mm-412 === Subject: Re: Integral problem Integrating by parts seems to work. Integration by parts formula: If u=f(x) and v=g(x) and if f' and g' are continuous, then (int) u dv = uv-(int)vdu I let u=ln r, which means du=1/r dr, v=0.5r^2, and dv=rdr. Hope that helps. === Subject: Substituting in to E=mc^2 In a desperate attempt to make algebra interesting to one of the sets I teach I thought about substituting into E=mc^2 using the following values: m=1000 (ie 1kg as in 1kg of Uranium, or is it Plutonium?) c=300 000 -> c^2 = 90 000 000 000 km/s (or should I use m/s and increase by a factor of 1000) giving E=90 000 000 000 000 Is this legitimate? If so what are the units for E? Joules? If this is wildly wrong can someone provide alternative values and units for a reasonably able bunch of 12 and 13yos. cheers dd (btw I would have Xposted to sci.physics but I'd have to use Google as my news service doesn't include that group) === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 In a desperate attempt to make algebra interesting to one of the sets I teach I thought about substituting into E=mc^2 using the following values: Worry: the children have been taught elsewhere that matter and energy (separately) are conserved. If you want some big numbers, consider questions relating to Avagadro's number. m=1000 (ie 1kg as in 1kg of Uranium, or is it Plutonium?) c=300 000 -> c^2 = 90 000 000 000 km/s (or should I use m/s and increase by a factor of 1000) giving E=90 000 000 000 000 Is this legitimate? If so what are the units for E? Joules? If this is wildly wrong can someone provide alternative values and units for a reasonably able bunch of 12 and 13yos. dd (btw I would have Xposted to sci.physics but I'd have to use Google as my news service doesn't include that group) G.C. === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 I think the idea of putting a little 20th century physics into a word problem is a good one. There are a couple of details you might want to know in advance to make your problem sensible. One is that, in the are merely rearranged into different chemical elements. The mass-energy conversion comes in because the rearranged nuclei have a slightly smaller combined rest mass than the original nuclei did. I don't have numbers for fission reactions such as uranium or plutonium decay, but in a deuterium-fueled fusion reaction (H-bomb) the rest mass is only reduced by about 0.1%. Because of the large nuclei involved, I think the fraction is smaller for fission. So, specifying 1 kg of uranium or plutonium is no better than specifying 1 kg of sugar--if you intend to have all of the rest mass converted to energy. Total conversion doesn't happen to either of them. Another point is that if you want E=mc^2 to give standard energy units, you have to express m and c in compatible units. If you are measuring mass in kg, it is usual to express c in m/sec (not km/sec) and the result expresses energy in joules. If you express mass in grams, then it is common to measure c in cm/sec (~3x10^10 cm/sec) to get energy measured in ergs. (1 joule = 10^7 ergs) I recommend kg, m/sec and joules for the problem, because joules are closer to units of energy in common experience. For example 4186 joules = 1 kcal (a nutritionist's Calorie, or a scientist's kilocalorie). On this theme, you could compare the dietary energy in a teaspoon of sugar (4 gm, with about 15 kcal if pure sucrose). The dietary energy is: 15 kcal * (4.2x10^3 joule/kcal) = 6.3x10^4 joule Total conversion of those 4 grams (0.004 kg) would produce: E = mc^2 = (0.004 kg)*(3.0*10^8 m/s)^2 = 3.6x10^14 joule (To 2 gm of sucrose, add 2 gm of anti-sucrose. Mix well.) Cheers, Mike. In a desperate attempt to make algebra interesting to one of the sets I teach I thought about substituting into E=mc^2 using the following values: m=1000 (ie 1kg as in 1kg of Uranium, or is it Plutonium?) c=300 000 -> c^2 = 90 000 000 000 km/s (or should I use m/s and increase by a factor of 1000) giving E=90 000 000 000 000 Is this legitimate? If so what are the units for E? Joules? If this is wildly wrong can someone provide alternative values and units for a reasonably able bunch of 12 and 13yos. dd (btw I would have Xposted to sci.physics but I'd have to use Google as my news service doesn't include that group) === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 calories and kilocalories. === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 Ok, but there isn't alot off mass destroyed by a nuclear bomb. In fact, the energy unleashed is from the nuclear force holding the nucleus of the atom anhilated. The mass decreases, of course, due to E=MC^2, ie since energy is stored in the atoms nucleus, it increases its mass. Justin Van Winkle In a desperate attempt to make algebra interesting to one of the sets I teach I thought about substituting into E=mc^2 using the following values: m=1000 (ie 1kg as in 1kg of Uranium, or is it Plutonium?) c=300 000 -> c^2 = 90 000 000 000 km/s (or should I use m/s and increase by a factor of 1000) giving E=90 000 000 000 000 Is this legitimate? If so what are the units for E? Joules? If this is wildly wrong can someone provide alternative values and units for a reasonably able bunch of 12 and 13yos. dd (btw I would have Xposted to sci.physics but I'd have to use Google as my news service doesn't include that group) === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 In a desperate attempt to make algebra interesting to one of the sets I teach I thought about substituting into E=mc^2 using the following values: [...] It seems to me that the formula E = mc^2 will get in the way of the algebra. Will you be able to answer, accurately and appropriately, any questions that your pupils may ask? G.C. === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 Message-Id: <1069018631.46827.0@furbie.uk.clara.net> In a similar attempt to make formulas interesting I showed pupils of the same age the pendulum formula, T=2pi*sqrt(L/g). Actually, because they don't know about pi and g yet I said T~2sqrt(L) and then set up a big pendulum by suspending a weight from the ceiling. We found that the formula predicts the period remarkably well and they seemed much more interested than they are in the artificial formulas in our textbooks. Mark In a desperate attempt to make algebra interesting to one of the sets I teach I thought about substituting into E=mc^2 using the following values: m=1000 (ie 1kg as in 1kg of Uranium, or is it Plutonium?) c=300 000 -> c^2 = 90 000 000 000 km/s (or should I use m/s and increase by a factor of 1000) giving E=90 000 000 000 000 Is this legitimate? If so what are the units for E? Joules? If this is wildly wrong can someone provide alternative values and units for a reasonably able bunch of 12 and 13yos. dd (btw I would have Xposted to sci.physics but I'd have to use Google as my news service doesn't include that group) === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 In a similar attempt to make formulas interesting I showed pupils of the same age the pendulum formula, T=2pi*sqrt(L/g). Actually, because they don't know about pi and g yet I said T~2sqrt(L) and then set up a big pendulum by suspending a weight from the ceiling. We found that the formula predicts the period remarkably well and they seemed much more interested than they are in the artificial formulas in our textbooks. of other posts I thought I'd misposted to alt.uptight.selfrighteous. FWIW the lesson is actually about substitution and I use a Key Maths Exercise from 7/2 that has the answers... Maths is Fun (groan) Pizza for Tea (better) and then using powers and brackets We Want Sausages (best) cheers dd === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 Message-Id: <1069100697.84247.0@eunomia.uk.clara.net> couple of other posts I thought I'd misposted to alt.uptight.selfrighteous. FWIW the lesson is actually about substitution and I use a Key Maths Exercise from 7/2 that has the answers... Maths is Fun (groan) I skip that exercise because I think it reinforces the misconception that some pupils hold that a always stands for 1, b always stands for 2, c for 3 and so on. I like the following exercise, 9:14, much better. Mark Burch === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 couple > of other posts I thought I'd misposted to alt.uptight.selfrighteous. FWIW > the lesson is actually about substitution and I use a Key Maths Exercise > from 7/2 that has the answers... > Maths is Fun (groan) I skip that exercise because I think it reinforces the misconception that some pupils hold that a always stands for 1, b always stands for 2, c for 3 and so on. Something we did on our PGCE. The course leader(?) was mad as a hatter but very good, so I do remind the little angels that this is *not* the case, eg for starters to lessons I often use a=10, b=5, c=3 etc and get them to evaluate expressions. Any child giving the answer a^2 = 20 is of course terminated with extreme prejudice. That said it would be better if they'd used a different system when writing the book. I like the following exercise, 9:14, much better. I'll have to check that one out, though our stock of 7/2s has gradually depleted to the point where we have less than half a class set, so I may have to cause a diversion while I illegally photocopy it. cheers dd === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 In a desperate attempt to make algebra interesting to one of the sets I teach I thought about substituting into E=mc^2 using the following values: m=1000 (ie 1kg as in 1kg of Uranium, or is it Plutonium?) In Einstein's equation, the m is not the total mass that's _involved_, it's the _part_ of that mass that changes to energy. If you do some looking around in nearly any popular book on fission or atomic bombs or the like you should be able to find that figure; it's under 1% in an A-bomb if I recall correctly. c=300 000 -> c^2 = 90 000 000 000 km/s (or should I use m/s and increase by a factor of 1000) Your mass figure is in grams, a CGS unit; therefore the speed of light must also be in CGS units, 3x10^10 cm/s. giving E=90 000 000 000 000 Is this legitimate? No, because your units are incompatible and your mass figure needs to be adjusted. Once you fix that, E will be in ergs. The numbers become less ugly if you use MKS units (kg for mass and 3x10^8 m/s for c). You still have to fix the problem with mass. Once you do, you will have an energy content in Joules. It takes 100 J to keep an ordinary 100-Watt light bulb burning for a second. Meaning no disrespect, this seems to be way outside the area of what you know about. You can educate yourself, a good thing, but I think if you present this example to your kids it could very well backfire. If they're interested (which is what you hope for), they'll ask questions. While you don't have to be able to answer them -- it makes a good assignment for the class to research questions asked in class -- you do need to know a right answer from a similar-but-wrong answer. Based on what you've shown us here I submit, again meaning no disrespect, that it would be a lot safer to find something you understand. Such as? Well, kids like money. (So do I, actually?) Do something with compound interest, or with price-demand curves. (btw I would have Xposted to sci.physics but Crossposting to three groups, as you did, is more than sufficient. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely reduces the number of useful answers you get. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 In a desperate attempt to make algebra interesting to one of the sets I teach I thought about substituting into E=mc^2 using the following values: m=1000 (ie 1kg as in 1kg of Uranium, or is it Plutonium?) c=300 000 -> c^2 = 90 000 000 000 km/s (or should I use m/s and increase by If c is in km/2, don't you think that c^2 should be in units of km^2/s^2? However, as you guess, m is a more sensible length unit than km. a factor of 1000) giving E=90 000 000 000 000 Is this legitimate? If so what are the units for E? Joules? If this is wildly wrong can someone provide alternative values and units for a reasonably able bunch of 12 and 13yos. I'd have thought that 90000000000000 J is indistinguishable from 90000000000000000000 J -- both fall into the category of being unimaginably high. You'll probably have a more understandable example if you use the smallest thing possible that you can imagine weighing. Weigh a human hair (weigh 100 if you can't weigh 1) and calculate the weight of a 1mm length of human hair from that. Multiply that minuscule mass by the enormous c^2, and you'll still get a large number of Joules, which will be far more impressive. Phil Unpatched IE vulnerability: document.domain parent DNS resolver Description: Improper duality check leading to firewall breach Published: July 29 2002 Reference: http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/284908/2002-07-27/2002-08-02/0 === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 > In a desperate attempt to make algebra interesting to one of the sets I > teach I thought about substituting into E=mc^2 using the following values: > m=1000 (ie 1kg as in 1kg of Uranium, or is it Plutonium?) > c=300 000 -> c^2 = 90 000 000 000 km/s (or should I use m/s and increase by If c is in km/2, don't you think that c^2 should be in units of km^2/s^2? However, as you guess, m is a more sensible length unit than km. > a factor of 1000) > giving > E=90 000 000 000 000 > Is this legitimate? If so what are the units for E? Joules? If this is > wildly wrong can someone provide alternative values and units for a > reasonably able bunch of 12 and 13yos. I'd have thought that 90000000000000 J is indistinguishable from 90000000000000000000 J -- both fall into the category of being unimaginably high. You'll probably have a more understandable example if you use the smallest thing possible that you can imagine weighing. Weigh a human hair (weigh 100 if you can't weigh 1) and calculate the weight of a 1mm length of human hair from that. Multiply that minuscule mass by the enormous c^2, and you'll still get a large number of Joules, which will be far more impressive. Of course, you also need to describe a joule in real-life terms before it will mean anything. === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 > In a desperate attempt to make algebra interesting to one of the sets I > teach I thought about substituting into E=mc^2 using the following values: > m=1000 (ie 1kg as in 1kg of Uranium, or is it Plutonium?) > c=300 000 -> c^2 = 90 000 000 000 km/s (or should I use m/s and increase by If c is in km/2, don't you think that c^2 should be in units of km^2/s^2? However, as you guess, m is a more sensible length unit than km. When I studied Physics, there were two metric systems used, the MKS system and the CGS system. In both, the S is seconds. MKS CGS Length meters centimeters Mass kilometers grams Force newtons dynes Energy joules ergs > a factor of 1000) > giving > E=90 000 000 000 000 > Is this legitimate? If so what are the units for E? Joules? If this is > wildly wrong can someone provide alternative values and units for a > reasonably able bunch of 12 and 13yos. I'd have thought that 90000000000000 J is indistinguishable from 90000000000000000000 J -- both fall into the category of being unimaginably high. You'll probably have a more understandable example if you use the smallest thing possible that you can imagine weighing. Weigh a human hair (weigh 100 if you can't weigh 1) and calculate the weight of a 1mm length of human hair from that. Multiply that minuscule mass by the enormous c^2, and you'll still get a large number of Joules, which will be far more impressive. Phil Swap first and last parts of username and ISP for address. === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 You'll probably have a more understandable example if you use the smallest thing possible that you can imagine weighing. Weigh a human hair (weigh 100 if you can't weigh 1) and calculate the weight of a 1mm length of human hair from that. All that said, I think that is a better source of motivating material than E=mc^2 hth meeroh If this message helped you, consider buying an item from my wish list: === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 All that said, I think that is a better source of motivating material than E=mc^2 === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 In a desperate attempt to make algebra interesting to one of the sets I teach I thought about substituting into E=mc^2 using the following values: m=1000 (ie 1kg as in 1kg of Uranium, or is it Plutonium?) Keep the mass in kg. I have to question whether the physics is plausible (the equation states that the energy released in a reaction is c^2 times the change in mass before and after the reaction - which is about 10^(-25)kg for fission of a single uranium atom.) c=300 000 -> c^2 = 90 000 000 000 km/s c^2 should have units of (length unit)^2 / (time unit)^2, ie (km/s)^2 (or should I use m/s and increase by a factor of 1000) Yes: c = 3 * 10^8 m/s => c^2 = 9 * 10^16 J/kg [1] giving E=90 000 000 000 000 Is this legitimate? If so what are the units for E? Joules? Chasing through factors of 10^3 and 10^-3, your result is in kilojoules. (See the table below). If this is wildly wrong can someone provide alternative values and units for a reasonably able bunch of 12 and 13yos. m should be of the order of 10^(-20) kg for some degree of physical realism. The following relations should be of help: m c E ------------------- kg m/s J kg km/s MJ g m/s mJ g km/s kJ You could use this as a starting point for a discussion on the importance of using consistent units and the concept of dimensional analysis. [1]: showing that this is consistent is left as an exercise for the reader. The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice. === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 You could use this as a starting point for a discussion on the importance of using consistent units and the concept of dimensional analysis. I could but no-one would have a clue what I was talking about. The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice. Is this true?!?! === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 In a desperate attempt to make algebra interesting to one of the sets I teach I thought about substituting into E=mc^2 using the following values: m=1000 (ie 1kg as in 1kg of Uranium, or is it Plutonium?) It's irrelevant whether it's Uranium or Plutonium. c=300 000 -> c^2 = 90 000 000 000 km/s (or should I use m/s and increase by a factor of 1000) If the mass is in kg and the velocity is in m/s... giving E=90 000 000 000 000 Is this legitimate? If so what are the units for E? Joules? If this is ... then the energy will be in Joules. wildly wrong can someone provide alternative values and units for a reasonably able bunch of 12 and 13yos. Do 12 and 13 year olds know about E = mc^2 ? dd (btw I would have Xposted to sci.physics but I'd have to use Google as my news service doesn't include that group) G.C. === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 So if you use m=1kg c=300 000 000m/s then you get E=90 000 000 000 000 000 Joules Do 12 and 13 year olds know about E = mc^2 ? In my experience it is recognisable and seen as important for something or other. What do we need algebra for sir? Well you never know Johnny you might want to become an International Master Criminal and want to hold the world to ransom. In this case you will need algebra. cheers dd === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 So if you use m=1kg c=300 000 000m/s then you get E=90 000 000 000 000 000 Joules Correct. > Do 12 and 13 year olds know about E = mc^2 ? In my experience it is recognisable and seen as important for something or other. What do we need algebra for sir? Well you never know Johnny you might want to become an International Master Criminal You mean Head of a Multinational Company? and want to hold the world to ransom. In this case you will need algebra. Nah--he'll employ an accountant. dd G.C. === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 As I recall when an atomic bomb is detonated only a few grams of plutonium actually convert to energy before the blast scatters the rest of the plutonium too far apart to maintain critical mass. --gary So if you use m=1kg c=300 000 000m/s then you get E=90 000 000 000 000 000 Joules > Do 12 and 13 year olds know about E = mc^2 ? In my experience it is recognisable and seen as important for something or other. What do we need algebra for sir? Well you never know Johnny you might want to become an International Master Criminal and want to hold the world to ransom. In this case you will need algebra. dd === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 As I recall when an atomic bomb is detonated only a few grams of plutonium actually convert to energy before the blast scatters the rest of the plutonium too far apart to maintain critical mass. Everyone seems to be pointing this out to me but you get the prize for being first. How come you all know so much about making nuclear weapons? Whenever I need a nuclear weapon I get the science technician to see what's at the back of his cupboard and use http://tinyurl.com/jbsv but you're all going to tell me this is a load of rubbish now. cheers dd === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 <3fb80d64$1_3@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com> Everyone seems to be pointing this out to me but you get the prize for being first. How come you all know so much about making nuclear weapons? I think these people just know how the use E=mc^2 and what the 'm' is actually representing... and the way they know this is probably because they took high school physics (and probably understood it.) Whenever I need a nuclear weapon I get the science technician to see what's at the back of his cupboard and use http://tinyurl.com/jbsv but you're all going to tell me this is a load of rubbish now. ...I'm homeschooling my kids. J === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 Originator: mtx014@linux.services.coventry.ac.uk (Robert Low) > Everyone seems to be pointing this out to me but you get the prize for being > first. How come you all know so much about making nuclear weapons? I think these people just know how the use E=mc^2 and what the 'm' is actually representing... and the way they know this is probably because they took high school physics (and probably understood it.) That's about it. I think (though it was long enough ago that I'm no longer sure) that we did this in Higher Physics; (Scottish) Highers were the exams you took in secondary school at the age of 17. Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/ === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 Originator: mtx014@linux.services.coventry.ac.uk (Robert Low) > As I recall when an atomic bomb is detonated only a few grams of plutonium > actually convert to energy before the blast scatters the rest of the > plutonium too far apart to maintain critical mass. Everyone seems to be pointing this out to me but you get the prize for being first. I've been trying not to jump in on this, but I can't resist any longer. *NO* grams of plutonium are converted to energy when a fission bomb explodes. What happens is that the binding energy of the fission products is lower than that of the original elements, and this `spare' energy is released in various ways (kinetic energy and various forms of electromagnetic radiation for the most part). But, since binding energy has mass (via E=mc^2), the total rest mass of the post-explosion material is less than that of the original bomb by the amount of the change in binding energy. Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/ === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 *NO* grams of plutonium are converted to energy when a fission bomb explodes. What happens is that the binding energy of the fission products is lower than that of the original elements, and this `spare' energy is released in various ways (kinetic energy and various forms of electromagnetic radiation for the most part). But, since binding energy has mass Now this I *don't* understand (via E=mc^2), the total rest mass of the post-explosion material is less than that of the original bomb by the amount of the change in binding energy. I don't know...you start trying to make a nuclear weapon and these people come along and complicate matters no end. This is a much more process. cheers dd === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 Originator: mtx014@linux.services.coventry.ac.uk (Robert Low) > *NO* grams of plutonium are converted to energy when a fission > bomb explodes. What happens is that the binding energy of the > fission products is lower than that of the original elements, > and this `spare' energy is released in various ways (kinetic energy > and various forms of electromagnetic radiation for the most > part). But, since binding energy has mass Now this I *don't* understand OK. It takes a certain amount of energy to pull apart a nucleus into its constituent protons and neutrons. This amount of energy is called the 'binding energy' of the atom. If you compare the mass of a nucleus with the sum of the masses of as many protons and neutrons as it contains, you find that the nucleus mass is less than the sum by the binding energy divided by c^2. Now, if you compare the binding energy of the fission products with that of the original element, you find that the total amount of energy required to pull apart the products is less than the total amount required to pull apart the fissile material you started with. That difference is the energy which went into the explosion. None of the atoms of plutonium are converted to energy via E=mc^2; however, the total mass of the original material is less than that of the products, and if you multiply the difference by c^2 you get the amount of binding energy which was released as the explosion. Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/ === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 > *NO* grams of plutonium are converted to energy when a fission > bomb explodes. What happens is that the binding energy of the > fission products is lower than that of the original elements, > and this `spare' energy is released in various ways (kinetic energy > and various forms of electromagnetic radiation for the most > part). But, since binding energy has mass >Now this I *don't* understand OK. It takes a certain amount of energy to pull apart a nucleus into its constituent protons and neutrons. This amount of energy is called the 'binding energy' of the atom. If you compare the mass of a nucleus with the sum of the masses of as many protons and neutrons as it contains, you find that the nucleus mass is less than the sum by the binding energy divided by c^2. I think that like many DDEckerslyke, by not really considering the binding energy, effectively makes the binding energy of the plutonium atom to be in some way just part of the plutonium atom. Your view (which is the usual one) of binding energy is that it's effectively negative (i.e. it corresponds with a mass deficit). There's at least a cognitive clash when trying to make a negative attribute be part of something else. Now, if you compare the binding energy of the fission products with that of the original element, you find that the total amount of energy required to pull apart the products is less than the total amount required to pull apart the fissile material you started with. That difference is the energy which went into the explosion. None of the atoms of plutonium are converted to energy via E=mc^2; however, the total mass of the original material is less than that of the products, and if you multiply the difference by c^2 you get the amount of binding energy which was released as the explosion. Yup, e.g., chosing arbitrary units, if Plutonium has a B.E. of -10, and the two fission products have B.E.'s of -3 and -8, then this can be seen as consituents + -10 => constituents + -3 + -8 + 1 thus 1 would the energy released by the fission. However, if you view (consituents + -10) as the plutonium atom, then the conversion of -10 to -3 + -8 + 1 is a release of 1 unit from the plutonium atom. As you say, it's not the release of energy from the conversion of the constituents' rest mass into energy. Mass/energy equivalence is quite deep, and I don't know if I can think of any analogies that would make it easier for DDEckerslyke or his students. (All I can think of that's equivalent to the binding energy part is volume for packing different sized balls - you can pack mixed-sized balls more tightly than you can balls of only one size. Similarly, 50cl of water and 50cl of alcohol when mixed together take up less than 100cl of volume. Unfortunately these don't have an analogue to the fision part.) Phil Unpatched IE vulnerability: protocol control chars Description: Circumventing content filters Reference: http://badwebmasters.net/advisory/012/ Exploit: http://badwebmasters.net/advisory/012/test2.asp === Subject: Re: Substituting in to E=mc^2 Originator: mtx014@linux.services.coventry.ac.uk (Robert Low) > *NO* grams of plutonium are converted to energy when a fission > bomb explodes. What happens is that the binding energy of the >Now this I *don't* understand > OK. It takes a certain amount of energy to pull apart > a nucleus into its constituent protons and neutrons. [etc] I think that like many DDEckerslyke, by not really considering the binding energy, effectively makes the binding energy of the plutonium atom to be in some way just part of the plutonium atom. Your view (which is the usual one) of binding energy is that it's effectively negative (i.e. it corresponds with a mass deficit). There's at least a cognitive clash when trying to make a negative attribute be part of something else. Familiarity breeds content, I suppose. I guess I got over the hurdle long enough ago that I don't see why it's a problem any more. Which doesn't make it any easier for me to understand why my pellucid explanations confuse people still further, alas. Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/ === Subject: derivative of x^x^x How do you solve this equation? f(x) = x^(x^x), calculate f '(x) This is what I have so far....I'm a right?...and now what? f(x) = x^x^x lnf(x) = ln(x^x^x) lnf(x) = xlnx^x ln(lnf(x)) = ln(xlnx^x) -- Provision Tech http://www.provisiontech.net === Subject: Re: derivative of x^x^x Sorry to ignore the follow-up, but my provider does not serve alt.math f(x) = x^(x^x), calculate f '(x) This is what I have so far....I'm a right?...and now what? f(x) = x^x^x Here is your first mistake. Maybe not a mathematical one, but you left out the parantheses, ... lnf(x) = ln(x^x^x) lnf(x) = xlnx^x ... as a result you screwed it up here. f(x) = x^(x^x) => ln( f(x) ) = ln( x^(x^x) ) = x^x * ln( x ) The idea, though, will eventually lead to the desired derivative: g(x) := x^x => ln(g(x)) = ln( x^x ) = x * ln(x) => g(x) = exp(ln(g(x))) = exp( x * ln(x) ) ln(f(x)) = exp( x * ln(x) ) * ln( x ) => f(x) = exp( exp( x * ln(x) ) * ln( x ) ) The rest is chain rule. Greetings, Oswald -- _/_/ _/ | Oswald Jaskolla _/ _/ _/ | Home: http://www.jaskolla.net/oswald _/ _/ _/ _/ | Work: http://www.iww.rwth-aachen.de _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ | Fun : http://www.ptsv-schach.de === Subject: Re: derivative of x^x^x How do you solve this equation? f(x) = x^(x^x), calculate f '(x) This is what I have so far....I'm a right?...and now what? f(x) = x^x^x lnf(x) = ln(x^x^x) lnf(x) = xlnx^x Your righthand side is wrong: it's ln((x^x)^x) instead of ln(x^(x^x)). You should have ln(f(x)) = (x^x) ln(x). Now differentiate both sides; on the left you'll get f'(x)/f(x), as usual in logarithmic differentiation, and on the right you'll have to differentiate x^x. Do this as a separate problem, using logarithmic differentiation, and plug the result back into the original problem. [...] Brian === Subject: Re: derivative of x^x^x Now differentiate both sides; on the left you'll get f'(x)/f(x), as usual in logarithmic differentiation, and on the right you'll have to differentiate x^x. Do this as a separate problem, using logarithmic differentiation, and plug the result back into the original problem. o.k. this is what I currently have...how am I doing? y = x^x lny = lnx^x lny = xlnx (1/y)y' = 1(lnx) + x(1/x) (1/y)y' = lnx + 1 y' = y(lnx + 1) y' = (x^x)(lnx +1) f(x) = x^(x^x) ln(f(x)) = ln(x(x^x)) ln(f(x)) = (x^x)ln(x) (1/f(x))f '(x) = ((x^x)ln(x))' (1/f(x))f '(x) = [(x^x)(lnx + 1)] / x f '(x) = f(x)([(x^x)(lnx + 1)] / x) f '(x) = [x^(x^x)]([(x^x)(lnx + 1)] / x) -- Provision Tech http://www.provisiontech.net === Subject: Re: derivative of x^x^x ok, I messed up on that last one. Is this the correct answer? y = x^x lny = lnx^x lny = xlnx (1/y)y' = 1(lnx) + x(1/x) (1/y)y' = lnx + 1 y' = y(lnx + 1) y' = (x^x)(lnx +1) f(x) = x^(x^x) ln(f(x)) = ln(x(x^x)) ln(f(x)) = (x^x)ln(x) (1/f(x))f '(x) = ((x^x)ln(x))' (1/f(x))f '(x) = (x^x(lnx + 1))lnx + (x^x)/x f'(x) = f(x)[(x^x(lnx + 1))lnx + (x^x)/x] f'(x) = x^(x^x)[(x^x(lnx + 1))lnx + (x^x)/x] -- Provision Tech http://www.provisiontech.net === Subject: Re: derivative of x^x^x > Looks like what I got, I just took it one step further. I originally looked at your answer and was having trouble understanding it. I think its funny that I gave up on your answer kept working on it and got the same one. At least now I know I understand it though. -- Provision Tech http://www.provisiontech.net === Subject: Re: derivative of x^x^x > Now differentiate both sides; on the left you'll get f'(x)/f(x), > as usual in logarithmic differentiation, and on the right you'll > have to differentiate x^x. Do this as a separate problem, using > logarithmic differentiation, and plug the result back into the > original problem. o.k. this is what I currently have...how am I doing? y = x^x lny = lnx^x lny = xlnx (1/y)y' = 1(lnx) + x(1/x) (1/y)y' = lnx + 1 y' = y(lnx + 1) y' = (x^x)(lnx +1) Looks okay to here. f(x) = x^(x^x) ln(f(x)) = ln(x(x^x)) ln(f(x)) = (x^x)ln(x) (1/f(x))f '(x) = ((x^x)ln(x))' (1/f(x))f '(x) = [(x^x)(lnx + 1)] / x Oops! You need to use the product rule to do the differentiation on the righthand side. [...] Brian === Subject: Proving that an inverse of a function given by a matrix transformation exists Hello. I am having trouble understanding how to apply the inverse function theorem to matrix transformations. The textbook that I am using has examples of using the inverse function theorem for ordinary R(n)->R(m) functions but not for matrix transformations such as S(X)=X^3, where X is in Mat(3,3) for example. Here is the problem that I need to solve and my solution. I would greatly appreciate if someone could go over my reasoning and point out any flaws that I have and explain to me how to solve Problem: A = [ 0 1 0 ] [ 0 0 1 ] [ 1 0 0 ] Note that A^3 = I (identity matrix). Is there a cont. differentiable function g such that g(I)=A and (g(A))^3=A in the neigborhood of I. My Solution: Let f: X -> X^3 (X is a matrix) then f(g(x)) = [g(x)]^3 = x if X = I f(g(I)) = I Now use the chain rule for the derivative of f(g(I)) [D(fog)(X)] = [Df(g(X))][Dg(X)] (by definition) Let X = I: [D(fog)(I)] = [Df(g(I))][Dg(I)] = [Df(A)][Dg(I)] (since g(I)=A) Finding [Df(A)] is a bit tricky. I used the general definition of the derivative to show that [Df(A)]H = 3A^2H + 3AH^2 Now I let H = I so that [Df(A)]I = 3A^2 + 3A I then went on to show that the determinant of this matrix (using A from the problem) = 54 (is nonzero). g(X), asked for in the problem exists. However, I am a bit confused myself as to whether this reasoning is correct and whether I am using the inverse function theorem correctly. I would greatly appreciate if someone could comment on my solution and explain to me how to do these types of problems. Thank you so much! Cheers, Serge === Subject: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference equation is worthy of publication somewhere. But you sit by as if there's nothing sinister going on, when all these people are fighting such a choice result. Yet in your ENTIRE CAREERS most of you will never publish anything that's even close in neatness, but you'll fill up journals anyway. That's the math world. If there's anything I really like here it's proving the lie to all of you of pure math, as sure, you may convince others that my work isn't important, but those of you desperate to find something worth publication in your publish or perish world know the reality. Pure math is a fraud, just something you say, when you don't believe in it. It's just a way to get by and pay your s. Yes, to me you are losers, too weak to handle the truth, so you think you can crap on me, when what you do anyway is fill up journals with junk. I'm better than you, and you know it. James Harris === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference equation is worthy of publication somewhere. Go look in your bathroom. See that roll of tissue on the spindle? Pull down your pants and publish to your heart's content. But you sit by as if there's nothing sinister going on, when all these people are fighting such a choice result. Yet in your ENTIRE CAREERS most of you will never publish anything that's even close in neatness, but you'll fill up journals anyway. That's the math world. If there's anything I really like here it's proving the lie to all of you of pure math, as sure, you may convince others that my work isn't important, but those of you desperate to find something worth publication in your publish or perish world know the reality. Pure math is a fraud, just something you say, when you don't believe in it. It's just a way to get by and pay your s. Yes, to me you are losers, too weak to handle the truth, so you think you can crap on me, when what you do anyway is fill up journals with junk. I'm better than you, and you know it. === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference equation is worthy of publication somewhere. But you sit by as if there's nothing sinister going on, when all these people are fighting such a choice result. Yet in your ENTIRE CAREERS most of you will never publish anything that's even close in neatness, but you'll fill up journals anyway. That's the math world. If there's anything I really like here it's proving the lie to all of you of pure math, as sure, you may convince others that my work isn't important, but those of you desperate to find something worth publication in your publish or perish world know the reality. Pure math is a fraud, just something you say, when you don't believe in it. It's just a way to get by and pay your s. Yes, to me you are losers, too weak to handle the truth, so you think you can crap on me, when what you do anyway is fill up journals with junk. I'm better than you, and you know it. fuffy === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference equation is worthy of publication somewhere. There are indeed journals that will publish nifty new ways of proving old results if there is some insight to be gained from the new way. In explain well-known results in ways that are especially easy to grasp. You may want to consider that route if you think that your approach to Legendre's (?) method gives some new perspective on the matter. V. email: lastname at cs utk edu homepage: cs utk edu tilde lastname === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals With all the dumb crap in math journals, How would you know? You've repeatedly refused to attempt answering even the most basic of homework-type questions in algebra. === Subject: Re: All the dumb crap in journals I'm better than you, and you know it. Do you know that you actually have more than nine of these symptoms? That also deals with numbers, including 9 which is the perfect square 3^2! *** Diagnostic criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder (cautionary statement) A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: (1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) (2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love (3) believes that he or she is special and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) (4) requires excessive admiration (5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations (6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends (7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others (8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her (9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth Edition. Copyright 1994 American Psychiatric Association *** === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference equation is worthy of publication somewhere. You're work does *not* involve the integration of a partial difference equation. Integration is used to find anti-derivatives. Difference equations are solved using the sum calculus. Your prime counting function does not involve integration in any way. If you'd stop misrepresenting your work, maybe someone would pay attention to it. -- There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and the obvious. -- Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle. -- http://www.crbond.com === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference equation is worthy of publication somewhere. Why are you telling us this? Do you think that sci.math has something to do with what gets published in math journals? That's not how it works. Send your stuff to a journal. Let us know how it turns out. But you sit by as if there's nothing sinister going on, when all these people are fighting such a choice result. Yet in your ENTIRE CAREERS most of you will never publish anything that's even close in neatness, but you'll fill up journals anyway. That's the math world. If there's anything I really like here it's proving the lie to all of you of pure math, as sure, you may convince others that my work isn't important, but those of you desperate to find something worth publication in your publish or perish world know the reality. Pure math is a fraud, just something you say, when you don't believe in it. It's just a way to get by and pay your s. Yes, to me you are losers, too weak to handle the truth, so you think you can crap on me, when what you do anyway is fill up journals with junk. I'm better than you, and you know it. James Harris David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals >With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find >of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference >equation is worthy of publication somewhere. Why are you telling us this? Do you think that sci.math has something to do with what gets published in math journals? That's not how it works. Sci.math has nothing to do with what gets published in math journals, for the simple reason that most of the 'prestigious' journals are owned by, and run in the interest of, a handful of large corporations, or professional guilds like the ASL, which have no reason whatsoever to publish anything which departs from prevailing mathematical norms; whereas sci.logic and sci.math provide forums (in principle at least), for work in progress which flaunts these norms, and in so doing challenges the credibility and authority of gate-keepers like yourself. The conflict between you and JSH (among others) is brought about by factors that are evident in Budd Schulberg's contrast of the businessman with the artist. and the artist: A good businessman...aims to please as many people as possible while minimizing risk and standardizing production. The aim of the good artist, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite: he turns his back on every formula, keeps breaking new ground, risks everything, and whether he succeeds or fails, prepares to risk again. (Budd Schulberg, Movies in America: After Fifty Years, _The Atlantic Monthly_, November 1947; cited in Leo Gurko, _Highbrows and the Popular Mind_, Charter Books, 1953, p. 165) That at least some of what appears on sci.logic/sci.math differs root and branch from the impenetrably arcane set pieces which are the stock-in-trade of in-house math journals is all to the credit of those who originate such work, among whom JSH looms large. --John === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals Hmm? impenetrably arcane ? Math journals are directed at someone with a PHD in mathematics. Beyond that, some are aimed at people researching in a particular field of mathematics. This is because the math has progressed so far that there is no one who can learn all of it, there is just no chance. The reason that most of the stuff that appears on the math newsgroups isn't so arcane is that it is 'trivial', and often the postings are problems people have as 'homework' that they aren't making progress on. John, seems like you personally can't understand what is going on with the journals, so you say they are no good? Finally, the first criteria that any journal uses is the correctness of the paper they recieve. Nobody will print an incorrect paper intentionally. So, there you go. James, once again, why don't you respond to emails? Justin Van Winkle >With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find >of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference >equation is worthy of publication somewhere. > Why are you telling us this? Do you think that sci.math has something > to do with what gets published in math journals? That's not how it > works. Sci.math has nothing to do with what gets published in math journals, for the simple reason that most of the 'prestigious' journals are owned by, and run in the interest of, a handful of large corporations, or professional guilds like the ASL, which have no reason whatsoever to publish anything which departs from prevailing mathematical norms; whereas sci.logic and sci.math provide forums (in principle at least), for work in progress which flaunts these norms, and in so doing challenges the credibility and authority of gate-keepers like yourself. The conflict between you and JSH (among others) is brought about by factors that are evident in Budd Schulberg's contrast of the businessman with the artist. and the artist: A good businessman...aims to please as many people as possible while minimizing risk and standardizing production. The aim of the good artist, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite: he turns his back on every formula, keeps breaking new ground, risks everything, and whether he succeeds or fails, prepares to risk again. (Budd Schulberg, Movies in America: After Fifty Years, _The Atlantic Monthly_, November 1947; cited in Leo Gurko, _Highbrows and the Popular Mind_, Charter Books, 1953, p. 165) That at least some of what appears on sci.logic/sci.math differs root and branch from the impenetrably arcane set pieces which are the stock-in-trade of in-house math journals is all to the credit of those who originate such work, among whom JSH looms large. > --John === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals Hmm? impenetrably arcane ? Math journals are directed at someone with a PHD in mathematics. Beyond that, some are aimed at people researching in a particular field of mathematics. This is because the math has progressed so far that there is no one who can learn all of it, there is just no chance. The reason that most of the stuff that appears on the math newsgroups isn't so arcane is that it is 'trivial', and often the postings are problems people have as 'homework' that they aren't making progress on. The inconsistency of FOL + (1,2,3) is 'trivial', for anybody with a semester of Logic 101 under his or her belt should be able to grasp it; yet telling, for Z, MK and MKC set theories divvy up (1,2,3) in ad seriatim). 1. EyAx(x in y <-> set x & A) (with y not free in A) 2. AtAwEyAx(x in y <-> (x=t v x=w)) (Z Axiom of Pairs) 3. AxAy(Az(z in x <-> z in y) -> x=y) (Standard Extensionality) Which is of no consequence--if you are one of those for whom it is true *by definition* that anything which appears on sci.logic or sci.math but not in the journals is 'trivial'. Are you? --John === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals Firstly, congradulations on being able to post something which seems complicated. You are the one who is saying that math journals are impenetrably arcane. I then misguidedly defended math journals. It's apparent that those who write and read those papers don't consider them arcane. The journals are for those people. That is, those who read them and publish in them. They serve a secondary purpose, the preservation of knowledge. Or so I thought. Newsgroups, I thought, serve a different purpose. They give, what I thought was, a public forum for people with little idea what constitutes a proof, little knowledge of mathematics, and who quickly resort to personal attacks and belly-aching. Once again, congradulations on posting something that seems somewhat complicated. You have proven me completely wrong. Usenet newsgroups truly are the future of mathematics. The sheer genius of your posting astounds me. What was I thinking before? I can't believe I would ever say that The reason that *most* of the stuff that appears on the math newsgroups isn't so arcane is that it is 'trivial', and often the postings are problems people have as 'homework' that they aren't making progress on. [emphesis added] Clearly your previous post carries so much weight (in it's incredible insightlyness) that it shifts the ratio of the arcane to trivial in all math newsgroups. Now *most* of the things posted aren't trivial! In fact, now the majority of things posted are as enlightening as they are non-trivial. For example, instead of someone arguing about an core error in a definition, now we have neo-gaussian super-talents exchanging theorems while sipping tea. Instead of sensless and uneducated bashing of professional mathematicians, we have brilliant up and comers who forsake becoming professinal mathematicians because the literature is so 'impenitribly arcane, and instead remained amateurs to offer a short proof of fermats last theorem, a proof that infinitesimals do exist, that 1/infinity in fact equals zero, incomperable proof that continuum and countable sets have the same number of elements, namely 10, and of course the proof of the fundamental theorem of fundamental theorems (using nothing but axioms revealed from the bible code no less!) . The mathematics of the previous generation has surely died. Thank you for your incredibly enlightening post, which I found somewhat complicated and read some of. Your right of course, that when I said most I meant every single one without the slightest or least exception, by the power invested in me by the gods of mathematics, also by definition, amen. Why didn't I just say that? I guess you just use the language with more utility than I, one of your many heroic traits no doubt. Justin Van Winkle PS: I love you. > Hmm? impenetrably arcane ? > Math journals are directed at someone with a PHD in mathematics. Beyond > that, some are aimed at people researching in a particular field of > mathematics. This is because the math has progressed so far that there is > no one who can learn all of it, there is just no chance. > The reason that most of the stuff that appears on the math newsgroups isn't > so arcane is that it is 'trivial', and often the postings are problems > people have as 'homework' that they aren't making progress on. The inconsistency of FOL + (1,2,3) is 'trivial', for anybody with a semester of Logic 101 under his or her belt should be able to grasp it; yet telling, for Z, MK and MKC set theories divvy up (1,2,3) in different ways (see ad seriatim). 1. EyAx(x in y <-> set x & A) (with y not free in A) 2. AtAwEyAx(x in y <-> (x=t v x=w)) (Z Axiom of Pairs) 3. AxAy(Az(z in x <-> z in y) -> x=y) (Standard Extensionality) Which is of no consequence--if you are one of those for whom it is true *by definition* that anything which appears on sci.logic or sci.math but not in the journals is 'trivial'. Are you? --John === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals >With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find >of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference >equation is worthy of publication somewhere. > Why are you telling us this? Do you think that sci.math has something > to do with what gets published in math journals? That's not how it > works. Sci.math has nothing to do with what gets published in math journals, Which is exactly what I said. You're a funny guy, the way you find things to argue about in reply to posts that you're in complete agreement with. for the simple reason that most of the 'prestigious' journals are owned by, and run in the interest of, a handful of large corporations, or professional guilds like the ASL, which have no reason whatsoever to publish anything which departs from prevailing mathematical norms; whereas sci.logic and sci.math provide forums (in principle at least), for work in progress which flaunts these norms, and in so doing challenges the credibility and authority of gate-keepers like yourself. The conflict between you and JSH (among others) is brought about by factors that are evident in Budd Schulberg's contrast of the businessman with the artist. and the artist: A good businessman...aims to please as many people as possible while minimizing risk and standardizing production. The aim of the good artist, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite: he turns his back on every formula, keeps breaking new ground, risks everything, and whether he succeeds or fails, prepares to risk again. (Budd Schulberg, Movies in America: After Fifty Years, _The Atlantic Monthly_, November 1947; cited in Leo Gurko, _Highbrows and the Popular Mind_, Charter Books, 1953, p. 165) That at least some of what appears on sci.logic/sci.math differs root and branch from the impenetrably arcane set pieces which are the stock-in-trade of in-house math journals is all to the credit of those who originate such work, among whom JSH looms large. Exactly right. The stuff in those bad bad journals is too hard for you and James to figure out. And it follows somehow that the > --John David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals |With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find |of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference |equation is worthy of publication somewhere. my comment here is only indirectly related to your comment above. your work on writing computer programs to count prime numbers is so much, much better than your work on trying to prove theorems of any kind (fermat's last theorem, algebraic integer theory, et cetera) that you would have to be a total idiot to continue pursuing the theorem-proving stuff when instead you could be out there trying to do stuff like writing computer programs to win those rsa challenge prizes or whatever they're called. you really, really need something to provide external discipline for you, something to tell you when you've gotten a wrong answer and when you've gotten a right answer. the concept of mathematical proof does provide that kind of external discipline for people who understand that concept, but you're not one of those people! (at least, it would be astonishing if you did understand the concept of mathematical proof, and yet produced the kind of incomprehensible near-gibberish proofs that you regularly produce. i'm willing to bet that you yourself really don't have the slightest idea as to whether or not your proofs are really valid.) if you work on creating algorithms and writing computer programs then you can get concrete answers about whether you've done things correctly simply by running a computer program. i guess if you really have your heart set on pursuing the theorem-proving stuff then it would be ok to pursue it, but only if you first learn what mathematical proof really means. it's not that stupid horse about a proof starts with a truth and proceeds by logical steps to a conclusion which then must be true! at least, that stupid slogan is worthless unless you learn what a valid logical step really is. really, it would do you well to learn the simple way in which rigorous (though not necessarily computationally efficient) theorem-checking and theorem-proving computer programs actually work, and maybe even write such a program of your own so you could honestly say that you understand what a mathematical proof is. also, have you ever considered maintaining your opinion of yourself as a million times smarter than everyone else but _not going around telling everyone about it every five minutes_? works for me. also, a lot of the people on this newsgroup who go around attacking you constantly are worthless idiots and when you try to adopt for yourself the same attitudes and the same methods of attacking that they use you just make yourself look like a worthless idiot too, so cut it out. you really need to learn to ignore the rantings of worthles idiots instead of trying to become one of them. [e-mail address jdolan@math.ucr.edu] === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals also, a lot of the people on this newsgroup who go around attacking you constantly are worthless idiots It's considered customary to have researched the topic you're speaking about before making an ass of yourself. Doug === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals |With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find |of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference |equation is worthy of publication somewhere. my comment here is only indirectly related to your comment above. snip also, a lot of the people on this newsgroup who go around attacking you constantly are worthless idiots Well, actually, they are not. They probably should find something better to do with their time than pointing out James's deficiencies, but that isn't the same thing. I think that if you look you will find that all of JSH's fiercest critics are helpful and polite to those who are less antisocial than JSH. Mark Atherton === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals | |> |With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find |> |of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference |> |equation is worthy of publication somewhere. | |> my comment here is only indirectly related to your comment above. | |snip | |> also, a lot of the people on this newsgroup who go around attacking |> you constantly are worthless idiots | |Well, actually, they are not. bull. either you have trouble understanding words like a lot, or you're just as worthless as they are. |They probably should find something better to do with their time than |pointing out James's deficiencies, but that isn't the same thing. I |think that if you look you will find that all of JSH's fiercest |critics are helpful and polite to those who are less antisocial than |JSH. if you think that all his fiercest critics are helpful and polite then you're an idiot, since all includes for example the guy that calls himself uncle al. [e-mail address jdolan@math.ucr.edu] === Subject: Re: JSH: All the dumb crap in journals |> also, a lot of the people on this newsgroup who go around attacking |> you constantly are worthless idiots | |Well, actually, they are not. bull. either you have trouble understanding words like a lot, or you're just as worthless as they are. are not worthless at all. |They probably should find something better to do with their time than |pointing out James's deficiencies, but that isn't the same thing. I |think that if you look you will find that all of JSH's fiercest |critics are helpful and polite to those who are less antisocial than |JSH. if you think that all his fiercest critics are helpful and polite then you're an idiot, since all includes for example the guy that calls himself uncle al. That's a fair point, though mostly Uncle Al confines himself to brief insults. By his fiercest critics I meant those who criticise his maths. And if you respond to a polite disagreement by calling me an idiot then you should think twice before commenting on other posters' manners. By the way, why the lower case? ALL UPPER CASE is considered to be rude but normal sentence capitalization is the norm. Have a nice day. :-) Mark Atherton === Subject: Re: All the dumb crap in journals James, I apologize that my previous posts may have been a bit insulting, it wasn't very mature of me. In the following, I'll assume that the things you have been working on are correct. It seems that the prime counting function is generally agreed to be correct, so just consider that if you like. Don't be so bitter. Contemplate on why many people in the math community aren't taking your result seriously. In a legislature s are presented in a certain way. If someone from the outside were to insist on presenting a in another way, many would ignore it. A computer can only compile a program if it is very carefully formatted. If it is not formatted correctly, the computer not only doesn't give the expected output, it will respond with a long list of errors. If you were to approach a chemist with an astounding result, but express your result in the language of alchemy, you would be ignored. Not because the chemist is out to get you, but because they are busy with their work. Mathematicians expect results to be presented a certain way. If a result is handed to them in some other way, they most often will simply not read it. This is because it is much more difficult to read something that isn't presented in the way they expect, and additionally because there are many people who don't know what they are doing. It is a waste of time to spend alot of time working through a paper that is hard to read because it is written in a strange way, only to realize that it is either nonsensical or just completely wrong. There are many such papers. Math departments at universities are inundated with proofs of squared circles and so on, along with less inane things. It would be a generous person indeed who carefully read each letter and carefully responded. Are math journals filled with dumb crap? In the journals I have read I've seen only thoughtful papers. Each has been carefully reviewed, and the author spent alot of time carefully writing it. This doesn't garantee that it will be correct or even especially insightful, but it certainly is the best effort of those involved. It was allowed into the journal on it's own merit, and is almost certainly correct becuase of the time and effort spent checking it, by very smart people who have nothing to gain, and alot to lose, by publishing a false result. If the results aren't very insightful or important, it is probably because those papers are the best that were available, or that one doesn't have the specialized knowlege to understand why they are insightful or important. No one has any interest in preventing your work from being recognized. Quite the opposite. When someone revolutionalizes mathematics, it doesn't discredit every previous result. Instead, it opens new areas of mathematics to exploration. This would only lead to many more papers to be published, and it would certainly add to the prestige of those publishing at this time, since history often remembers those who are working on something in it's early stages. There isn't a lie of 'pure math'. I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. It isn't something to be believed in, or asserted. You are making a category error here. You use 'pure math' as though it is an assertion. 'pure math' is only defined when you also consider 'applied math'. 'pure math' is mathematics with no alterior motive, so to speak. Applied math is using math to solve a specific problem or class of problems in the physical world. You might say that pure math is defined as everything that is not applied math. Beyond this, there really isn't any meaning to the word. I'll end this with an open offer. If you want to learn some things, I would be glad to help however I can. Within reason of course. This newsgroup presents an opportunity for smart people to interact with many other smart people. So if you were to get a copy of Hersteins Topics in Algebra and work through some of the problems, I would be glad to check them over or to make suggestions if you needed it. You can get this book at amazon.com. The result of this would be twofold. First, you would learn the standard way in which mathematical results are presented. Secondly, you would learn alot of very interesting mathematics, and add to your mathematical toolbox so to speak. Sorry the post was so long, I just started taking ritalin again, Justin Van Winkle http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_categoryerror.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471010901/qid=1069019047/sr=8 -1/ref=sr_8_1/102-4193208-0966565?v=glance&n=507846 Wow, Topics is almost a hundred dollars. Here is an alternative: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0070026556/qid=1069019119/sr=1 -1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4193208-0966565?v=glance&s=books These Schaum's Outlines are very good in my experience. I first learned about them from this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0817638660/qid=1069019208/sr=1 -4/ref=sr_1_4/102-4193208-0966565?v=glance&s=books With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference equation is worthy of publication somewhere. But you sit by as if there's nothing sinister going on, when all these people are fighting such a choice result. Yet in your ENTIRE CAREERS most of you will never publish anything that's even close in neatness, but you'll fill up journals anyway. That's the math world. If there's anything I really like here it's proving the lie to all of you of pure math, as sure, you may convince others that my work isn't important, but those of you desperate to find something worth publication in your publish or perish world know the reality. Pure math is a fraud, just something you say, when you don't believe in it. It's just a way to get by and pay your s. Yes, to me you are losers, too weak to handle the truth, so you think you can crap on me, when what you do anyway is fill up journals with junk. I'm better than you, and you know it. === Subject: Re: All the dumb crap in journals With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference equation is worthy of publication somewhere. But you sit by as if there's nothing sinister going on, when all these people are fighting such a choice result. Yet in your ENTIRE CAREERS most of you will never publish anything that's even close in neatness, but you'll fill up journals anyway. That's the math world. If there's anything I really like here it's proving the lie to all of you of pure math, as sure, you may convince others that my work isn't important, but those of you desperate to find something worth publication in your publish or perish world know the reality. Pure math is a fraud, just something you say, when you don't believe in it. It's just a way to get by and pay your s. Yes, to me you are losers, too weak to handle the truth, so you think you can crap on me, when what you do anyway is fill up journals with junk. I'm better than you, and you know it. If you had any common sense, you'd go learn some math so you could know what we're talking about instead of the immature name calling. Yes you ARE Immature, and it shows. David Moran === Subject: Re: All the dumb crap in journals I take it Jimmy that you have given up on the new marketing strategy. Back to the old tricks, eh! Lurch With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference equation is worthy of publication somewhere. But you sit by as if there's nothing sinister going on, when all these people are fighting such a choice result. Yet in your ENTIRE CAREERS most of you will never publish anything that's even close in neatness, but you'll fill up journals anyway. That's the math world. If there's anything I really like here it's proving the lie to all of you of pure math, as sure, you may convince others that my work isn't important, but those of you desperate to find something worth publication in your publish or perish world know the reality. Pure math is a fraud, just something you say, when you don't believe in it. It's just a way to get by and pay your s. Yes, to me you are losers, too weak to handle the truth, so you think you can crap on me, when what you do anyway is fill up journals with junk. I'm better than you, and you know it. === Subject: Re: All the dumb crap in journals With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference equation is worthy of publication somewhere. But you sit by as if there's nothing sinister going on, when all these people are fighting such a choice result. Yet in your ENTIRE CAREERS most of you will never publish anything that's even close in neatness, but you'll fill up journals anyway. That's the math world. If there's anything I really like here it's proving the lie to all of you of pure math, as sure, you may convince others that my work isn't important, but those of you desperate to find something worth publication in your publish or perish world know the reality. Pure math is a fraud, just something you say, when you don't believe in it. It's just a way to get by and pay your s. Yes, to me you are losers, too weak to handle the truth, so you think you can crap on me, when what you do anyway is fill up journals with junk. I'm better than you, and you know it. Oh James... I love it when you talk like that. You are so... ... forceful . Clive Tooth http://www.clivetooth.dk === Subject: Re: All the dumb crap in journals > With all the dumb crap in math journals, you people know that my find > of a way to count prime numbers by integrating a partial difference > equation is worthy of publication somewhere. > But you sit by as if there's nothing sinister going on, when all these > people are fighting such a choice result. > Yet in your ENTIRE CAREERS most of you will never publish anything > that's even close in neatness, but you'll fill up journals anyway. > That's the math world. Does the sound like sour grapes? === Subject: Re: How Many Blinkin' Lights On The Tree? > God isn't responsible for the bad things that happen, Satan is. Read > your damn Bible, specifically, the Book of Job. > Lol and god created Satan knowing *FULL* well what would happen > (unless hes not omniscient). So then the question is, if God knew what would happen, then perhaps Satan isn't such a bad guy after all? Consider: he obeyed God's commands concerning how much he was allowed to afflict Job. Sounds like an obedient son of God to me... Hehe maybe satan isn't? Or maybe god just isn't as powerful or as loving as everyone says he is (if he exists at all)? I don't know what you mean by an obedient son of god but Job did get a bit drilled by the almighty. === Subject: check Calculus I work Just wondering if someone would be willing to check my work at http://www.wedding-webpage.com/math/ It is a take home test but the teacher said I could use any resource/person and you guys are the smartest people I know! -- Provision Tech http://www.provisiontech.net === Subject: Re: check Calculus I work Just wondering if someone would be willing to check my work at http://www.wedding-webpage.com/math/ It is a take home test but the teacher said I could use any resource/person and you guys are the smartest people I know! -- Brett Provision Tech http://www.provisiontech.net (1) Looks OK; (2) Looks OK but it might have been better to find the intersection first then substitute into the derivatives - it saves a little algebra; (3) Asked and answered. === Subject: Re: JSH: Survey on my results, any correct? 1. I've posted a lot on sci.math over a long period of time, to your knowledge, have I *ever* been right? Only on minor issues. 2. Do I have *any* correct results, or do you think I just talk and never say anything that is mathematically correct? Only on minor issues. 3. To your knowledge, has ANYONE ever posted agreement with me on *anything*? Only on minor issues. 4. In your opinion, have I ever won an argument on the newsgroup? Only on minor issues. 5. To your knowledge, have I ever caught other posters in errors? For the last time, only on minor issues. === Subject: Re: JSH: Survey on my results, any correct? 1. I've posted a lot on sci.math over a long period of time, to your knowledge, have I *ever* been right? Yes. 2. Do I have *any* correct results, or do you think I just talk and never say anything that is mathematically correct? Yes ! 3. To your knowledge, has ANYONE ever posted agreement with me on *anything*? Yes. 4. In your opinion, have I ever won an argument on the newsgroup? At least arguments of typographical errors. 5. To your knowledge, have I ever caught other posters in errors? At least typographical errors. You are welcome, We Pretty === Subject: Re: JSH: Survey on my results, any correct? 1. I've posted a lot on sci.math over a long period of time, to your knowledge, have I *ever* been right? Yes, but mostly not on the important things. You were right that you discovered a way to count primes that appears to be different from other ways. 2. Do I have *any* correct results, or do you think I just talk and never say anything that is mathematically correct? Mostly the same answer as above. You have been consistently and repeatedly wrong about all your significant claims connected with Fermat's Last Theorem or a core error in mathematics. However you have found a different way to count primes. 3. To your knowledge, has ANYONE ever posted agreement with me on *anything*? Yes. 4. In your opinion, have I ever won an argument on the newsgroup? Not a big one. A few little ones. 5. To your knowledge, have I ever caught other posters in errors? Yes. But far less often than you have been caught. Nora B. === Subject: Re: JSH: Survey on my results, any correct? > 1. I've posted a lot on sci.math over a long period of time, to your > knowledge, have I *ever* been right? Yes. You have been right on occasion. > 2. Do I have *any* correct results, or do you think I just talk and > never say anything that is mathematically correct? Yes. You have been right on occasion. > 3. To your knowledge, has ANYONE ever posted agreement with me on > *anything*? Yes, agreement has been posted on occasion. > 4. In your opinion, have I ever won an argument on the newsgroup? No. > 5. To your knowledge, have I ever caught other posters in errors? I have no idea. Probably. dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ === Subject: Re: Newsgroup survey: Math and personality assessment >says... >2. In your experience, is math quirky? >Define quirky. Idiosyncratic. >Sometimes the results one sees are not what one would intuitively think were the >case but are nonetheless correct. Is that what you mean by quirky? No, I guess I mean, like where sometimes there are rules that follow in one instance, that you aren't sure still apply in another given instance, and at times it can be so difficult to figure out if that happens that you just have to rely on experts *telling* you that the rule no longer applies. By this definition, math is *not* quirky. === Subject: Isolating the variable Would someone please show me step by step how to isolate x ? y = (ln(x) - 5)/(2ln(x)+7) === Subject: Re: Isolating the variable Would someone please show me step by step how to isolate x ? y = (ln(x) - 5)/(2ln(x)+7) Let L=ln(x) y=(L-5)/(2L+7) 2Ly+7y=L-5 2Ly-L=-5-7y 2Ly-L=-5-7y L(2y-1)=-5-7y L=(-5-7y)/(2y-1) x=e^((-5-7y)/(2y-1)) David Moran === Subject: Re: Isolating the variable > Would someone please show me step by step how to isolate x ? > y = (ln(x) - 5)/(2ln(x)+7) Let L=ln(x) y=(L-5)/(2L+7) 2Ly+7y=L-5 2Ly-L=-5-7y 2Ly-L=-5-7y L(2y-1)=-5-7y L=(-5-7y)/(2y-1) x=e^((-5-7y)/(2y-1)) David Moran === Subject: Re: Isolating the variable Would someone please show me step by step how to isolate x ? y = (ln(x) - 5)/(2ln(x)+7) First isolate ln(x). You might find it handy to make a temporary substitution, y = (L-5)/(2L+7) for L = ln(x), and then isolate L. Once you have ln(x) alone on the left side and an expression involving y on the right side, take exp( ) both sides. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely reduces the number of useful answers you get. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html === Subject: Re: Isolating the variable another variable, it's ln(x) and that has it's own rules... >Would someone please show me step by step how to isolate x ? >y = (ln(x) - 5)/(2ln(x)+7) First isolate ln(x). You might find it handy to make a temporary substitution, y = (L-5)/(2L+7) for L = ln(x), and then isolate L. Once you have ln(x) alone on the left side and an expression involving y on the right side, take exp( ) both sides. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely reduces the number of useful answers you get. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html === Subject: Re: Isolating the variable another variable, it's ln(x) and that has it's own rules... Please don't post upside down. And if I understand what you're saying about it being improper to isolate ln(x) as if it were a veritable, then I disagree with you. Vehemently. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely reduces the number of useful answers you get. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html === Subject: Re: Isolating the variable >another variable, it's ln(x) and that has it's own rules... Please don't post upside down. And if I understand what you're saying about it being improper to isolate ln(x) as if it were a veritable, then I disagree with you. Vehemently. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely reduces the number of useful answers you get. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html === Subject: Re: Isolating the variable I don't understand? why can't I reply to a message in the upper field. Is there only a certain way you can reply to a message? >another variable, it's ln(x) and that has it's own rules... Please don't post upside down. And if I understand what you're saying about it being improper to isolate ln(x) as if it were a veritable, then I disagree with you. Vehemently. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely reduces the number of useful answers you get. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html === Subject: Re: Isolating the variable I don't understand? why can't I reply to a message in the upper field. Is there only a certain way you can reply to a message? You can reply any way you wish, it's just that some people insist you do it their way and only their way, as if they owned the newsgroup. === Subject: Re: Isolating the variable [DISCLAIMER: The following includes anti-MicrosoftOutlookExpress and anti-top-poster material. If this sort of material is disturbing to you or illegal in your country, do not read this post.] I don't understand? why can't I reply to a message in the upper field. Is there only a certain way you can reply to a message? } very difficult to follow. }} this order it is }}} conversation is in }}}} Because if a It is common usenet ettiquette to post your reply at the end of the relevant _extract_ of the post you are replying to, in this fashion: } Point 1 Response to point 1 } Point 2 Response to point 2 } Point 3 Response to point 3 ...and so forth. You should provide sufficient of previous posts to clarify the context of your comments, but not so much that readers have to wade through excess irrelevancy. If you feel the need to include a disclaimer, then this can and should appear at the top, before any quoted post (as in this post). Your problem is caused because, unlike most decent newsreaders, the following program does not automatically quote the previous post at the top of the new message: [remainder snipped] The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice. === Subject: Re: Isolating the variable } very difficult to follow. }} this order it is }}} conversation is in }}}} Because if a ... I see, and thanks for the through explanation. It is common usenet ettiquette to post your reply at the end of the relevant _extract_ of the post you are replying to, in this fashion: } Point 1 Response to point 1 } Point 2 Response to point 2 } Point 3 Response to point 3 ...and so forth. You should provide sufficient of previous posts to clarify the context of your comments, but not so much that readers have to wade through excess irrelevancy. If you feel the need to include a disclaimer, then this can and should appear at the top, before any quoted post (as in this post). Your problem is caused because, unlike most decent newsreaders, the following program does not automatically quote the previous post at the top of the new message: [remainder snipped] -- P.A.C. Smith The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice. === Subject: Re: Isolating the variable Oh you mean posting a message in the upper part of the reply? >another variable, it's ln(x) and that has it's own rules... Please don't post upside down. And if I understand what you're saying about it being improper to isolate ln(x) as if it were a veritable, then I disagree with you. Vehemently. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely reduces the number of useful answers you get. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html === Subject: Re: Isolating the variable Post upside down? >another variable, it's ln(x) and that has it's own rules... Please don't post upside down. And if I understand what you're saying about it being improper to isolate ln(x) as if it were a veritable, then I disagree with you. Vehemently. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely reduces the number of useful answers you get. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html === Subject: Re: Isolating the variable another variable, it's ln(x) and that has it's own rules... But ln maps the positive reals onto the entire real line, so what's your problem? You are guaranteed that (if y != 1/2,) you will end up with ln of something real and positive. >Would someone please show me step by step how to isolate x ? y = (ln(x) - 5)/(2ln(x)+7) > First isolate ln(x). You might find it handy to make a temporary > substitution, > y = (L-5)/(2L+7) for L = ln(x), > and then isolate L. > Once you have ln(x) alone on the left side and an expression > involving y on the right side, take exp( ) both sides. > -- > Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA > http://OakRoadSystems.com > Address munging may or may not reduce the spam you get; it surely > reduces the number of useful answers you get. > http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/laws.html The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice. === Subject: Combinations of functions Could anyone show me how I can represent the area of a circle as a function of it's circumference? === Subject: Re: Combinations of functions Could anyone show me how I can represent the area of a circle as a function of it's circumference? You know the relationship between the circumference C and the radius r of a circle. Right? Solve for r in terms of C. You also know the area of a circle in terms of r. Right? Replace r by the equation you just found for r in terms of C. === Subject: Re: Combinations of functions Great! thanks for the help, I got it... > Could anyone show me how I can represent the area of a circle as a function > of it's circumference? You know the relationship between the circumference C and the radius r of a circle. Right? Solve for r in terms of C. You also know the area of a circle in terms of r. Right? Replace r by the equation you just found for r in terms of C. === Subject: Subject: Combinations of functions === Subject: Re: Combinations of functions ----- Original Message ----- === Subject: Combinations of functions Could anyone show me how I can represent the area of a circle as a function of it's circumference? The diameter of a circle is its circumference divided by pi, so its radius r is its circumference divided by 2pi. The area of a circle is pi times the square of its radius. Hope this helps. Rob George === Subject: Online Calculus III course (Multi-variable) Everyone; I'm trying to find sources for reasonably priced, good math courses online. I'm specifically looking for Calculus III and beyond. I'm not interested in any of the pseudo schools that want your money to sell you a degree, I want the information.. I'm limited from pursuing this in a formal school environment due to disabilty although over the years I did manage to struggle through the first of the Physics sequence and Calculus II. Is there an instructor out there that might consider a self-study with me? I am slow so a self-paced program would work best. A directed self-study would probably be the very best. === Subject: Re: Online Calculus III course (Multi-variable) Everyone; I'm trying to find sources for reasonably priced, good math courses online. I'm specifically looking for Calculus III and beyond. I'm not interested in any of the pseudo schools that want your money to sell you a degree, I want the information.. I'm limited from pursuing this in a formal school environment due to disabilty although over the years I did manage to struggle through the first of the Physics sequence and Calculus II. Is there an instructor out there that might consider a self-study with me? I am slow so a self-paced program would work best. A directed self-study would probably be the very best. Thank you, Jo Many Colleges/Universities offer Extension courses or Distance Education courses (or some similar name). What is offered and how the course is administered will vary. I suggest you pick out some schools near you and check their web sites. === Subject: Re: Online Calculus III course (Multi-variable) > Everyone; > I'm trying to find sources for reasonably priced, good math courses > online. I'm specifically looking for Calculus III and beyond. I'm not > interested in any of the pseudo schools that want your money to sell > you a degree, I want the information.. I'm limited from pursuing this > in a formal school environment due to disabilty although over the > years I did manage to struggle through the first of the Physics > sequence and Calculus II. > Is there an instructor out there that might consider a self-study with > me? I am slow so a self-paced program would work best. A directed > self-study would probably be the very best. > Thank you, > Jo Many Colleges/Universities offer Extension courses or Distance Education courses (or some similar name). What is offered and how the course is administered will vary. I suggest you pick out some schools near you and check their web sites. -- Paul Sperry Columbia, SC (USA) Probably not likely that such a course is commonly available as shown in an extension catalog, but do not ignore the possiblility of open university method of course registration. If anything online exists for Calculus III, student must be very very self motivated to participate this way as student. Consider reveiwing the coursework on your own for semester I and II first before studying semester III. === Subject: Re: Online Calculus III course (Multi-variable) > Everyone; > I'm trying to find sources for reasonably priced, good math courses > online. I'm specifically looking for Calculus III and beyond. I'm not > interested in any of the pseudo schools that want your money to sell > you a degree, I want the information.. I'm limited from pursuing this > in a formal school environment due to disabilty although over the > years I did manage to struggle through the first of the Physics > sequence and Calculus II. > Is there an instructor out there that might consider a self-study with > me? I am slow so a self-paced program would work best. A directed > self-study would probably be the very best. >Many Colleges/Universities offer Extension courses or Distance >Education courses (or some similar name). What is offered and how the >course is administered will vary. I suggest you pick out some schools >near you and check their web sites. >-- >Paul Sperry >Columbia, SC (USA) Probably not likely that such a course is commonly available as shown in an extension catalog, but do not ignore the possiblility of open university method of course registration. If anything online exists for Calculus III, student must be very very self motivated to participate this way as student. Consider reveiwing the coursework on your own for semester I and II first before studying semester III. That is probably not true any more. Tennessee Tech (or is it Belmont University?) offers a Distance MBA. Well, Business Week Online (http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/02/distance.htm) says there are 60 distance MBA programs. This list doesn't include at least two other programs that allow an awful lot of coursework to be done online. UIUC offers at least many finance courses online -- as real online courses (with discussions), not just electronic correspondence courses. I've heard that MIT offers all its courses (even graduate courses?) online. As you can see, I haven't verified all these assertions. But visit the schools' websites. See what they offer. University of Utah offers Calc I, II and III online. wunnerful?) They require in person tests, but I'm sure some arrangements can be made for that (especially if you say the words ADA). I'm going to bet that you can find a lot. What I don't expect is that you can find it for a lower price than traditional classroom courses. Jon Miller