + 3^1 + 3^2 + 3^3121 = 3^0 + 3^1 + 3^2 + 3^3 + 3^4and values of 3^n:3 = 2*1+19 = 2*4+127 = 2*13+181 = 2*40+1Thus it appears that the sum of 3^i for i from zero to n is(3^(n+1)-1) / 2For sum 4^n:1521853414^n:1416642561024It appears that sum ((4^n) = 4^(n+1) - 1 ) / 3.I would thus surmise that sum(x^n) = x^(n+1)-1)/(x-1), the sum of x^ifor i=1 to n equal (x^(n+1)-1)/(x-1). Where should I look to 'nd aproof of this, so I don't have to write one, and that I can read thesurrounding material to which it refers to gain understanding of itsconcept?This doesn't help me solve sum(n^x), because that is the sum of i^xfor i=1 to n, the closed form of that quantity is determined as hasbeen noted by the Bernoulli polynomials, sum of powers.I guess after that would be sum(n^n). Anyways in the limit n! = sqrt(sum(n)^n - sum(n^n) ), another in the long list of approximations ofn!.Ross => I got to thinking about sum 2^n and how it was equal to 2^(x+1) - 1. > I wonder: does it work for 3? The answer is not quite, no.Look up geometric series. If you must reinvent the wheel, you need not do in so publicly. => I got to thinking about sum 2^n and how it was equal to 2^(x+1) - 1. > I wonder: does it work for 3? The answer is not quite, no.> Look up geometric series. > If you must reinvent the wheel, you need not do in so publicly.I guess it's kind of like how the sum for i=1 to oo of b^-i is1/(b-1).The concept here is the repeated unit, the rep-unit, in base b. Thesum for i=1 to n of b^i is the sequence 1_n 1_(n-1) ... 1_2 1_1, asequence of 1's of length n representing an integer in base b. Thenb^(n+1)-1 is a sequence of n many (b-1)'s in base b: (b-1)_n(b-1)_(n-1) ... (b-1)_2 (b-1)_1, dividing that by (b-1) has as aresult the rep-unit of length n.In summing the negative integers powers of an integer, it is similar,represent the number in that base so that the sum is simply .1111.... If you multiply that by (b-1) then the result is .(b-1) (b-1) (b-1)(b-1) ... = 1.These are well-known and almost trivial, for example, the sum for i=1to in'nity of 1/25000^i is 1/24999, 1/9 in decimal is .1111...,etcetera. I assume that for real x>1 that the sum of x^-i for i from1 to oo is 1/(x-1).I will research geometric series. I'm not here to reinvent the wheel,but it damn well better let me say that half the integers are even, asthey are as the asymptotic density of the even numbers in the integersis one half.What do you think about the canonicalization of the in'nite binarysequences? That is to say, for the sequence .010101(01)... with halfzeroes and half ones, that you could exchange any two sequenceelements any number of times and not get .001001001(001).... Is therea rule to exchange (permute) the elements of the sequence .0101(01)...to get 00010001(0001)...?Ross => I will research geometric series. I'm not here to reinvent the wheel,> but it damn well better let me say that half the integers are even, as> they are as the asymptotic density of the even numbers in the integers> is one half.Doing any sort of research in mathematics with a 'xed idea of what you will allow yourself to 'nd is not really a good idea.> What do you think about the canonicalization of the in'nite binary> sequences? That is to say, for the sequence .010101(01)... with half> zeroes and half ones, that you could exchange any two sequence> elements any number of times and not get .001001001(001).... Is there> a rule to exchange (permute) the elements of the sequence .0101(01)...> to get 00010001(0001)...?It depends on what you consider an allowable permutation.The most general form of such permutation can be considered as follows.Let N be the set of positive integers, then any in'nite binary sequence can be uniquely represented by a functions f:N -> {0,1} in which f(k) is the k'th digit of the sequence. Let B be the set of such functions f:N -> {0,1}.Then any bijection g:N <-> N creates a permutation G: B -> B by de'ning G(f) = fog, where o represents function composition, G(f) is the function whose valueat k in N is f(g(k),i.e., G(f)(k) = f(g(k)), for each k in N.Let P represent the set of all such permutations, It is clear that the number of zeros and number of ones in an expansion must remain 'xed under any such permutation of digits.Then, for a given f:N -> {0,1} and h:N -> {0,1} in B, a necessary and suf'cient condition for there being some permutation G in P such that G(f) = h is that card(k in N: f(k) = 0}) = card(k in N: h(k) = 0}) and card(k in N: f(k) = 1}) = card(k in N: h(k) = 1})i.e., the in'nite binary sequences for f and h have the same number, possibly in'nite, of zeros and the same number, possibly in'nite, of ones, and only one of these can be 'nite.But if the number of zeros or the number of ones differ, then there is no permutation carrying one into the other.This divides up the set B into equivalence classes of binaries permutable into each other which can be indexed by the integers, Z. Any two such binaries with in'nitely many zeros and in'nitely many ones in their expansions can be permuted into each other, and can be indexed by 0. If the number of ones is 'nite, use that number as index, and if the number of zeros is 'nite use the negative of that number as index.Then two binaries can be permuted into each other if and only if they have the same index. => I will research geometric series. I'm not here to reinvent the wheel,> but it damn well better let me say that half the integers are even, as> they are as the asymptotic density of the even numbers in the integers> is one half.> Doing any sort of research in mathematics with a 'xed idea of what > you will allow yourself to 'nd is not really a good idea.> What do you think about the canonicalization of the in'nite binary> sequences? That is to say, for the sequence .010101(01)... with half> zeroes and half ones, that you could exchange any two sequence> elements any number of times and not get .001001001(001).... Is there> a rule to exchange (permute) the elements of the sequence .0101(01)...> to get 00010001(0001)...?> It depends on what you consider an allowable permutation.> The most general form of such permutation can be considered as > follows.> Let N be the set of positive integers, then any in'nite binary > sequence can be uniquely represented by a functions f:N -> {0,1} in > which f(k) is the k'th digit of the sequence. > Let B be the set of such functions f:N -> {0,1}.> Then any bijection g:N <-> N creates a permutation G: B -> B by > de'ning G(f) = fog, where o represents function composition, G(f) > is the function whose valueat k in N is f(g(k),> i.e., G(f)(k) = f(g(k)), for each k in N.> Let P represent the set of all such permutations, It is clear that > the number of zeros and number of ones in an expansion must > remain 'xed under any such permutation of digits.> Then, for a given f:N -> {0,1} and h:N -> {0,1} in B, a necessary > and suf'cient condition for there being some permutation G in P > such that G(f) = h is that > card(k in N: f(k) = 0}) = card(k in N: h(k) = 0}) and > card(k in N: f(k) = 1}) = card(k in N: h(k) = 1})> i.e., the in'nite binary sequences for f and h have the same > number, possibly in'nite, of zeros and the same number, possibly > in'nite, of ones, and only one of these can be 'nite.> But if the number of zeros or the number of ones differ, then there > is no permutation carrying one into the other.> This divides up the set B into equivalence classes of binaries > permutable into each other which can be indexed by the integers, Z. > Any two such binaries with in'nitely many zeros and in'nitely many > ones in their expansions can be permuted into each other, and can be > indexed by 0. If the number of ones is 'nite, use that number as > index, and if the number of zeros is 'nite use the negative of that > number as index.> Then two binaries can be permuted into each other if and only if > they have the same index.B is the set of functions f(n) -> {0,1}, n E N. There are uncountablymany such functions, each represents a subset of N elements or adistinct element of R[0,1) with no dual representation.I consider .00010001(0001)... as an in'nite sequence and how topermute its elements to get .01010101(0101).... It seems almostsimple, move the 1 in the fourth place to the second place, and moveeach one in the 4x'th place for x>1 to the 4(x-1)'th place. There'scertainly no dearth of ones and zeros, the amount of each isin'nite. Yet, the zero that was in the second place would have to gosomewhere, and necessarily displace another.It's easy to describe a canonical sequence relative amounts of zerosand ones. pick a fraction p/q less than one, p and q positive, p B_(p/q+-x) < B, because g is a bijection. For example it doesn't permutethe sequence of all ones to the one of all zeros.For example .0101(01)... permutes to .1001(01)... but not to.001001(001).... How does it permute to .0001(01)...? I can easilydetermine a bijective function from {1, 3, 5, ...} to {3, 5, ...}, andfrom {0, 2, 4, ...} to {0, 1, 2, 4, ...}. Changing the second elementfrom a one to a zero means that somewhere a zero has to be changedinto a one. It could be put off inde'nitely but that necessarilyimplies that some subsequence 01 would be changed to 11.I focus upon necessary and suf'cient condition. I can agree thatit is a necessary condition for there to be the permutation, yet, notthat it is a suf'cient condition. I wonder what you mean byallowable.The sequences .(01)... and .(10)..., for half zeros and half ones, areperhaps the simplest cases with in'nite numbers of ones and zeros toconsider. Exchange each one and zero of the representativesubsequence and it becomes the other.Consider .100..., it can't be permuted to .000.... For the samereason, (01)... can't be permuted to 00(01).... If you change thevalue of one symbol, you have to change the value of an occurrence ofthe opposite symbol, they exchange.It's simple to get an extra symbol out of the sequence to replace itsopposite, the problem is putting it away, it also has to replace itsopposite.01010101.... ^00010101...^^^ ^ ^ ...10010101...01010101...00110101...00011101...0001011101... The 'rst sequence has it's second element changed to its opposite. The second sequence is required to change one of its marked symbols toits opposite.Perhaps it's a specialization of permutation. The sequence is onlychanged by exchanging any of its elements any number of times, thevalue of a symbol is not changed without changing an occurrence of itsopposite symbol.It's not possible to permute in this way 001(001)... to 011(011).... One way to see this is that there are sequence z_1=00... , z_2=00...,and o_1=11.... Take the 'rst element from each then the second,etcetera: 001(001).... If you want to form 011 then it is a matterof taking the 'rst element of z_1, then two elements of o_1 then anelement of z_2 (to keep it even), then two more elements of o_1,etcetera. The amount taken from o_1 to form the sequence (011) fromthe constituent sequences of (001) rises steadily and never returns toa par of those taken from z_1 and z_2. On the other hand, forming asequence like 111111000000000000(001) does.Given instructions: form a sequence of in'nitely many ones andin'nitely many zeros, there are many ways to describe a rule ormethod to do that. Given instructions: given a sequence within'nitely many ones and in'nitely many zeros, exchange its elementsto form another sequence, there are less sequences.Randomly and fairly (uniformly) select a subset of the naturalnumbers, there are even odds it contains zero. Half the subsets of Ncontain zero.Is there a rational function for x=4?Ross => What do you think about the canonicalization of the in'nite binary> sequences? That is to say, for the sequence .010101(01)... with half> zeroes and half ones, that you could exchange any two sequence> elements any number of times and not get .001001001(001).... Is there> a rule to exchange (permute) the elements of the sequence .0101(01)...> to get 00010001(0001)...?Yes, in the sense described below.> It depends on what you consider an allowable permutation.> The most general form of such permutation can be considered as > follows.> Let N be the set of positive integers, then any in'nite binary > sequence can be uniquely represented by a functions f:N -> {0,1} in > which f(k) is the k'th digit of the sequence. > Let B be the set of such functions f:N -> {0,1}.> Then any bijection g:N <-> N creates a permutation G: B -> B by > de'ning G(f) = fog, where o represents function composition, G(f) > is the function whose valueat k in N is f(g(k),> i.e., G(f)(k) = f(g(k)), for each k in N.> Let P represent the set of all such permutations, It is clear that > the number of zeros and number of ones in an expansion must > remain 'xed under any such permutation of digits.> Then, for a given f:N -> {0,1} and h:N -> {0,1} in B, a necessary > and suf'cient condition for there being some permutation G in P > such that G(f) = h is that > card(k in N: f(k) = 0}) = card(k in N: h(k) = 0}) and > card(k in N: f(k) = 1}) = card(k in N: h(k) = 1})> i.e., the in'nite binary sequences for f and h have the same > number, possibly in'nite, of zeros and the same number, possibly > in'nite, of ones, and only one of these can be 'nite.> But if the number of zeros or the number of ones differ, then there > is no permutation carrying one into the other.> This divides up the set B into equivalence classes of binaries > permutable into each other which can be indexed by the integers, Z. > Any two such binaries with in'nitely many zeros and in'nitely many > ones in their expansions can be permuted into each other, and can be > indexed by 0. If the number of ones is 'nite, use that number as > index, and if the number of zeros is 'nite use the negative of that > number as index.> Then two binaries can be permuted into each other if and only if > they have the same index.> B is the set of functions f(n) -> {0,1}, n E N. Your notation here differs from the usual f: N -> {0,1}. Do you mean something different?> There are uncountably many such functions, each represents a > subset of N elements or a distinct element of R[0,1) with no dual > representation.Not so. There are distinct functions which, as binary expansions, represent the same real in [0,1). For ach function with a positive index (a positive but 'nite number of 1's in its expansion) there is a function with a negative index representing the same real.> I consider .00010001(0001)... as an in'nite sequence and how to> permute its elements to get .01010101(0101).... It seems almost> simple, move the 1 in the fourth place to the second place, and move> each one in the 4x'th place for x>1 to the 4(x-1)'th place. There's> certainly no dearth of ones and zeros, the amount of each is> in'nite. Yet, the zero that was in the second place would have to go> somewhere, and necessarily displace another.For each n in N, there is an nth zero in .00010001(0001)... and an nth zero in .01010101(0101).... Similarly there is an nth one in .00010001(0001)... and an nth one in .01010101(0101)....For each n in N, move the nth zero in .00010001(0001) to the position of the nth zero in .01010101(0101).... and similarly with the nth ones, and the thing is done.> It's easy to describe a canonical sequence relative amounts of zeros> and ones. pick a fraction p/q less than one, p and q positive, p say there are that many zeros and (q-p)/q many ones, plainly the> sequence is the repeating subsequence of p zeros sequentially> (consecutively) and then q-p ones.> Consider the canonical sequence of zero-density p/q, where 'nitely x> many zero elements are changed to ones. Is it possible to permute> that sequence to the canonical sequence with none of the elements> changed by exchanging its elements? No, it is not. It permutes to> its canonical sequence of the 'nite subsequence of ones, however many> zeros were changed into ones there were, and then the repeating> sequence representative of the ratio of the densities of zeros and> ones.> Then there are the sequences of type b with in'nitely many zeros and> ones and in'nitely many more or less of of one than the other,> opposite symbol, eg sequences representing subsets of the naturals> like the primes, powers of two, etcetera. Consider the powers of> the primes.Any two sequences of all zeros and ones with the same, possibly in'nite, number of zeros and the same, possibly in'nite, number of ones, can be permuted into each other by the simple method of moving the nth 0 of one to the position of the nth 0 of the other and also moving the nth 1 in one to the position of the nth 1 of the other.What is so hard about that?As an alternate approach, any such sequence of zeros and ones can be represented by a subset S of N of the positions in which there is a 1, with the compliment, NS, being the set of positions of the zeros in that expansion.Given b1 and b2 as two such sequences, with S1 and S2 as their sets of locations of 1's, then there is a bijection from N to N carrying S1 to S2 and NS1 to NS2, i.e., a permutation, if and only if Card(S1) = Card(S2) and Card(NS1) = Card(NS2).> Where you note g(n) is a bijection from N to itself, where f(n)=0 or> 1, then their composition de'nes a permutation G, but I think it> de'nes a permutation from some proper subset B_(p/q +-x) -> B_(p/q> +-x) < B, because g is a bijection. For example it doesn't permute> the sequence of all ones to the one of all zeros.> For example .0101(01)... permutes to .1001(01)... but not to> .001001(001).... How does it permute to .0001(01)...? I can easily> determine a bijective function from {1, 3, 5, ...} to {3, 5, ...}, and> from {0, 2, 4, ...} to {0, 1, 2, 4, ...}. Changing the second element> from a one to a zero means that somewhere a zero has to be changed> into a one. It could be put off inde'nitely but that necessarily> implies that some subsequence 01 would be changed to 11.> I focus upon necessary and suf'cient condition. I can agree that> it is a necessary condition for there to be the permutation, yet, not> that it is a suf'cient condition. I wonder what you mean by> allowable.> The sequences .(01)... and .(10)..., for half zeros and half ones, are> perhaps the simplest cases with in'nite numbers of ones and zeros to> consider. Exchange each one and zero of the representative> subsequence and it becomes the other.> Consider .100..., it can't be permuted to .000.... For the same> reason, (01)... can't be permuted to 00(01).... If you change the> value of one symbol, you have to change the value of an occurrence of> the opposite symbol, they exchange.> It's simple to get an extra symbol out of the sequence to replace its> opposite, the problem is putting it away, it also has to replace its> opposite.> 01010101....> ^> 00010101...> ^^^ ^ ^ ...> 10010101...> 01010101...> 00110101...> 00011101...> 0001011101...> The 'rst sequence has it's second element changed to its opposite. > The second sequence is required to change one of its marked symbols to> its opposite.> Perhaps it's a specialization of permutation. The sequence is only> changed by exchanging any of its elements any number of times, the> value of a symbol is not changed without changing an occurrence of its> opposite symbol.> It's not possible to permute in this way 001(001)... to 011(011).... > One way to see this is that there are sequence z_1=00... , z_2=00...,> and o_1=11.... Take the 'rst element from each then the second,> etcetera: 001(001).... If you want to form 011 then it is a matter> of taking the 'rst element of z_1, then two elements of o_1 then an> element of z_2 (to keep it even), then two more elements of o_1,> etcetera. The amount taken from o_1 to form the sequence (011) from> the constituent sequences of (001) rises steadily and never returns to> a par of those taken from z_1 and z_2. On the other hand, forming a> sequence like 111111000000000000(001) does.> Given instructions: form a sequence of in'nitely many ones and> in'nitely many zeros, there are many ways to describe a rule or> method to do that. Given instructions: given a sequence with> in'nitely many ones and in'nitely many zeros, exchange its elements> to form another sequence, there are less sequences.> Randomly and fairly (uniformly) select a subset of the natural> numbers, there are even odds it contains zero. Half the subsets of N> contain zero.> Is there a rational function for x=4?> Ross =I guess maybe I don't discuss a permutation, but some othercombinatoric operation on the elements of a sequence.An in'nite binary sequence with a beginning is presented to you, andyou can modify it via this method: you can change any element from aone to a zero, or a zero to a one. If you change a one to a zero,then you must change that or some other zero to a one. If you changea zero to a one instead, you must change that or some other one to azero. There may be allowed the interchange of identical elements asthey would not change the sequence.About the dual representation, consider a crazy model where there isnot dual representation and .1000... does not equal .0111.... If youmust have dual representation, then the in'nite binary sequence is aunique representation of a subset of the naturals but not a uniquerepresentation of a real, it is a representation but not necessarilyunique, via dual representation.So anyways given a sequence (01)..., the subsequence 01 repeatingin'nitely, it's possible to change it to (10)..., the subsequence 10repeating in'nitely, by the operation of changing the 'rst, second,third, etcetera elements of the sequence, as the 'rst requireschanging the value of a symbol that occurs in the second place,changing the third requires changing the value of a symbol that occursat the fourth place, etcetera, ad in'nitum.This corresponds exactly with that the density of ones and zeros ineach of those sequences is one half. The sequence can be modi'edthis way to get a result sequence of any other sequence with density1/2 of each, yet, the sequence will never be changed to a sequencewith density 1/3 ones or zeros.Using this method on, as an example, the sequence of 000..., theresult will never be different from 000.... Change a zero element toa one, then, the one element has to be changed to a zero: there areno symbols with the value one in the sequence.Similarly, the sequence as input with 'nitely many x count of oneswill always result in a sequence of output with x many ones.The class of algorithms that modify these sequences' algorithms do notchange the density of ones and zeros in the sequence. That apostropheis there because class is singular and the word algorithms is plural.So I guess it's not a permutation, I tend to trust you, and haven'tfound a §aw with your points there, ignoring trivialities and easilycorrected dsitractions, I describe a method that has the propertiesthat I have here described.One thing I like about this is that I can use it to say that where thedensity of ones in (10)... is one half, that the density of the evennaturals is one half. This is where (10)... represents the subset ofN {0, 2, 4, 6, 8, ...}, the even numbers. That might work better withthe natural numbers not containing zero, Z+, for that the odd numbershave density 1/2 in Z+, the positive integers. Also, any sequencethat I can derive as output from an input of (10)... for N has densityof one half in N, e.g, {0, 2, 5, 6, 8, ...}.Given an input sequence a and some output sequence b, there is afunction between the various elements they may represent, a bijection. For example if the sequence a has 'nitely may ones so does b, thesame amount, and if sequence a has in'nitely many ones so does b.For a given input sequence, generally the canonical input sequenceof given density or of indeterminate density via a rule on the onesand zeros in progressive subsequences (irrational sequences), avarious number of sequences are possible as output. This can beexpressed as an asymptotic term of the variable n of the length of thesequence. For example, n many of all possible sequences have one onelement or one off element.Anyways, this goes back to earlier discussions about canonicalsequences and the canonicalization of sequences, using some form ofsequence element interchange.Ross =This is a slight generalization of the theorem in thePrime-Derivative Puzzle rnum=21&prev=from mid August.Let q and r be any positive integers.Let, for all x where -1 < x < 1, f(x) = (1-x)^((1-x)^(-q)) *(1+x)^((1+x)^(-r))In ascii-art mode: f(x) = -q -r (1-x) (1+x)(1-x) *(1+x)Then:GCD(q+r ,m)always dividesthe (m+1)th derivative of f(x) at x = 0.(This derivative, and all derivatives, of f(x), at x =0, areintegers.)Leroy Quet => This is a slight generalization of the theorem in the> Prime-Derivative Puzzle thread> =21&prev=> from mid August.> Let q and r be any positive integers.> Let, for all x where -1 < x < 1, > f(x) = > > (1-x)^((1-x)^(-q)) *(1+x)^((1+x)^(-r))> In ascii-art mode: > f(x) = > -q -r> (1-x) (1+x)> (1-x) *(1+x)> Then:> GCD(q+r ,m)> always divides> the (m+1)th derivative of > f(x) at x = 0.> (This derivative, and all derivatives, of f(x), at x =0, are> integers.)I know that I did not originally post this as a puzzle. But I believeit would be fun to try to prove. So, I am cross-posting this reply torec.puzzles, as well as posting it to sci.math.> Leroy> Quet => I have been arguing the question, “Two coins were §ipped, and> at least one is a head. What are the chances for two heads?”, in> sci.math, for some time.>> I argue that the correct answer is 1/2. correct answer 1/2. Dr. Holt should> concur.> To answer 1/3, you must assume a slightly different question. When we> are willing to assume a different questions, we can get different> answers.>> Eldon Moritz> Apparently there is something missing from the exposition which was not> included in the (extensive) argument I snipped. This is a standard logic> problem, which yields to the following:> 1) There are exactly four possible outcomes for §ipping two coins, HH,> HT, TH, TT.> 2) For Ofair' coins, any of the four outcomes is equally likely.> 3) There are 3 outcomes with Oat least one head'.> 4) If we choose the universe of discourse as the set of trials with Oat> least one head', the occurrence of two heads will happen 1 out of 3 times.> In short, if you run the experiment 100 times, 75 results (should) have> Oat least one head'. 25 (should) have two heads. 25/75 = 1/3.> Are you discussing a different problem?> There are four equally likely outcomes for the toss. Prior to thestatement at least one is a head.After the statement, there are three left, they are no longer equallylikely. It is more likely to get the Oheads' statement with HH, thanwith HT, or with TH.That is, assuming that the statement is true. As I showed earlier,assume it false and you assume a different question.Eldon> --> There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable --> and the obvious.> --> Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle. =Suppose we take x numbers out of y numbers in a decreasing sequence.Say, take 2 numbers from {1,2,3} and arrange as {2,1}. What is thenumber of possible combinations ? => Suppose we take x numbers out of y numbers in a decreasing sequence.> Say, take 2 numbers from {1,2,3} and arrange as {2,1}. What is the> number of possible combinations ?y choose x (assuming the y numbers are distinct).-- => Suppose we take x numbers out of y numbers in a decreasing sequence.> Say, take 2 numbers from {1,2,3} and arrange as {2,1}. What is the> number of possible combinations ?> y choose x (assuming the y numbers are distinct). => Suppose we take x numbers out of y numbers in a decreasing sequence.> Say, take 2 numbers from {1,2,3} and arrange as {2,1}. What is the> number of possible combinations ?> y choose x (assuming the y numbers are distinct).> C(x + y - 1, x).Which is the number of non-negative integer solutions toX_1 + X_2 + ... + X_y = x.Using your example of 2 numbers from {1, 2, 3} you want the solutions toX_1 + X_2 + X_3 = 2 where X_1 counts the number of 1's, X_2 the 2's andX_3 the 3's. There are C(3 + 2 - 1, 2) = C(4, 2) = 6 possibilities.-- Paul SperryColumbia, SC (USA) =Could you please explain these integrators differece?1. 1/(1-z^(-1))2. z^(-1)/(1-z^(-1))3. Tz^(-1)/(1-z^(-1))Boki. => Could you please explain these integrators differece?> 1. 1/(1-z^(-1))> 2. z^(-1)/(1-z^(-1))> 3. Tz^(-1)/(1-z^(-1))> Write the difference equations. You can see that 1. uses the currentinput in the sum, 2. is one input behind and 3. is the same as 2. butscaled by T.Chuck-- ... The times have been, That, when the brains were out, the man would die. ... Macbeth Chuck Simmons chrlsim@earthlink.net => A propos, here are cites from Pierre Bourdieu's> _Language & Symbolic Power_ (the titles are mine).> Enjoy!> Censorship> There Oughta Be A Law>> Cool-Hand Luke> The Social Conditions for the Effectiveness of Ritual Discourse> Heretical Discourse> The *Skeptron*The skeptron is passed to the orator before he begins his speechso that he may speak with authority (......). It is an attributeof the person who brings a message, a sacred personage whosemission is to transmit the message of authority.E. Benveniste, in Indo-European Language and SocietyIf, as Austin observes, there are utterances whose role is not onlyto Odescribe a state of affairs or state some fact', but also to'execute an action', this is because the power of words resides inthe fact that they are not pronounced on behalf of the person whois only the Ocarrier' of these words: the authorized spokespersonis only able to use words to act on other agents and, through theiraction, on things themselves, because his speech concentrates withinit the accumulated symbolic capital of the group which has delegatedhim and of which he is the *authorized representative*.The laws of social physics are only apparently independent of thelaws of physics, and the power which certain *slogans* have to secureefforts from others without expending efforts themselves--which is thevery aim of magical action--is rooted in the capital which the grouphas accumulated through its effort and whose effective use issubordinated to a whole set of conditions, those which de'ne the*rituals of social magic*. Most of the conditions that have to beful'lled in order for a performative utterance to succeed come downto the question of the appropriateness of the speaker--or better still,his social function--and of the discourse he utters. A performativeutterance is destined to fail each time that it is not pronouncedby a person who has the Opower' to pronounce it, or, more generally,each time that the Oparticular persons and circumstances in a givencase' are not Oappropriate for the invocation of the particularspeaker invoked'; in short, each time that the speaker does not havethe authority to emit the words that he utters. But perhaps themost important thing to remember is that the success of these operationsof social magic--comprised by *acts of authority*, or, what amounts tothe same, *authorized acts*--is dependent on the combination of asystematic set of interdependent conditions which constitute socialrituals.It is clear that all the efforts to 'nd, in the speci'callylinguistic logic of different forms of argumentation, rhetoric andstyle, the source of their symbolic ef'cacy are destined to failas long as they do not establish the relationship between theproperties of discourses, the properties of the person who pro-nounces them and the properties of the institution which authorizeshim to pronounce them. The limits (and the interest) of Austin'sattempt to de'ne performative utterances lie in the fact that hedoes not exactly do what he thinks he is doing, and this preventshim from following it through to the end. Believing that he wascontributing to the philosophy of language, he was in fact workingout a theory of a particular class of symbolic expressions, of whichthe discourse of authority is only the paradigmatic form, and whosespeci'c ef'cacy stems from the fact that they seem to possess *inthemselves* the source of a power which in reality resides in theinstitutiional conditions of their production and reception.The speci'city of the discourse of authority (e.g. a lecture, asermon, etc.) consists in the fact that it is not enough for itto be *understood* (in certain cases it may even fail to beunderstood without losing its power), and that it exercises itsspeci'c effect only when it is *recognized* as such. Thisrecognition, whether accompanied by understanding or not--isgranted, in the manner of something taken for granted, onlyunder certain conditions, namely, those which de'ne legitimateusage; namely, it must be uttered by the person legitimatelylicensed to do so, the holder of the *skeptron*, known andrecognized as being able and enabled to produce this particularclass of discourse: a priest, a teacher, a poet, etc.; it mustbe uttered in a legitimate situation, that is, in front of legitimatereceivers (one cannot read a piece of Dadaist poetry at a Cabinetmeeting); 'nally, it must be enunciated according to the leg-itimate forms (syntactic, phonetic, etc.) What one might callthe *liturgical* conditions, namely, the set of prescriptionswhich govern the *form* of the public manifestation of authority,like ceremonial etiquette, the code of gestures and of'ciallyprescribed rites, are clearly only an *element*, albeit the mostvisible one, in a system of conditions of which the most importantand indispensable are those which produce the disposition towardsrecognition in the sense of misrecognition and belief, that is, thedelegation of authority which confers its authority on authorizeddiscourse. By focusing exclusively on the formal conditions forthe effectiveness of ritual, one overlooks the fact that theritual conditions that must be ful'lled in order for ritual tofunction and for the sacrament to be both *valid* and *effective*are never suf'cient as long as the conditions which produce therecognition of this ritual are not met: the language of authoritynever governs without the collaboration of those that it governs,without the help of the social mechanisms capable of producing thiscomplicity, based on misrecognition, which is the basis of allauthority. In order to gauge the magnitude in Austin's and otherstrictly formalist analyses of symbolic systems, it suf'ces toshow that the language of authority is only the limiting case ofthe legitimate language, whose authority does not reside, as theracism of social class would have it, in the set of prosodic andarticulatory variations which de'ne distinguished pronunciation,or in the complexity of the syntax or the richness of the vocabulary,in other words in the intrinsic properties of discourse itself, butrather in the social conditions of production and reproduction ofthe distribution between theclasses of knowledge and recognition of the legitimate language.(Pierre Bourdieu, _Language & Symbolic Power_, pp. 109-113) => A propos, here are cites from Pierre Bourdieu's> _Language & Symbolic Power_ (the titles are mine).> Enjoy!> Censorship> > There Oughta Be A Law>> Cool-Hand Luke> The Social Conditions for the Effectiveness of Ritual Discourse> Heretical Discourse> The *Skeptron*> Symbolic Power & the Symbolism of PowerThere is no symbolic power without the symbolism of power. Symbolicattributes--as is well illustrated in the paradigmatic case of the*skeptron* and the sanctions against the improper wearing ofuniforms--are a public display and thereby an of'cialization of thecontract of delegation: the ermine and the robe declare that thejudge or the doctor is recognized as having just cause (in thecollective recognition) for declaring himself judge or doctor, thathis imposture--in the sense of the pretension expressed by hisappearance--is legitimate. The competence that is speci'callylinguistic--the Latin once spoken by doctors or the eloquence of thespokesperson--is also one of the manifestations of competence in thesense of right to speech and to power through speech. There is awhole dimension of authorized language, its rhetoric, syntax,vocabulary and even pronunciation, which exists purely to underlinethe authority of its author and the trust he demands. In this respect,style is an element of the *mechanism*, in the Pascalian sense,through which language aims to produce and impose the representationof its own importance and thereby help to ensure its owncredibility.[14] The symbolic ef'cacy of the discourse of authorityalways depends, in part, on the linguistic competence of the personwho utters it. This is more true, of course, when the authority ofthe speaker is less clearly institutionalized. It follows that theexercise of symbolic power is accompanied by work on the *form* ofdiscourse which, as is clearly demonstrated in the discourse of poetsin archaic societies, has the purpose of demonstrating the orator'smastery and gaining him the recognition of the group. (This logic isalso found in the popular rhetoric of insults which seeks, by §agrantoverstatement and the regulated deformation of ritual formulas, toproduce the expressive accomplishment which allows one to Oget thoselaughing on one's side'. Notes14. The two senses of competence come together if one sees that,according to Percy Ernst Schramm, just as the crown of the medievalking designates both the thing itself and the set of rights whichconstitute royal dignity (as in the term Ocrown property'), so toolinguistic competence is a symbolic attribute of the authority which*designates* a socially recognized status as a set of rights,beginning with the right to speak and the corresponding technicalcapacity.(Pierre Bourdieu, _Language and Symbolic Power_ pp. 75-76) => A propos, here are cites from Pierre Bourdieu's> _Language & Symbolic Power_ (the titles are mine).> Enjoy!> Censorship> > There Oughta Be A Law>> Cool-Hand Luke> The Social Conditions for the Effectiveness of Ritual Discourse> Heretical Discourse> The *Skeptron*> Symbolic Power & the Symbolism of Power Collusion in the OHoodFor groups united by some form of collusion (such as sets of *colleagues*), it is a fundamental imperative to maintain *discretion* about, to keep *secret*, everything which concerns the intimate beliefs of the group. They 'ercely condemn manifestations of cynicism displayed to the outside world, even though such manifestations are quite acceptable among *initiates* because they cannot by de'nition affect the fundamental belief in the value of the group--a certain free-and-easy attitude to values is often experienced as a supplementar proof of their value. . . But groups are hardly less mistrustful of those who, taking proclaimed values too seriously, refuse the compromises and shady deals which are the condition of the real existence of the group. (Pierre Bourdieu, _Language & Symbolic Power_, p. 180) => => Why do you take so much trouble to expose such a reasoner as> Mr. Smith? I answer as a deceased friend of mine used to answer> on like occasions - A man's capacity is no measure of his power> to do mischief. Mr. Smith has untiring energy, which does > something; self-evident honesty of conviction, which does more;> and a long purse, which does most of all. He has made at least> ten publications, full of 'gures few readers can critize. A great> many people are staggered to this extend, that they imagine there> must be the inde'nite something in the mysterious all this.> They are brought to the point of suspicion that the mathematicians> ought not to treat all this with such undisguised contempt,> at least.> -- A Budget of Paradoxes, Vol. 2 p. 129 by Augustus de Morgan> =A 'eld is a structured social space, a 'eld of forces, a force'eld. It contains people who dominate and others who are dominated.Constant, permanent relationships of inequality operate inside thisspace, which at the same time becomes a space in which the variousactors struggle for the transformation or preservation of the 'eld. All the individuals in this universe bring to the competition allthe relative power at their disposal. It is this power that de'nestheir position in the 'eld and, as a result, their strategies.Economic competition between networks or newspapers for viewers,readers, or for marketshare, takes place concretely in the formof a contest between journalists. This contest has its own,speci'c stakes - the scoop, the Oexclusive', professionalreputations, and so on. This kind of competition is neitherexperienced nor thought of as a struggle purely for economicgain, even though it remains subject to pressures derivingfrom the position the news medium itself occupies within alarger set of economic and symbolic power relations. Today,invisible but objective relations connect people and partieswho may never meet - nevertheless, in everything these entitiesdo, they are led, consciously or unconsciously, to take into accountthe same pressures and effects, because they belong to the same world! =>>Good writing their Jim Ferry, and I have to give you credit for that,>>but hey, how many years were you ridiculing me, and now you expect me>>to just go, hey, pal?>>Show me you're serious and wade in and respond to some of these>>ant-mathematicians in the current battle.>>Prove your sincerity, and um, keep posting any interesting dreams you>>have, as I found it interesting puzzling over that one.> > Exactly! This Jim Ferry now thinks you are a genius, but has he defended> you in your current battle? No!> I suspect that he is not *fully* committed to your view of mathematics. That> is just a feeling, and I suppose I could be wrong.> I, however, have been trying to 'nd out more about your Object Ring, but I> feel you are pushing me away.> Jim sent you roses, but I sent diamonds . . .> I shan't be drawn into a battle of pitching woo, Clive.> It's true that I have given up trying to understand James's Object Ring.> I've come to the conclusion that it's simply beyond my comprehension. I> suppose I'm just accepting that it's true on faith.I 'nd that surprising, but I'll take you at your word. > Oh, I can hear the derisive snorting. Faith? Mathematicians don't take> things on faith! We accept pure logic only!> Well let me ask you this, ye snorters: Andrew Wiles proved FLT, right?> And how do you know this? Did you go through his proof? Did you go through> Ribet's proof as well? No? Interesting.Excellent points!But the problem with religion is that sometimes people who have itrefuse to admit it, and from what I've seen, mathematicians refuse toadmit they have a religion of often blind faith in othermathematicians, where there's this committee out there that supposedlychecks everything thoroughly and declares truth.> Yes, I know the responses to this. Everyone says it's right. It's been> checked by reputable mathematicians. The infallibility of the peer review> process guarantees . . . etc. It has the herd's of'cial brand of approval,> so any objections are moooooot.Oh, yeah, that's the committee out there those reputablemathematicians.> (Okay, that moooooot was pretty awful . . .)> Anyway, I can't help James by going on the lecture circuit and presenting> an argument which I myself can't follow. Besides, the honor should belong to> James. What I can do, and have been doing for the last several days, is apply> myself to the problem of how one goes about convincing the world of an idea> to which they've shut their ears.Well that made me feel a lot better Jim Ferry!It's amazing how dif'cult of a problem it is, and my guess is that itrequires the best minds on the planet to solve it.Which is probably why you're now on the team.> I have some ideas, but they're still maturing. They don't involve the> wholesale slaughter of the mathematical establishment. This would be entirely> the wrong approach. So stop thinking about it, James! No, not even a little> slaughter! I know you like direct action, but direct action hasn't convinced> anyone thus far, and besides, they'd just throw you in prison and take away> your pencil. No, I have something entirely different in mind. No frontal> assaults. No guerilla attacks.Huh? I've never been a physical threat. > Uh oh. By suggesting that war may not be the most effective way of achieving> one's ends, I think I may have violated the Patriot Act. Ungood.> BTW, it occurs to me that you might be a Republican, and hence enjoy futile,> pointless wars. In this case all you'd be interested in is more guns and> bigger bombs, and I don't have any of those. Let me know if this is the case.> There's no need to waste my time and yours.I'm not a Republican, nor am I a Democrat as I'm an Independent.No need to talk politics Ferry, and hey, I think it's fascinating thatyou're trying to 'gure out that problem you mentioned as it's so wildthat it's a dif'cult one!!!How do you convince the world of correct mathematics thatunfortunately is so revolutionary that mathematicians either cannot orrefuse to acknowledge it as correct?It's the kind of conundrum that can stress your mental abilities totheir maximum.James Harris =>> >> Maybe the only point is that I fear James being overwhelmed by evil.> Hmmm.> I have to ask myself, Why should I care? James may be the> reincarnation> of Gauss, but is it really any skin off my nose if he goes> unrecognized?> I've been worrying about the guy for months (ever since I realized> that> he> was not, in fact, a crank, but a genius) and defending him on this> newsgroup.> My reward? Laughter and bile from the peanut gallery. And not a> word> from> James himself. A word of advice to Prof. Connes: Don't waste your> time> on> James Harris. If he loves being the solitary genius so much, let> him> 'ght> his own damn battles. He's not worth losing sleep over.>> Well damn it, I'm losing sleep at least partly because of your scary> dream!!!>> Good writing their Jim Ferry, and I have to give you credit for that,> but hey, how many years were you ridiculing me, and now you expect me> to just go, hey, pal?>> Show me you're serious and wade in and respond to some of these> ant-mathematicians in the current battle.>> Prove your sincerity, and um, keep posting any interesting dreams you> have, as I found it interesting puzzling over that one.>> Exactly! This Jim Ferry now thinks you are a genius, but has he> defended> you in your current battle? No!>> I suspect that he is not *fully* committed to your view of mathematics.> That> is just a feeling, and I suppose I could be wrong.>> The primary focus is the odd de'nition error in core.>> Once that's accepted for what it is, and most importantly FIXED, then> it's not about committing to my view of mathematics, but about showing> your commitment to mathematics itself.>> There is ONE mathematics.>> I, however, have been trying to 'nd out more about your Object Ring,> but I> feel you are pushing me away.>> I have spent some effort guiding you along at the Mega Foundation> discussion area.> Yes, indeed.> But, I expect you remember that I did ask you a question that I was unable> to answer.> I was using the notation [a,b,c] to represent an ordered triple of complex> numbers. And I was wondering if the ordered triple [1,2,8] was an element of> the Object Ring.> You replied:> lazy!!! You have the de'nition, 'gure it out for yourself!!!> What amazes me is how often people are willing to ask someone else to do> their work for them.> If you're smart enough, answer your own question.> I'm curious to see if you can.> I've given the de'nition for the object ring, so no excuses.> say I still cannot 'gure it out.Sounds like a ploy.You have to understand that your record Clive Tooth is rather long andinvolves some rather...sleazy behavior...like that attack webpage, andquite a few negative postings over a period of YEARS.You don't get the bene't of the doubt from me but have to make theextra effort yourself, so quit being lazy!!! > Could you help me please?It sounds to me like you think you have some angle for even morenegativity and I've given enough time explaining.> Remember mathematics is a continuing process.>> The object ring is fascinating in and of itself, so you can't expect> me to know all the answers just because I'm a discoverer.>> After all, if it were that easy, then math research would have ended> long ago with the 'rst mathematician explaining it all.>> Your friend.>> Clive>> Time will tell.Yes, as I said, time will tell.James Harris =>message>> >> Maybe the only point is that I fear James being overwhelmed byevil.> Hmmm.> I have to ask myself, Why should I care? James may be the> reincarnation> of Gauss, but is it really any skin off my nose if he goes> unrecognized?> I've been worrying about the guy for months (ever since Irealized> that> he> was not, in fact, a crank, but a genius) and defending him onthis> newsgroup.> My reward? Laughter and bile from the peanut gallery. And nota> word> from> James himself. A word of advice to Prof. Connes: Don't wasteyour> time> on> James Harris. If he loves being the solitary genius so much,let> him> 'ght> his own damn battles. He's not worth losing sleep over.>> Well damn it, I'm losing sleep at least partly because of yourscary> dream!!!>> Good writing their Jim Ferry, and I have to give you credit forthat,> but hey, how many years were you ridiculing me, and now you expectme> to just go, hey, pal?>> Show me you're serious and wade in and respond to some of these> ant-mathematicians in the current battle.>> Prove your sincerity, and um, keep posting any interesting dreamsyou> have, as I found it interesting puzzling over that one.>> Exactly! This Jim Ferry now thinks you are a genius, but has he> defended> you in your current battle? No!>> I suspect that he is not *fully* committed to your view ofmathematics.> That> is just a feeling, and I suppose I could be wrong.>> The primary focus is the odd de'nition error in core.>> Once that's accepted for what it is, and most importantly FIXED, then> it's not about committing to my view of mathematics, but about showing> your commitment to mathematics itself.>> There is ONE mathematics.>> I, however, have been trying to 'nd out more about your ObjectRing,> but I> feel you are pushing me away.>> I have spent some effort guiding you along at the Mega Foundation> discussion area.>> Yes, indeed.>> But, I expect you remember that I did ask you a question that I wasunable> to answer.>> I was using the notation [a,b,c] to represent an ordered triple ofcomplex> numbers. And I was wondering if the ordered triple [1,2,8] was anelement of> the Object Ring.>> You replied:> lazy!!! You have the de'nition, 'gure it out foryourself!!!> What amazes me is how often people are willing to ask someone else todo> their work for them.> If you're smart enough, answer your own question.> I'm curious to see if you can.> I've given the de'nition for the object ring, so no excuses.> I still cannot 'gure it out.>> Sounds like a ploy.>> You have to understand that your record Clive Tooth is rather long and> involves some rather...sleazy behavior...like that attack webpage, and> quite a few negative postings over a period of YEARS.That was just... just... boyish high spirits, James. And you joined in thefun by threatening to sue me for libel!! Ah... happy days...> You don't get the bene't of the doubt from me but have to make the> extra effort yourself, so quit being lazy!!!Oh... James... You have to admit that I did help you out, on the Mega board,with sqrt(i) which you didn't realize was a complex number. Can't you helpme out just a little with this one?And I noticed that you said that Jim Ferry is on the team! How can I geton the team if you won't help me when I am struggling? By the way, isanybody else on the team? I think that all the team-members should havewell-de'ned roles for the up-coming battle.> Could you help me please?>> It sounds to me like you think you have some angle for even more> negativity and I've given enough time explaining.> Remember mathematics is a continuing process.>> The object ring is fascinating in and of itself, so you can't expect> me to know all the answers just because I'm a discoverer.>> After all, if it were that easy, then math research would have ended> long ago with the 'rst mathematician explaining it all.>> Your friend.>> Clive>> Time will tell.>> Yes, as I said, time will tell.Very true.-- Clive Toothhttp://www.clivetooth.dk =>> message>> >> Maybe the only point is that I fear James being overwhelmed by> evil.> Hmmm.> I have to ask myself, Why should I care? James may be the> reincarnation> of Gauss, but is it really any skin off my nose if he goes> unrecognized?> I've been worrying about the guy for months (ever since I> realized> that> he> was not, in fact, a crank, but a genius) and defending him on> this> newsgroup.> My reward? Laughter and bile from the peanut gallery. And not> a> word> from> James himself. A word of advice to Prof. Connes: Don't waste> your> time> on> James Harris. If he loves being the solitary genius so much,> let> him> 'ght> his own damn battles. He's not worth losing sleep over.>> Well damn it, I'm losing sleep at least partly because of your> scary> dream!!!>> Good writing their Jim Ferry, and I have to give you credit for> that,> but hey, how many years were you ridiculing me, and now you expect> me> to just go, hey, pal?>> Show me you're serious and wade in and respond to some of these> ant-mathematicians in the current battle.>> Prove your sincerity, and um, keep posting any interesting dreams> you> have, as I found it interesting puzzling over that one.>> Exactly! This Jim Ferry now thinks you are a genius, but has he> defended> you in your current battle? No!>> I suspect that he is not *fully* committed to your view of> mathematics.> That> is just a feeling, and I suppose I could be wrong.>> The primary focus is the odd de'nition error in core.>> Once that's accepted for what it is, and most importantly FIXED, then> it's not about committing to my view of mathematics, but about showing> your commitment to mathematics itself.>> There is ONE mathematics.>> I, however, have been trying to 'nd out more about your Object> Ring,> but I> feel you are pushing me away.>> I have spent some effort guiding you along at the Mega Foundation> discussion area.>> Yes, indeed.>> But, I expect you remember that I did ask you a question that I was> unable> to answer.>> I was using the notation [a,b,c] to represent an ordered triple of> complex> numbers. And I was wondering if the ordered triple [1,2,8] was an> element of> the Object Ring.>> You replied:> being lazy!!! You have the de'nition, 'gure it out for> yourself!!!> What amazes me is how often people are willing to ask someone else to> do> their work for them.> If you're smart enough, answer your own question.> I'm curious to see if you can.> I've given the de'nition for the object ring, so no excuses.> ashamed to say I still cannot 'gure it out.>> Sounds like a ploy.>> You have to understand that your record Clive Tooth is rather long and> involves some rather...sleazy behavior...like that attack webpage, and> quite a few negative postings over a period of YEARS.> That was just... just... boyish high spirits, James. And you joined in the> fun by threatening to sue me for libel!! Ah... happy days...Well, it was effective writing on your part as even when you took thatwebpage down that other guy copied it for his own webpage, and thensome other, um, person ran that robot program.And *someone* out there was at one point trying a somewhat meek denialof service attack on one of my old websites, or, weirdly enough, theywere trying to convince me I had thousands of hits per day on mywebpages!!!That's one of the reasons I was happy with MSN as I never even knewhow many hits my pages were actually getting with them, but there wasno worry about them charging me extra!> You don't get the bene't of the doubt from me but have to make the> extra effort yourself, so quit being lazy!!!> Oh... James... You have to admit that I did help you out, on the Mega board,> with sqrt(i) which you didn't realize was a complex number. Can't you help> me out just a little with this one?That was a silly error. Like I said there though I was reaching as Ireally *wanted* to believe that the object ring isn't a subset ofcomplex numbers, but didn't have the proof, so I guess I did what I'vedone many times before and told myself what I wanted to hear.As for your question, again, quit being lazy!!!Figure it out yourself, or even go get help from someone else besidesme, as I've spent enough time with you already, and given yourhistory, it's not sensible to spend any more.> And I noticed that you said that Jim Ferry is on the team! How can I get> on the team if you won't help me when I am struggling? By the way, is> anybody else on the team? I think that all the team-members should have> well-de'ned roles for the up-coming battle.So far the team as I call it are people who recognize that my workis indeed correct, and so far seem to only be very high IQ people.I guess that's not too surprising. > Could you help me please?>> It sounds to me like you think you have some angle for even more> negativity and I've given enough time explaining.> Remember mathematics is a continuing process.>> The object ring is fascinating in and of itself, so you can't expect> me to know all the answers just because I'm a discoverer.>> After all, if it were that easy, then math research would have ended> long ago with the 'rst mathematician explaining it all.>> Your friend.>> Clive>> Time will tell.>> Yes, as I said, time will tell.> =>So far the team as I call it are people who recognize that my work>is indeed correct, and so far seem to only be very high IQ people.Hey James, did I ever tell you about how the high IQ people fared when I challenged them in their annual Quiz Bowl? Undefeated in adouble elimination tournament, culminating in two consectutive--MensanatorSlayer of the Mensa => As for your question, again, quit being lazy!!!> Figure it out yourself, or even go get help from someone else besides> me, as I've spent enough time with you already, and given your> history, it's not sensible to spend any more.Translation: You haven't the slightest idea how to answer the question,so you're stalling and hoping someone else will do it for you. Of course,you'd still be quite happy to take the credit for the answer.-- Wayne Brown | When your tail's in a crack, you improvisefwbrown@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give | your pelt to the trapper.e^(i*pi) = -1 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, Silverlock => That was just... just... boyish high spirits, James. And you joined inthe> fun by threatening to sue me for libel!! Ah... happy days...>> Well, it was effective writing on your part as even when you took that> webpage down that other guy copied it for his own webpage, and then> some other, um, person ran that robot program.>> And *someone* out there was at one point trying a somewhat meek denial> of service attack on one of my old websites, or, weirdly enough, they> were trying to convince me I had thousands of hits per day on my> webpages!!!>> That's one of the reasons I was happy with MSN as I never even knew> how many hits my pages were actually getting with them, but there was> no worry about them charging me extra!>> You don't get the bene't of the doubt from me but have to make the> extra effort yourself, so quit being lazy!!!>> Oh... James... You have to admit that I did help you out, on the Megaboard,> with sqrt(i) which you didn't realize was a complex number. Can't youhelp> me out just a little with this one?>> That was a silly error. Like I said there though I was reaching as I> really *wanted* to believe that the object ring isn't a subset of> complex numbers, but didn't have the proof, so I guess I did what I've> done many times before and told myself what I wanted to hear.>> As for your question, again, quit being lazy!!!>> Figure it out yourself, or even go get help from someone else besides> me, as I've spent enough time with you already, and given your> history, it's not sensible to spend any more.I am not sure who to turn to, James.I would guess that neither Arturo nor Nora would be able to help me withthis. They just don't seem to have grasped the basic concepts of the ObjectRing.> And I noticed that you said that Jim Ferry is on the team! How can Iget> on the team if you won't help me when I am struggling? By the way, is> anybody else on the team? I think that all the team-members should have> well-de'ned roles for the up-coming battle.>> So far the team as I call it are people who recognize that my work> is indeed correct, and so far seem to only be very high IQ people.James, I know you have been in the Army. Perhaps we could organise the Teamalong Army lines... with ranks! You could be the General, of course...and... um... I could be a colonel, say. And that Jim Ferry could be aprivate.Talking about Jim Ferry, I wonder if he could help me with my question aboutthe ordered triple of complex numbers. I don't know where to turn...-- Clive Toothhttp://www.clivetooth.dk =>And I noticed that you said that Jim Ferry is on the team! How can I get>on the team if you won't help me when I am struggling? By the way, is>anybody else on the team? I think that all the team-members should have>well-de'ned roles for the up-coming battle.Sarcasm. Sigh.>>So far the team as I call it are people who recognize that my work>>is indeed correct, and so far seem to only be very high IQ people.I must reiterate: I don't recognize that your work is indeed correct. (Maybemy IQ is not high enough...) My position is that it's not absurd to think itcould be correct rather than to assume, arrogantly, that if I don't understandit, it must be wrong. I'm sickened by this carnival of dogs driven wild by rawmeat, and I'm outraged that James is being treated like raw meat. James Harrisis a child of God. We are all children of God. Where did it all go so wrong?I am supporting James because if he is correct (and I'm entirely unable to assigna number to the probability of that), it will have a profound impact on society.For the better, despite short-term chaos.> James, I know you have been in the Army. Perhaps we could organise the Team> along Army lines... with ranks! You could be the General, of course...> and... um... I could be a colonel, say. And that Jim Ferry could be a> private.I'd prefer that when you dream about James's privates, my name not spring tomind. James would probably prefer people not to think about his privates atall, especially people named Tooth. Or Ferry, for that matter.But enough silliness. I don't take orders from James, nor does James give themat all, as far as I know. At 'rst I didn't realize what my role in all thiswas to be, but it's becoming clear to me now. James needs a plan, and forreasons not clear to me, I have been receiving a plan. It keeps me awake atnight. It distracts me from my work. It is vast and beautiful, and I worrythat I'll never get it typed up, or worded right. I also worry that Jameswill simply reject it out of hand because I've been such an asshole all theseyears. In fact, why would his plan even come to me? Why wouldn't it justcome to him? That would seem more direct. Maybe it's too much for one personto do the math and receive the plan. It is, after all, a vast plan. Alreadyit's wearing me out, and I've only typed up some notes, sketching the broadthemes. I want to just chuck it all -- I don't owe James anything, not really-- but there's a reason I can't, a reason that has nothing to do with James,or his math. I'd sort of like to say, but I can imagine the kind of reactionI'd get on *this* newsgroup. Anyway, better to save it for the 'nal product.Here's to the revolution!> Talking about Jim Ferry, I wonder if he could help me with my question about> the ordered triple of complex numbers. I don't know where to turn...Oh poor Clive. It's really burning you up, isn't it? As James said, 'gure itout yourself, or just forget about it. Stop pretending to be James's buddy.Colonel Clive? Colonel of Sarcasm! Colonel of Chuckles! Colonel of, I don'tknow, 'gure something else out, wise guy.Sorry, that was uncalled for. Clive Tooth, too, is a child of God. It's justthat I wish you wouldn't bother James with such nonsense at a time like this.-- | Jim Ferry | Center for Simulation |++ of Advanced Rockets || http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/jferry/ ++| jferry@[delete_this]uiuc.edu | University of Illinois | => I posted something like this in sci.physics but people seem to be mainly> with their heads in the stars there..> I have programmed, ages ago, this billiard mechanics engine, using very> basic physical laws on momentum collision. It works in the sense that it> creates :> 1. good collisions between two balls that each have a speci'c velocity> vector, and> 2. it never draws balls over each other,> although I'm not satis'ed with the amount of calculation needed for those> two things (it involves solving a quadratic equation and then trigonometry).> But, as you may be aware, in snooker or pool one starts with the red balls> (and the pink) touching each other.> This kind of ruins this whole nice model since one can no longer use an> O(n^2) algorithm to scan the balls for possible collisions and then work> them, since..well it becomes a mess. When the white ball hits the pack of> red balls, I get a nice 4-dimensional representation of chaos, I think,> which isn't my intention. As you know, when balls touch each other then the> energy of the 'rst ball gets transferred to the last. Most of it, anyway.> In fact I think it calls for an entirely new strategy. Does anybody have any> ideas how I could :> - devise a collision strategy that works on singular collisions as well> as on multiple simultaneous collisions> or> - treat these chained collisions separately (this would involve> sorting the touching balls with respect to the ball(s) that will hit them,> since a computer can't know in what direction the force gets transferred ->> meaning, this is probably impossible to accomplish.Correct. A triangle of balls is statically indeterminant, that is, theyare just like a triangular pyramid of balls in static equilibrium. Thereare not enough constraints to specify the forces on all the balls.> I would probably do best to treat the table of balls as a table of static> balls, with force 'elds on them, instead of each ball having its vx and vy,> but really, it's not that easy..> If anybody has any ideas or experience with this, I'd be very grateful,I have toyed with this type of problem over the years, and I think thebest thing is just to never let them touch. With double precision youcan leave dither in the 8th place or so, and use your single collisionalgorithm. Lew Mammel, Jr. =>>I'm studying the following diophantine equation:>>a! - b! = n^2>>Of course, a, b and n are positive integers.>>I think the only two solutions are:>>2! - 1! = 1^2>>3! - 2! = 2^2[snip my proof outline]>I'm not sure how easy it is to get an effective upper bound using this>line of argument. We actually don't need anything quite as strong as the>n^0.6 result; I think any prime gap smaller than, say, 0.3 n/log n will>probably do. The primes in (b/2,b] are handled quite well by the Rosser->Schoenfeld inequalities.As luck would have it, I recently learned of Pierre Dusart's improvementsto Rosser-Schoenfeld, proving that for x >= 3275 there is always a primein the interval (x, x + x/(2 ln^2 x)]. So it looks like a full solutionis easily possible (indeed, to the following more general question: whenis the difference of two factorials a powerful number?). -- Erick =Not too long ago, someone here asked for more rigorous references for issue of The American Mathematical Monthly, there is a glowing review of the bookHubbard JH, Hubbard BB. Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms.Might be worth looking at.-- Stephen J. host.safe-hosting.com (host.safe-hosting.com [69.56.134.82]) by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, from igdnycb by host.safe-hosting.com with local (Exim 4.24) id 1A70y9-0003Ht-2r support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h980fWW04789; =>>I have an odd request, here goes...>>I purchased an Expedition with the keypad entry - no one knows what>the combination is and I don't have time or money to take it to the>dealer...>>I'd like to try combinations at my leisure until I 'nd the one that>works. What I need is to know every possible combination using the>numbers 1,3,5,7,9. Numbers may repeat, so that needs to be taken into>consideration as reset the code. You may not livelong enough to try all the codes yourself. For example, a six-digitcode may require up to (from approve@localhost) by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h980fWX04793; =Depends how much security you are looking to achieve. You must assume,for example, that the algorithm you are using (e.g., DES) will eventually become known. Then the only security left is the key.Many other considerations enter. Do you need to protect against known plaintext attack, for support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h983NPO15303; =>>I've got an array size 100 of integer values (range: 0-5). Each plot in >the array represents a 1ms time window. I currently have these graphed >as stairs in MatLab (which looks like a bar graph). I want to make >this function smooooooth, but i'm not sure of a method to apply to it.>>What steps should I take to complete this?>>DustinAn easy to remember formula for interpolation between points on a uniform grid:Target coordinate: . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . .Binomial coef'cients: 1 5 10 10 5 1Reciprocal of offset: -1/7 -1/4 -1/1 1/2 1/5 1/8Product times 56: -8 -70 -560 280 56 7Alternate signs: 8 -70 560 280 -56 7Divided by total which is 729.Thus producing coef'cients to use for the (from approve@localhost) by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h983NPO15307; =I don't get how to use the hint. Now quite sure how to attack this problem either. I dont think I understand. Any help please?Let {f_n} denote the characteristic function of the rationals in the interval [0, 1]. Show that there is no sequence of continous functions {f_n} such that lim f_n(x) = f(x) for all x in [0, 1].HINT: If I_n is a nested sequence of closed intervals such that the length of I_n tends to 0 as n tends to in'nity then (intersection n=1 to n=in'nity)I_n is not empty. =>I don't get how to use the hint. Now quite sure how to attack this>problem either. I dont think I understand. Any help please?>Let {f_n} denote the characteristic function of the rationals in the>interval [0, 1]. Show that there is no sequence of continous functions>{f_n} such that lim f_n(x) = f(x) for all x in [0, 1].I think you meant f is the characteristic function, not {f_n}.>HINT: If I_n is a nested sequence of closed intervals such that the>length of I_n tends to 0 as n tends to in'nity then (intersection n=1>to n=in'nity)I_n is not empty.Further hints: I_n should be a closed interval on which f_n > 1/2.What do you know about any point in the intersection of these?Now how can you arrange it so that the fact that the intersection is nonempty produces a contradiction?Robert Israel israel@math.ubc.caDepartment of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel University of (from approve@localhost) =>> z^7-7z^6-2763z^5-19523z^4+1946979z^3+34928043z^2+119557031z- 3247^2=0>>MAPLE tells me this has cyclic Galois group of order 7. Thus>its roots may be ordered z_0, ..., z_6 in such a way that>a^7 = b in Z[zeta]>where zeta = exp(2 pi I/7) and>a = sum_{j=0}^6 z_j zeta^j>is a Galois resolvent.>>I calculated the roots numerically to 50 dp and tried various orderings.>I came across one which gave>a^7 = -12392836399104 + 20856562728960 zeta + 26834412666880 zeta^2> -13437774020608 zeta^3 + 2576491954176 zeta^4 + 25860547313664 zeta^5> (snip)I came across this reply after I made my second post. Turns out the solution to the septic in question (a variant of it, really) wasalready in cyberspace, waiting to be plucked.with by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id h985IgK22585; =>
>I am stuck
on a proof. I have gotten a series down to where I need
to>prove the following:>> lim c^1/n = 1 where c>0>n ->
inf.>>Do you have any pointers?>>
=>I am stuck on a proof. I have gotten a series down to where I need to>prove the following:>> lim c^1/n = 1 where c>0>n -> inf.>>Do you have any pointers?The limit of a discrete series is the same as the limit of a smooth functionwith those values. Why not say:lim[n->oo, c^(1/n)] = lim[x->oo,c^(1/x)] = lim[x->0,c^x] = c^0 = 1 (since c=/= 0). =>I am stuck on a proof. I have gotten a series down to where I need to>prove the following:>> lim c^1/n = 1 where c>0>n -> inf.>>Do you have any pointers?>> The limit of a discrete series is the same as the limit of a smoothfunction> with those values. Why not say:>> lim[n->oo, c^(1/n)] = lim[x->oo,c^(1/x)] = lim[x->0,c^x] = c^0 = 1 (sincec> =/= 0).Well, at least if the function has a limit, then the series has one too.Sometimes the function might not even have a limit. In this case, f(x) =c^(1/x) does have a nice limit as x->oo. =>>
I am stuck on a proof. I
have gotten a series down to where I need to>>prove the
following:>> lim c^1/n = 1 where c>0>>n -> inf.>>Do you
have any pointers?>>
> There is a proof of this in (among many others) What is Mathematicsby Courant and Robbins.It starts with Bernoulii's inequality(1+x)^n >= 1+n*x if n is a positive integerand x >= 0.Rewrite this as (1+y)^(1/n) <= 1 + y/nand choose an appropriate y. =>
>I
am stuck on a proof. I have gotten a series down to where I
need to>prove the following:>> lim c^1/n = 1 where c>0>n ->
inf.>>Do you have any pointers?>>
>Can't you take | nth-root(c) - 1 | and times it by (nth-root(c) +1)/(nth-root(c) + 1) ? Work with that. I think that will work, but I amnot positive.Lurch =Is there a Big-O listing for know problems somewhere on the net?Bjarte-- ____________________Vaya Con Sko ! => --I could have baked both cakes yesterday.> --I could have baked both cakes today.> --I could have baked this one yesterday> and that one today.> --I could have baked that one yesterday and> this one today.>> Your example doesn't work!> How am I going to distinguish Oone cake' from Othe other cake'!>> Since they now are identical-with-somethings, if they shared> all the same properties they would be one cake rather than> two. THerefore, since they are two cakes, they don't share> all their properties, and I can distinguish them by means> of any property that one has and the other doesn't.> you mean argument by GPS or by just determining their global positioning> with sattellites we have a difference even if there are no other clear> attributes of different classes besides location?>> That is a call which no logician qua logician has any particular> competence> to make.>> Are you saying it is possible for something to exist at location A and> location B at the same time? I thought it was inference by the rule of> non-contradiction.I have no idea whether this is possible or not. My suggestion that quanta may satisfy O~(x=x)' is meant to translateinto logical terms the claim by some physicists that quanta'lack individuality' (Heller suggests that quanta Olack haecceities').The scenario with cakes-to-be suggests that the behaviour of otherentities without individuality resembles that of quanta in therelevant respect. Heller's description of that behaviour followsmy sig.> --John>> JJ>>>> 1 I. The Problem, and the Problem with the Problem,> 2 of Identical Articles and Quantum Statistics> 3> 4 Suppose we have a box with two qualitatively> 6 bouncing around inside. We think of the box> 7 as having a left (*l*) and a right (*r*) side.> 9 at random without interacting, so that their> 10 motions are independent; in particular we> 12 that we may neglect collisions. What are the> 13 chances for 'nding one or both on one side> 14 or the other?> 15> 16 Many 'nd the following reasoning persuasive.> 19 in *r*, and 2 in *l* and 1 in *r*. These should> 20 be equally likely, so that each has a probability> 21 of 1/4, or a probability of 1/4 for two in *l*,> 22 1/4 for two in *r*, and 1/2 for one on each side.> 23> 24 This stylized example is a simple mock-up for a> 25 kind of situation that can occur with quantum entities> 26 and properties. For many of these situations the> 27 probabilities are in fact found to be 1/3 for each> > 28 of the three cases: two in *l*, two in *r* and one> 29 on each side. Many interpreters have found this> 30 fact utterly astonishing.> 31> 32 But on the face of it, there is a very simple> 33 resolution of the puzzle: give up supposing> 34 that there are two qualitatively identical but> 36 there are two *quanta*, as I'll put it, to which> 37 the notion of being numerically distinct does not> 38 apply. . . (p. 114) => --I could have baked both cakes yesterday.> --I could have baked both cakes today.> --I could have baked this one yesterday> and that one today.> --I could have baked that one yesterday and> this one today.>> Your example doesn't work!> How am I going to distinguish Oone cake' from Othe other cake'!>> Since they now are identical-with-somethings, if they shared> all the same properties they would be one cake rather than> two. THerefore, since they are two cakes, they don't share> all their properties, and I can distinguish them by means> of any property that one has and the other doesn't.> you mean argument by GPS or by just determining their globalpositioning> with sattellites we have a difference even if there are no otherclear> attributes of different classes besides location?>> That is a call which no logician qua logician has any particular> competence> to make.> Are you saying it is possible for something to exist at location A and> location B at the same time? I thought it was inference by the rule of> non-contradiction.>> I have no idea whether this is possible or not.>> My suggestion that quanta may satisfy O~(x=x)' is meant to translate> into logical terms the claim by some physicists that quanta> Olack individuality' (Heller suggests that quanta Olack haecceities').> The scenario with cakes-to-be suggests that the behaviour of other> entities without individuality resembles that of quanta in the> relevant respect. Heller's description of that behaviour follows> my sig.>Metaphysical Background, Thomas McTighe asserted that the quiddity of athing is nothing other than unity itself. Hence, by virtue of its positivecontent, the sun differs not at all from the moon or any other particularthing. The diversity which is exhibited by the natural world is merely theproduct of accidental differences; no object possesses any speci'c formwhich interposes itself between a particular existing thing and the sourceof their being e.g. the Absolute.15 All individual entities are nothing morethan differing contractions of the whole devoid of any being of their own....because the restricted quiddity of a thing is the thing itself.http://www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-10/chapter_ii.htm Aristotle and Aquinas and Scotus and Bonaventura all believed that humanminds can conceive and express the intelligibilities or quiddities of thingsand their properties, intelligibilities that are not simply mind-dependent.We can capture in thought and language the actual natures of things,spelling out their genera and speci'c differences. De'nition brackets ordelimits for us as knowers just what it is we attempt to understand andnothing else. The mind-independent thing-substance or the characteristicsthat we are attempting to de'ne measure the epistemic correctness of ade'nition. Such real (as opposed to nominal) de'nition relies on theintelligible and perceptible characteristics thing-substances exhibit toperception and thought for understanding what they are and for picking outindividuals of a type. In this way the epistemological realism of thede'nition corresponds to an ontological realism of actual formal featuresin mind-independent entities.http://www.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/lmiller/ Delinonaliud.htmAfter all, the three tenets that largely de'ne Nicholas's Ometaphysic ofcontraction' seem altogether remote from Anselm's Scholasticism. For Anselmhas no use for the triad of notions (1) that there is an in'nite'nite minds can never positively know what God is, given the alleged ground(3) that He is the Coincidence of opposites, i. e., is undifferentiated'Being' itself, which, with respect to its Quiddity, can never be conceivedby anyone except itself.http://www.cla.umn.edu/jhopkins/CusaAnselm.pdf>> --John>> JJ>>>> 1 I. The Problem, and the Problem with the Problem,> 2 of Identical Articles and Quantum Statistics> 3> 4 Suppose we have a box with two qualitatively> 6 bouncing around inside. We think of the box> 7 as having a left (*l*) and a right (*r*) side.> 9 at random without interacting, so that their> 10 motions are independent; in particular we> 12 that we may neglect collisions. What are the> 13 chances for 'nding one or both on one side> 14 or the other?> 15> 16 Many 'nd the following reasoning persuasive.> 19 in *r*, and 2 in *l* and 1 in *r*. These should> 20 be equally likely, so that each has a probability> 21 of 1/4, or a probability of 1/4 for two in *l*,> 22 1/4 for two in *r*, and 1/2 for one on each side.> 23> 24 This stylized example is a simple mock-up for a> 25 kind of situation that can occur with quantum entities> 26 and properties. For many of these situations the> 27 probabilities are in fact found to be 1/3 for each> > 28 of the three cases: two in *l*, two in *r* and one> 29 on each side. Many interpreters have found this> 30 fact utterly astonishing.> 31> 32 But on the face of it, there is a very simple> 33 resolution of the puzzle: give up supposing> 34 that there are two qualitatively identical but> 36 there are two *quanta*, as I'll put it, to which> 37 the notion of being numerically distinct does not> 38 apply. . . (p. 114) =>> Are you saying it is possible for something to exist at location A and> location B at the same time? I thought it was inference by the rule of> non-contradiction.>> I have no idea whether this is possible or not.>> My suggestion that quanta may satisfy O~(x=x)' is meant to translate> into logical terms the claim by some physicists that quanta> Olack individuality' (Heller suggests that quanta Olack haecceities').> The scenario with cakes-to-be suggests that the behaviour of other> entities without individuality resembles that of quanta in the> relevant respect. Heller's description of that behaviour follows> my sig.>> Metaphysical Background, Thomas McTighe asserted that the quiddity of a> thing is nothing other than unity itself. Hence, by virtue of its positive> content, the sun differs not at all from the moon or any other particular> thing. The diversity which is exhibited by the natural world is merely the> product of accidental differences; no object possesses any speci'c form> which interposes itself between a particular existing thing and the source> of their being e.g. the Absolute.15 All individual entities are nothing more> than differing contractions of the whole devoid of any being of their own.> ...because the restricted quiddity of a thing is the thing itself.> http://www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-10/chapter_ii.htmI take a quiddity to be a thing's *suchness* and a haecceity to be its*thisness*. A *thisness* I take to be, as Robert Adams does, theproperty of self-identity, although I disagree with an assumptionwhich might be read into Adams, that an individual can lackself-identity and yet possess the property of being someindividual or other). In Primitive Thisness and Primitive Identity (_The Journalof Philosophy_, Vol. 76, No. 1. (Jan., 1979), pp. 5-26), AdamsA thisness is the property of being a certain particularindividual, not the property of being some individual or other,but my property of being identical with me, your property ofbeing identical with you, etc. These properties have recently beencalled Oessences', but that is historically unfortunate, for essenceshave normally been understood to be constituted by logical properties,and we are entertaining the possibility of nonqualitativethisnesses. In de'ning Othisness' as I have, I do not meanto deny that universals have analogous properties--for example,the property of being identical with the quality red. But sincewe are concerned here principally with the question whetherthe identity and distinctness of individuals is purelyqualitative or not, it is useful to reserve the term'thisness' for the identities of individuals.It may be controversial to speak of a property of beingidentical with me. I want the word Oproperty' to carry aslight a metaphysical load here as possible. OThisness'is intended to be a synonym or translation of the traditionalterm Ohaecceity' (in Latin, Ohaecceitas'), which so far as Iknow was invented by Duns Scotus.Like many medieval philosophers, Scotus regarded properties ascomponents of the things that have them. He introducedhaecceities (thisnesses), accordingly, as a special sortof metaphysical component of individuals.[4] I am not proposingto revive this aspect of his conception of a haecceity, becauseI am not committed to regarding properties as components o'ndividuals. To deny that thisnesses are purely qualitativeis not necessarily to postulate Obare particulars', substratawithout qualities of their own, which would be what was leftof the individual when all its qualitative properties weresubtracted. Conversely, to hold that thisnesses are purelyqualitative is not to imply that individuals are nothingbut bundles of qualities, for qualities may not be componentsof individuals at all. (pp. 6-7) Note4. Johannes Duns Scotus, _Quaestiones in libros metaphysicorum_,VII. xii. schol. 3; cf. _Ordinatio_, II.3.1.2, 57. I am indebtedto Marilyn McCord Adams for acquainting me with these texts andviews of Scotus, and for much discussion of the topics of thisparagraph.> Aristotle and Aquinas and Scotus and Bonaventura all believed that human> minds can conceive and express the intelligibilities or quiddities of things> and their properties, intelligibilities that are not simply mind-dependent.> We can capture in thought and language the actual natures of things,> spelling out their genera and speci'c differences. De'nition brackets or> delimits for us as knowers just what it is we attempt to understand and> nothing else. The mind-independent thing-substance or the characteristics> that we are attempting to de'ne measure the epistemic correctness of a> de'nition. Such real (as opposed to nominal) de'nition relies on the> intelligible and perceptible characteristics thing-substances exhibit to> perception and thought for understanding what they are and for picking out> individuals of a type. In this way the epistemological realism of the> de'nition corresponds to an ontological realism of actual formal features> in mind-independent entities.> http://www.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/lmiller/ Delinonaliud.htm> After all, the three tenets that largely de'ne Nicholas's Ometaphysic of> contraction' seem altogether remote from Anselm's Scholasticism. For Anselm> has no use for the triad of notions (1) that there is an in'nite> 'nite minds can never positively know what God is, given the alleged ground> (3) that He is the Coincidence of opposites, i. e., is undifferentiated> OBeing' itself, which, with respect to its Quiddity, can never be conceived> by anyone except itself.> http://www.cla.umn.edu/jhopkins/CusaAnselm.pdf => Are you saying it is possible for something to exist at location Aand> location B at the same time? I thought it was inference by the ruleof> non-contradiction.>> I have no idea whether this is possible or not.>> My suggestion that quanta may satisfy O~(x=x)' is meant to translate> into logical terms the claim by some physicists that quanta> Olack individuality' (Heller suggests that quanta Olack haecceities').> The scenario with cakes-to-be suggests that the behaviour of other> entities without individuality resembles that of quanta in the> relevant respect. Heller's description of that behaviour follows> my sig.> Metaphysical Background, Thomas McTighe asserted that the quiddity of a> thing is nothing other than unity itself. Hence, by virtue of itspositive> content, the sun differs not at all from the moon or any otherparticular> thing. The diversity which is exhibited by the natural world is merelythe> product of accidental differences; no object possesses any speci'c form> which interposes itself between a particular existing thing and thesource> of their being e.g. the Absolute.15 All individual entities are nothingmore> than differing contractions of the whole devoid of any being of theirown.> ...because the restricted quiddity of a thing is the thing itself.>> http://www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-10/chapter_ii.htm>> I take a quiddity to be a thing's *suchness* and a haecceity to be its> *thisness*. A *thisness* I take to be, as Robert Adams does, the> property of self-identity, although I disagree with an assumption> which might be read into Adams, that an individual can lack> self-identity and yet possess the property of being some> individual or other).>> In Primitive Thisness and Primitive Identity (_The Journal> of Philosophy_, Vol. 76, No. 1. (Jan., 1979), pp. 5-26), Adams>> A thisness is the property of being a certain particular> individual, not the property of being some individual or other,> but my property of being identical with me, your property of> being identical with you, etc. These properties have recently been> called Oessences', but that is historically unfortunate, for essences> have normally been understood to be constituted by logical properties,> and we are entertaining the possibility of nonqualitative> thisnesses. In de'ning Othisness' as I have, I do not mean> to deny that universals have analogous properties--for example,> the property of being identical with the quality red. But since> we are concerned here principally with the question whether> the identity and distinctness of individuals is purely> qualitative or not, it is useful to reserve the term> Othisness' for the identities of individuals.>> It may be controversial to speak of a property of being> identical with me. I want the word Oproperty' to carry as> light a metaphysical load here as possible. OThisness'> is intended to be a synonym or translation of the traditional> term Ohaecceity' (in Latin, Ohaecceitas'), which so far as I> know was invented by Duns Scotus.>> Like many medieval philosophers, Scotus regarded properties as> components of the things that have them. He introduced> haecceities (thisnesses), accordingly, as a special sort> of metaphysical component of individuals.[4] I am not proposing> to revive this aspect of his conception of a haecceity, because> I am not committed to regarding properties as components of> individuals. To deny that thisnesses are purely qualitative> is not necessarily to postulate Obare particulars', substrata> without qualities of their own, which would be what was left> of the individual when all its qualitative properties were> subtracted. Conversely, to hold that thisnesses are purely> qualitative is not to imply that individuals are nothing> but bundles of qualities, for qualities may not be components> of individuals at all. (pp. 6-7)>Acceptance of haecceities is a distinctive feature of the thought of manyfollowers of Scotus, though there are some sixteenth-century scholastics whoaccept haecceities without accepting many other distinctively Scotistteachings. Having said this, some early followers of Scotus rejecthaecceities and the theory of the common nature altogether, and of those whoaccept haecceities, some found the correct understanding of the nature ofthe distinction between an individual's nature and its haecceity atroublesome matter.One of the earliest Scotists, Francis of Meyronnes, writing his commentaryof common natures, and the claim that individuation is by haecceity. But heholds that it is inappropriate to talk of a formal distinction in thiscontext. Formal distinction obtains only between things that have some sortof quidditative content.Haecceities have no such quidditative content, and thus cannot be formallydistinct from their nature. Rather, a haecceity is modally distinct from itsnature. A modal distinction, according to Meyronnes, obtains between a thingand an intrinsic mode of that thing, where an intrinsic mode is somethingwhich when added to a thing does not vary its formal de'nition . . . sinceit does not of itself imply any quiddity or formal de'nition. A haecceitydoes not affect a thing's kind; it is thus an intrinsic mode of the thing.It may look as though this is just a terminological shift, but it is not soin at least the following way: a modal distinction is a lesser kind ofdistinction than a formal distinction. Formal distinctions obtain betweengenus and speci'c difference; thus, the difference between species/natureand haecceity, for Meyronnes, is less than the difference between genus anddifference. Scotus, contrariwise, makes no such distinction between degreesof difference in this context (for this contrast between the two thinkers,see Dumont [1987], 18). Still, without some principled way of spelling outdegrees of difference, this contrast between Scotus and Meyronnes amounts tonothing of any philosophical interest. To this extent the difference betweenthe two thinkers might as well be merely terminological, and Meyronnes needsto do more work if he is to make any signi'cant philosophical point here.http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/ medieval-haecceity/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ francis-marchia/...center, content, core, essence, gist, heart, heart and soul, inwardness,kernel, marrow, matter, meaning, means, meat, message, nitty-gritty, nub,pith, subject matter, sum, divagation, drift, drivel, element, entity,entry, excursus, extension, ferment, §uid, foamentation, food, fuel, goo,gook, grinding, guck, guidance, gunk, haecceity, hokum, humectant, humor,humour, hydrocolloid, hypostasis, idea, implication, import, import, info,information, inhibitor, inoculant, inoculum, insertion, instruction,interpolation, jelly, latent content, leaven, leavening, litter, livingsubstance, lysin, material, meaning, meaninglessness, medium, memorial,mental object, micronutrient, mixture, muck, mush, narration, narrative,nonsense, nonsensicality, nutrient, offer, offering, ooze, opinion,packaging, parenthesis, part, petition, philosopher's stone, phlogiston,physical thing, poison, poisonous substance, portion, postulation,promotion, promotional material, propellant, propellent, proposal,protoplasm, publicity, pyrectic, pyrogen, quiddity, quintessence, reference,refrigerant, refusal, reminder, request, residue, respects, sediment,sensationalism, shocker, signi'cance, signi'cance, signi'cation, slime,sludge, solid, solute, solvate, statement, story, strain, stuff, stuff,subject, submission, substrate, system, tale, tenor, theme, thought, topic,treacle, undercurrent, undertone, view, wherewithal, wit, witticism,wittiness, ylem> Note>> 4. Johannes Duns Scotus, _Quaestiones in libros metaphysicorum_,> VII. xii. schol. 3; cf. _Ordinatio_, II.3.1.2, 57. I am indebted> to Marilyn McCord Adams for acquainting me with these texts and> views of Scotus, and for much discussion of the topics of this> paragraph.>> Aristotle and Aquinas and Scotus and Bonaventura all believed thathuman> minds can conceive and express the intelligibilities or quiddities ofthings> and their properties, intelligibilities that are not simplymind-dependent.> We can capture in thought and language the actual natures of things,> spelling out their genera and speci'c differences. De'nition bracketsor> delimits for us as knowers just what it is we attempt to understand and> nothing else. The mind-independent thing-substance or thecharacteristics> that we are attempting to de'ne measure the epistemic correctness of a> de'nition. Such real (as opposed to nominal) de'nition relies onthe> intelligible and perceptible characteristics thing-substances exhibit to> perception and thought for understanding what they are and for pickingout> individuals of a type. In this way the epistemological realism of the> de'nition corresponds to an ontological realism of actual formalfeatures> in mind-independent entities.>> http://www.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/lmiller/ Delinonaliud.htm>> After all, the three tenets that largely de'ne Nicholas's Ometaphysicof> contraction' seem altogether remote from Anselm's Scholasticism. ForAnselm> has no use for the triad of notions (1) that there is an in'nitetherefore,> 'nite minds can never positively know what God is, given the allegedground> (3) that He is the Coincidence of opposites, i. e., is undifferentiated> OBeing' itself, which, with respect to its Quiddity, can never beconceived> by anyone except itself.>> http://www.cla.umn.edu/jhopkins/CusaAnselm.pdf =>> Metaphysical Background, Thomas McTighe asserted that the quiddity> of a thing is nothing other than unity itself. Hence, by virtue> of its positive content, the sun differs not at all from the moon> or any other particular thing. The diversity which is exhibited> by the natural world is merely the product of accidental> differences; no object possesses any speci'c form which> interposes itself between a particular existing thing and the> source of their being e.g. the Absolute.15 All individual> entities are nothing more than differing contractions of the> whole devoid of any being of their own. ...because the> restricted quiddity of a thing is the thing itself.>> http://www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-10/chapter_ii.htmI didn't understand this the 'rst time around. This time I'llmake an effort, by placing it in its context:Metaphysical Background, Thomas McTighe asserted that the quiddityof a thing is nothing other than unity itself. Hence, by virtueof its positive content, the sun differs not at all from the moonor any other particular thing.14 The diversity which is exhibitedby the natural world is merely the product of accidental differences;no object possesses any speci'c form which interposes itself betweena particular existing thing and the source of their being e.g. theAbsolute.15 All individual entities are nothing more than differingcontractions of the whole devoid of any being of their own.Putting it in context didn't work. I have no idea what McTighe istalking about. Do you?>> I take a quiddity to be a thing's *suchness* and a haecceity to be its> *thisness*. A *thisness* I take to be, as Robert Adams does, the> property of self-identity, although I disagree with an assumption> which might be read into Adams, that an individual can lack> self-identity and yet possess the property of being some> individual or other).>> In Primitive Thisness and Primitive Identity (_The Journal> of Philosophy_, Vol. 76, No. 1. (Jan., 1979), pp. 5-26), Adams>> A thisness is the property of being a certain particular> individual, not the property of being some individual or other,> but my property of being identical with me, your property of> being identical with you, etc. These properties have recently been> called Oessences', but that is historically unfortunate, for essences> have normally been understood to be constituted by logical properties,> and we are entertaining the possibility of nonqualitative> thisnesses. In de'ning Othisness' as I have, I do not mean> to deny that universals have analogous properties--for example,> the property of being identical with the quality red. But since> we are concerned here principally with the question whether> the identity and distinctness of individuals is purely> qualitative or not, it is useful to reserve the term> Othisness' for the identities of individuals.>> It may be controversial to speak of a property of being> identical with me. I want the word Oproperty' to carry as> light a metaphysical load here as possible. OThisness'> is intended to be a synonym or translation of the traditional> term Ohaecceity' (in Latin, Ohaecceitas'), which so far as I> know was invented by Duns Scotus.>> Like many medieval philosophers, Scotus regarded properties as> components of the things that have them. He introduced> haecceities (thisnesses), accordingly, as a special sort> of metaphysical component of individuals.[4] I am not proposing> to revive this aspect of his conception of a haecceity, because> I am not committed to regarding properties as components of> individuals. To deny that thisnesses are purely qualitative> is not necessarily to postulate Obare particulars', substrata> without qualities of their own, which would be what was left> of the individual when all its qualitative properties were> subtracted. Conversely, to hold that thisnesses are purely> qualitative is not to imply that individuals are nothing> but bundles of qualities, for qualities may not be components> of individuals at all. (pp. 6-7)>> Acceptance of haecceities is a distinctive feature of the thought of many> followers of Scotus, though there are some sixteenth-century scholastics who> accept haecceities without accepting many other distinctively Scotist> teachings. Having said this, some early followers of Scotus reject> haecceities and the theory of the common nature altogether, and of those who> accept haecceities, some found the correct understanding of the nature of> the distinction between an individual's nature and its haecceity a> troublesome matter.> One of the earliest Scotists, Francis of Meyronnes, writing his commentary> of common natures, and the claim that individuation is by haecceity. But he> holds that it is inappropriate to talk of a formal distinction in this> context. Formal distinction obtains only between things that have some sort> of quidditative content.I'm not sure what he/you are getting at here.> Haecceities have no such quidditative content, and thus cannot be formally> distinct from their nature. Rather, a haecceity is modally distinct from its> nature. What does Cross (or whoever) mean by Haecceitiescannot be formally distinct from their nature.?> A modal distinction, according to Meyronnes, obtains between a thing> and an intrinsic mode of that thing, where an intrinsic mode is something> which when added to a thing does not vary its formal de'nition . . . since> it does not of itself imply any quiddity or formal de'nition. A haecceity> does not affect a thing's kind; it is thus an intrinsic mode of the thing.In order for this to mean something to anyone who is not sure whatan intrinsic mode, or the formal de'nition, of something (in thesense of Meyronnes) are--and is therefore unsure what Ovaryingsomething's formal de'nition' might involve, illustrative examplesshould be provided.> It may look as though this is just a terminological shift, but it is not so> in at least the following way: a modal distinction is a lesser kind of> distinction than a formal distinction. Formal distinctions obtain between> genus and speci'c difference; thus, the difference between species/nature> and haecceity, for Meyronnes, is less than the difference between genus and> difference. Scotus, contrariwise, makes no such distinction between degrees> of difference in this context (for this contrast between the two thinkers,> see Dumont [1987], 18). Still, without some principled way of spelling out> degrees of difference, this contrast between Scotus and Meyronnes amounts to> nothing of any philosophical interest. To this extent the difference between> the two thinkers might as well be merely terminological, and Meyronnes needs> to do more work if he is to make any signi'cant philosophical point here.Without any explanation of the before-shift and after-shiftterminology, how is one supposed to know which side is up?> http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/ medieval-haecceity/Here's the concluding paragraph from that Stanford EncyclopediaNote, of course, that Scotus's account of the common nature entailssomething stronger than Adams is proposing: indeed, it entailsprecisely the sort of minimal hypostatization that Scotus proposes.And the reason for this, of course, is Scotus's view that individualsubstances cannot themselves be primarily diverse -- a fact that isexplained by his claim that common natures have some sort of unity intheir instantiations: the nature in Socrates is (non-numerically) thesame as the nature in Plato. Natures, for Scotus, cannot be primarilydiverse; substances must include more than natures. But individualnatures in Ockham's view can indeed be primarily diverse, and thissurely amounts to a form of haecceitism -- nothing other than anindividual nature's own self-identity explains its distinction fromall other such natures. Maintaining that individual natures areprimarily diverse amounts not to having no theory of individuation,but to accepting a form of haecceitism that, like Adams's, does notinvolve ontological commitment to the existence of real haecceities asdistinct real constituents of things.Is the author of that one any relation to Mr. McTighe?> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-marchia/>--John => > Is there a relationship known for the distance between the largest root>> of an orthogonal polynomial and the endpoint of the orthogonality>> interval? I would like to know how fast this distance shrinks as a>> function of the degree of the polynomial...> 1) Chebyshev 1st kind, orthogonal on [-1,1]: x_n = cos((2n-1)pi/2n)> 2) Legendre, orthogonal on [-1,1]: x_n = 1-(j_n)^2/2 * 1/n^2 + O(1/n^3).> Here j_n is the nth biggest positive zero of Bessel function J_0(x).> All the best,> Teijonon-classical orthogonal polynomials at hand. I have the orthogonalityinterval and the weight function, but not a closed form of the polynomials.Is there some general theory? I've just ordered Szeg.9a's book OrthogonalPolynomials. I hope to 'nd something in there....Bye,gert =Hy all,this is my problem: I have to 'nd *all* eigenvalue and eigenvectorfrom very large sparse matrix (from 30000x30000 to 100000x100000elements). Matrix has value very condensed to the diagonal, it'ssymmetric and it's stored in memory with skyline or CSR method (Iheaven't decide yet...)Which method can I use to solve my problem? Another (sub)problem: isthere a method to 'nd eigenvalue and maintain the matrix structure(in order not to occupy much of the memory)?Attilio Gelosa. => this is my problem: I have to 'nd *all* eigenvalue and eigenvector> from very large sparse matrix (from 30000x30000 to 100000x100000> elements). Matrix has value very condensed to the diagonal, it's> symmetric and it's stored in memory with skyline or CSR method (I> heaven't decide yet...)> Which method can I use to solve my problem?I would suggest lanczos type methods for this. Still, it is going to be dif'cult just to store that many vectors. Another possible approach would be to compute all the eigenvalues with lanczos, and then repeat the process to compute blocks of eigenvectors using the precomputed expansion vectors from the tridiagonal representation.$.02 -Ron Shepard => Hy all,> this is my problem: I have to 'nd *all* eigenvalue and eigenvector> from very large sparse matrix (from 30000x30000 to 100000x100000> elements). This will mean your matrix of eigenvectors is 100000x100000 but full!How on earth are you going to utilize this information?Probably you need an approach where you generate and use one eigenvectorafter the other, to avoid storing them all?> Matrix has value very condensed to the diagonal, it's> symmetric and it's stored in memory with skyline or CSR method (I> heaven't decide yet...)> Which method can I use to solve my problem? Another (sub)problem: is> there a method to 'nd eigenvalue and maintain the matrix structure> (in order not to occupy much of the memory)?Probably you may use subspace iteration with (A-sI)^-1 for a set ofsuitable shifts s, using a factorization of A-sI.But it will be nontrivial to ensure that you get all approve@localhost) by support1.mathforum.org (8.11.6/8.11.6/The Math Forum, $Revision: 1.9 primary) id i0DL6Sc30654; =A ubiquitous problem in data analysis is sorting and searching. Aspart of a project I am working on in time series analysis, I need tosearch very ef'ciently through a high dimensional set of vectors. Idid some reading on the web and found that others described aclustering process which procedes in two phases - a processing phaseand a search phase. During the processing phase, a binary tree ofclusters is built that can later be searched ef'ciently. Theprocessing phase needs to be done only once (unless the set of vectorsbeing searched changes). I will outline the processing phase andafterwhich I will describe a problem I am having with the processing.All vectors belong to a root cluster.If the number of vectors in a cluster exceeds a speci'ed threshold,divide the cluster into 2 child clusters.Repeat recursively until each leaf cluster's population of vectors isbelow the threshold size.For all branch and leaf clusters calculate a center of mass and aradius (the maximum distance from the vector closest to the center ofmass to any other vector in the cluster).I have written a program in the C language which performs theprocessing phase but I have noticed that it produces binary clustertrees, that while the clusters at any particular level in the tree aredisjoint, some clusters lie completely inside others. That is a leafcluster will have a radius large enough to completely contain anotherleaf cluster. How can I get these pairs of clusters to combine withoutresorting to a brute force search for this condition after the binarytree is constructed.In case you are wondering, I have tried to implement the algorithmdescribed in the references* C. Merkwirth, U. Parlitz, and W. Lauterborn, Fast Exact andApproximate Nearest Neighbor Searching for Nonlinear SignalProcessing, Phys. Rev. E, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 20892097, 2000.* J. McNames, A nearest trajectory strategy for time seriesprediction, in Proceedings of the International Workshop on AdvancedBlack-Box Techniques for Nonlinear Modeling. K. U. Leuven Belgium,1998.Bob BuchananBob.Buchanan@millersvill.edu =(snip)> Think of the 'nite fft as an approximation to the integral fourier > transform. If you make a trapezoidal approximation to the integral, > the 'rst and last points must have weight 0.5 relative to the > internal points. For a signal that decays to 0, the last point doesn't > matter, but the 'rst one does.Well, there is that, and there is also, for the traditionalFourier series, Integrate from 0 to 2pi cos(nt)cos(mt) orsin(nt)sin(mt). For m==n the integral is pi ifm and n are not zero, but 2pi if they are zero.-- glen =>I need an automated method to 't a curve of the form y =>c*x*(1+a*e^(b*x)) to test data. This is a magnetic saturation curve>for an electric machine. The exponential term is the saturation>function, and is negligible at low values of x. We have several>points at low x values. At high values of x, the exponential term>dominates. We usually have a few points out to where the exponential>term is 0.5 or more, but not always. The data at low x are often a>bit noisy.>>When we 't by hand, we draw a straight line approximating an>asymptote to the lower part of the curve, then we subtract that line>from the data to get approximately the exponential part of the>function (the saturation factor). By taking the logarithm of both>sides for the dataabove a certain value of x, we can get a pretty good>'t on the upper part of the curve. Combining the two functions gives>the full approximation.>>The problem being, it requires a bit of human judgement to pick out>the spot where the linear part ends and the exponential begins. If I>get it wrong, either the linear portion will be skewed by having part>of the exponential term mixed in, or else it won't 't the transition>if not enough data is used for the exponential part (particularly if>it is not large).>>The approximation only needs to 't within 1% or so of the real>values (which don't actually 't the function exactly). Accuracy near>the transition region is most important, although this form of>equation was selected because it gives reasonable results when>extrapolated to higher values than we have data for.>>We're doing this in LabView, so we don't have access to numerical>libraries for nonlinear curve 'tting and such. Would prefer a quick>and dirty solution, though we might be able to port in some Fortran>code. I don't know how much procedural code is possible.>>A table of sample data follows:>>Voc(PU) Igf(A)>0.196 5.00>0.304 7.85>0.399 10.43>0.616 16.20>0.797 21.54>0.906 25.89>0.942 29.01>1.014 32.75>1.051 37.25>1.105 44.80>1.196 61.18>1.304 105.61>>This is approximately 't with:>>a = 0.000232>b = 7.005>c = 25.74>Allen, I found another function that may be easier to 't and which gives results whichseem adequate in the transition region. The model is: Ln(y)=a + bx + cx^2 + dx^3If you 't this using an iterative descent method, without 'rst transforming the data,you get coef'cients of: a = .43769 b = 7.483 c = -8.35098 d = 3.9069If you 'rst take the log (Ln) of your y values and then do a standard polynomial leastsquares 't, you get: a = .44426 b = 7.458 c = -8.3266 d = 3.900If I plot these on the computer, they are within a pixel or so of each other, so I thinkthe second 'tting method can be justi'ed.Note that this model function doesn't pass through the origin, but that may be ok for you.>>Allen =<400168d2$0$1163$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>:No. It's true that your series has _applications_ in calculus, but manipulating it as a series is algebra pure and simple -- junior-high-school algebra, in fact, when I studied it.-- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.comMy god, you can be insensitive sometimes.Sometimes? I must be slipping. -- Mrs Winterbourne (1996) =It seems like it is obvious yet I can't 'nd a proof and again ask forhelp.The problem:Prove that the set S = [a_1,b_1]X...X[a_n,b_n] does NOT have content 0if a_i < b_i for i=1,...,n. Note: a subset A of R^n is said to have content 0 if for each epsilon> 0 there is a 'nite cover of A by closed rectangles, sayU_1,...,U_m, such that v(U_1) + ... + v(U_m) < epsilon, where thevolume of the rectangle U_i is given by v(U_i).We are given (proven in the corresponding section of the text astheorem 3-5) that the closed interval [a_i,b_i] does not have content0.It is clear that if we choose epsilon less than the volume of S wewill prove that the set does not have content 0, but this is mydif'culty, i.e. showing that v(U_1) +...+ v(U_n) >= v(S).Any assistance met with great =I got a short pbm about vectorial space:if A and B are sub vectorial spaces, proof that A union B is alsoa subvetorial spaces if and only if A is in B or B is in A.I think that because of a stability probleme but I don't know how to start the demo...if anyone got a hint, it would be great :)thx,johann =I quess the dif'cult implikation is: A U B subspace ==> A is in B or B is in A (U being union.)So here is a hint for that:Suppose A U B is subspace and that A is not in B. Show that B is in A.Let x in B be some element. Choose y in A but not in B.Is x in B? Is (x+y) in A? Is (x+y) in B?(Remember, that you can write x like x=(x+y)-y.)Mogens => I got a short pbm about vectorial space:> if A and B are sub vectorial spaces, proof that A union B is also> a subvetorial spaces if and only if A is in B or B is in A.> I think that because of a stability probleme but I don't know how > to start the demo...You are correct (stable in French = closed in English.)If A / B is a subspace and A is not a subspace of B, let a be in A butnot in B. Let b be any element of B and consider a + b which, byclosure, must be in A / B. So a + b must be an element of either A orof B. It can't be an element of B or else a would be also.Consequently, a + b is an element of A and hence so is b.The if part is trivial.-- Paul SperryColumbia, SC (USA)