mm-4299 === Subject: A curiosity of a tetration-/powertower-series Recall the alternating geometric series of parameter s AGS(s) = 1 - s + s^2 - s^3 + s^4 ... I tried a bit with analoguous series built from powertowers. If one defines s^^y.x =: s^s^s^....^s^x (y-fold repetion of s) then AGS(s) is just the same as APS(1,s) = s^^1.0 - s^^1.1 + s^^1.2 - s^^1.3 +...-... = s ^0 - s ^1 + s ^2 - s ^3 + ..- Using powertowers of height 2 this is APS(2,s) = s^^2.0 - s^^2.1 + s^^2.2 - s^^2.3 +...-... = s^s^0 - s^s^1 + s^s^2 - s^s^3 + ..- then I could approximate those sums for some s where 0.2 < s < 3 and possibly a bit above that upper bound. For instance s AS(s) 0.2 -0.0804895642300 questionable, dubious approximation 0.3 0.0250077352382 0.4 0.110925245566 0.5 0.188643256530 0.6 0.260663684450 0.7 0.327755444502 0.8 0.390057355965 0.9 0.447503918058 1.0 0.500000000000 1.1 0.547504336053 1.2 0.590070889654 1.3 0.627861006978 1.4 0.661132608671 1.5 0.690214956597 1.6 0.715478735198 1.7 0.737308861398 1.8 0.756083651551 1.9 0.772160942864 2.0 0.785870155025 2.1 0.797508769700 2.2 0.807341791881 2.3 0.815603027457 2.4 0.822497370726 2.5 0.828203629549 2.6 0.832877187559 2.7 0.836653140373 2.8 0.839648462449 2.9 0.841964808734 3.0 0.843690663363 3.1 0.844901708538 dubious approximation I just played around with the exponents x, giving them alternating sign too, makes AAPS(2,s) = s^^2.0 - s^^2.-1 + s^^2.2 - s^^2.-3 +...-... = s^s^0 - s^s^-1 + s^s^2 - s^s^-3 + ..- for instance s APS(s) AAPS(s) APS(s)+AAPS(s) 0.5 0.188643256530 0.311356741384 0.5 1.5 0.690214956597 0.809785041588 1.5 2.0 0.785870155025 1.21412984317 2.0 so possibly gives a very simple value for the sum of two related tetration-series. I checked that with the matrix- computation, and this can then be written as (V(1)+V(-1))~ * diag(H) * Bs^2 = V(s)~ using my previously described notation, where H contains the values of the eta-function (also called alternating-zeta function) for nonpositive parameters H = [1-eta(0), 0-eta(-1), 0-eta(-2),...] We may thus write AAPS(s) = s - APS(s) or s = sum{ k=0..inf} 2 * s^s^(2*k) - sum{ k=0..inf} ( s^s^(2*k+1)+s^s^-(2*k+1)) // by Euler-sum for appropriate parameters s This is only a numerical result; I did not try an analytical proof yet (I don't think I could manage that... ) Gottfried -- --- Gottfried Helms, Kassel === Subject: Re: A curiosity of a tetration-/powertower-series > Recall the alternating geometric series of parameter > s AGS(s) = 1 - s + s^2 - s^3 + s^4 ... I tried a bit with analoguous series built from > powertowers. If one defines > s^^y.x =: s^s^s^....^s^x (y-fold repetion of > on of s) then AGS(s) is just the same as APS(1,s) = s^^1.0 - s^^1.1 + s^^1.2 - s^^1.3 > .3 +...-... > = s ^0 - s ^1 + s ^2 - s ^3 + ..- Using powertowers of height 2 this is APS(2,s) = s^^2.0 - s^^2.1 + s^^2.2 - s^^2.3 > .3 +...-... > = s^s^0 - s^s^1 + s^s^2 - s^s^3 + ..- then I could approximate those sums for some s where > 0.2 < s < 3 > and possibly a bit above that upper bound. For > instance s AS(s) > 0.2 -0.0804895642300 questionable, dubious > ous approximation > 0.3 0.0250077352382 > 0.4 0.110925245566 > 0.5 0.188643256530 > 0.6 0.260663684450 > 0.7 0.327755444502 > 0.8 0.390057355965 > 0.9 0.447503918058 > 1.0 0.500000000000 > 1.1 0.547504336053 > 1.2 0.590070889654 > 1.3 0.627861006978 > 1.4 0.661132608671 > 1.5 0.690214956597 > 1.6 0.715478735198 > 1.7 0.737308861398 > 1.8 0.756083651551 > 1.9 0.772160942864 > 2.0 0.785870155025 > 2.1 0.797508769700 > 2.2 0.807341791881 > 2.3 0.815603027457 > 2.4 0.822497370726 > 2.5 0.828203629549 > 2.6 0.832877187559 > 2.7 0.836653140373 > 2.8 0.839648462449 > 2.9 0.841964808734 > 3.0 0.843690663363 > 3.1 0.844901708538 dubious approximation I just played around with the exponents x, giving > them alternating sign > too, makes > AAPS(2,s) = s^^2.0 - s^^2.-1 + s^^2.2 - s^^2.-3 > -3 +...-... > = s^s^0 - s^s^-1 + s^s^2 - s^s^-3 + > - s^s^-3 + ..- for instance > s APS(s) AAPS(s) APS(s)+AAPS(s) > 0.5 0.188643256530 0.311356741384 0.5 > 1.5 0.690214956597 0.809785041588 1.5 > 2.0 0.785870155025 1.21412984317 2.0 so possibly gives a very simple value for the sum of > two > related tetration-series. I checked that with the > matrix- > computation, and this can then be written as (V(1)+V(-1))~ * diag(H) * Bs^2 = V(s)~ using my previously described notation, where H > H contains > the values of the eta-function (also called > d alternating-zeta > function) for nonpositive parameters > H = [1-eta(0), 0-eta(-1), 0-eta(-2),...] We may thus write AAPS(s) = s - APS(s) or s = sum{ k=0..inf} 2 * s^s^(2*k) - sum{ k=0..inf} ( > ( s^s^(2*k+1)+s^s^-(2*k+1)) // by Euler-sum for appropriate parameters s This is only a numerical result; I did not try an > analytical proof > yet (I don't think I could manage that... ) Gottfried > -- > --- Gottfried Helms, Kassel despite my intrest in tetration , im not enthusiastic yet... you dont have a single closed form do you ?? not a closed form for a series , not a closed form for a number generated bye any of such series ... and its doubtfull that even exists ... plz correct me if im wrong if so , i will investigate it ... tommy1729 === The lexical meaning of Islam is submission, and adherence to the commands of Allah without objection. This is the true essence of Is Subject: Gravity Bytes: 2187 On Aug 3, 11:16 am, Rob > And, of course, to 'prove' that no > magic is required you need to > explain (or eliminate) the beginning, > i.e. how something evolved from > nothing. -- Rob As I've said many times, and as (surely) you yourself must realize: If Existence had to have had a beginning it could not exist. In a very real sense: There was always something. AND/OR what now exists is another version/variation of Nothingness--Something which some scientists and theoreticians (including myself) like to swear is the case: SEE http://physics.sdrodrian.com In fact this is what makes it possible for the universe to continue conserving the energy of which it is made from larger/slower to smaller/faster ... for all eternity. We do not notice this eternal conservation of energy, of course. Except for the force we call gravity. S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com All religions are local. Only science is universal. === Subject: Re: Probabilistic model of space bending. Length is probabilistic. Gloves are OFF, Panties are ON. On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 14:54:44 -0500, Dr. Planckenstein Don't masturbate here with physics. -- sibi ke soheylash nazanad rang nadArad ta'lime mo'allem be kasi nang nadArad === Subject: Re: Probabilistic model of space bending. Length is probabilistic. Gloves are OFF, Panties are ON. Bytes: 1734 > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 14:54:44 -0500, Dr. Planckenstein > Don't masturbate here with physics. OK then - what would you suggest ? I've got a 4:30 but other than that I'm free all afternoon. Do you understand that I am trying to invent a new kind of calculus ? === Subject: Re: Probabilistic model of space bending. Length is probabilistic. Gloves are OFF, Panties are ON. On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 07:28:59 -0500, Dr. Planckenstein > Do you understand that I am trying to invent a new kind of calculus ? First learn and use the one that's already invented. Don't masturbate with it. -- marA be kheyre to omid nist sharr maresAn === Subject: Re: Probabilistic model of space bending. Length is probabilistic. Gloves are OFF, Panties are ON. Bytes: 2399 > On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 07:28:59 -0500, Dr. Planckenstein Do you understand that I am trying to invent a new kind of calculus ? First learn and use the one that's already invented. > Don't masturbate with it. Silly man - it does not do what we need it to do. You need emergence to couple QM, SR, and Newtonian physics. This approach will accomplish that feat. Calculus does NOT provide a means by which indeterminacy can be modelled very easily, unless you wave your magic wand and invoke random variables by means of hand waving, and this does nothing to explain peculiarities of space and time. I am inventing a Scalar Calculus where indeterminacy is an emergent property as a function of scale. That is what I am doing. Got a problem with that ? Oh, and .....I'll masturbate on whatever I please. Including yo Momma. === Subject: Re: Probabilistic model of space bending. Length is probabilistic. Gloves are OFF, Panties are ON. Do you understand that I am trying to invent a new kind of calculus ? First learn and use the one that's already invented. Following your advice no progress ever would be possible, no new ideas would be researched, no new inventions would be made. That's the logical consequence of what you say. > Don't masturbate with it. Don't be obscene and off-topic. Think logical, think progressive. === Subject: Re: goldbach's conjecture >thr: > The statements are neither nonstandard nor > controversial. > Transitivity is a property of the equals relation, > and thus a property of every equation; > hagman: > There is a difference between properties of the > equals relation > and properties of equations. > A single equation can have attributes like > unsolvable over the > rational > (e.g. x^2 = 2) or true (e.g. 5 + 7 = 12) and > others, > but a single equation does not have the property of > being e.g. > transitive. > Nails I put into a glass jar are still made of iron. The equivalence relation is transitive. To use an analogy from language, like a transitive verb, = always has a direct object. That is, to say Seven plus five equals twelve is not the same as saying (as in the linguistic intransitive construction) Seven plus five has resulted in twelve. The former assumes construction of the object in a transitive act. We see this implied in the Theorem, line 72 of Dedekind's The Nature & Meaning of Numbers. In every infinite system S a simply infinite system N is contained as a part. Just previous, Dedekind has defined a simply infinite system, the conditions of which ...are always the same in all ordered simply infinite systems...(and)...form the first object of the science of numbers or arithmetic. In the same paragraph, Dedekind had said With reference to this freeing the elements from every other content (abstraction) we are justified in calling numbers a free creation of the human mind. An equation, therefore, as an order-setting transformation (also Dedekind's words) implies a direct object. > it contributes > the very meaning of a mathematical operation > requiring > a move in time, to borrow Brouwer's words. The ...at most six primes ... (a result on an > upper > bound of the weak GC, due to Ramare using a > Vinogradov > result) does not apply here. A proof of the strong > Goldbach Conjecture would in fact imply the weak > version. That 7 + 5 = 12 holds for all time is not at > issue. > The all time result is for arbitrarily chosen > primes > summing to some even integer. Simply calculating > and > verifying any particular result does not count as > proof. Karl Popper (Realism and the Aim of > Science, > Routledge 1983) demonstrated the difference between > verifiability and falsifiability: Popper called the Goldbach Conjecture true if, G: > For > every natural number x > 2, there exists at least > one > natural number y such that x+y and (2+x)- y are > both > prime. Popper called the Twin Primes Conjecture > true if > H: For every natural number x > 2, there exists at > least one natural number y such that x+y and > (2+x)+y > are both prime. G is demonstrable by iterated arithmetic > calculation. > A program to test the conjecture potentially halts > when it comes on a counterexample. H is not (in > Popper's context of computational falsifiability) > testable at all. These are just the *straightforward* tests for the > truth of the > corresponding conjectures. > How can we prove that 29 is prime? > 29 is composite if there exist natural numbers x>1, > y>1 > such that x*y=29. > We may try different combinations of x,y for ages > and will never find a counterexample (trust me), but > we can never be sure that there is no counterexample > just around the corner. > OTOH, with a bit of cleverness we may find out that > it > suffices to check only the finitely many x,y below > 29. Call me lazy. I prefer straightforward over clever any day of the week. Clever is too much work. > Neither conjecture is verifiable, but of these > propositions--which differ only by one sign > change-- > only GC is falsifiable. Significance?--the weak GC > belongs to the same class of non-falsifiable > problems > (using Popper's context) as the twin primes > conjecture. But isn't ... at most six primes... in the same > verifiability > class as GC? Using the immediate formulation, we > can only search for counterexamples one by one. > And yet it has been proven... As I (and Popper) said, neither conjecture is verifiable. By throwing out verifiability as a criterion, and concentrating on computational falsifiability (even though such computation is obviously currently out of reach)we possibly open up new lines of attack tractable to algorithmic compression. If that is what you mean by clever, then fine. Testing specific cases, however, no matter how numerous, does not constitute proof. Appel and Haken could only be convincing with 4CT because their algorithm reduced the checking cases to a finite group. Their critical proof criterion was falsifiability. Tom One would think that a natively falsifiable > conjecture > gives us a better chance at a computationally > tractable > (therefore convincing)proof. The line about > dimensions > refers simply to complex analysis, which is a two- > dimensional tool. Vinogradov's attack on the weak > GC > (and therefore Ramare's result as well) removed the > necessity to assume the truth of the Riemann > Hypothesis > (which of course lives in the complex plane) in > order to > attack Goldbach. I still think RH and GC are > linked. I may be wrong, but I won't be alone. Tom === Subject: Re: Central term (median) for a very very large set of numbers Bytes: 6490 | x[i] - Me | > Sum ---------------- = 0 > ( x[i] - Me ) With the proviso that we define that otherwise undefined quotient as zero > when x[i] = Me. So what we're summing is the signum function, over the > difference between each element and the median. This way to look at the question has always fashinated me because > it makes suddenly disappear the concept of sorting the data and > open an analytical perspective. If we look at minimizing a function, we are looking at finding a value for > which the derivative is zero. But for a median, we're minimizing a sum of > absolute values, and the derivative of absolute value is 1, -1, or > undefined (which for this particular purpose we can take to be zero). Which > brings us back to the formula above. Which still isn't useful. > I am not comletely sure that the above is completely unuseful. I was thinking that perhaps one could adapt the iteration while the numbers are being observed. Let's see first an example where one does brute iteration on the whole set of observed numbers. Below I have attached test programs. Here are the resukt I get in 2 different runs using 10.000 random numbers within 0 and 10.000: Median approx: 5003,95143402871 (source code below) <= not bad eh! Median true: 5002,85238260536 Median approx: 5000,68399106364 (source code below) <= not bad eh! Median true: 5001,40984309903 It's seem one is able to compute the Median *skipping the sorting*. So no sort needed. I am wondering if this could be refined in an incremental fashion to create an algorithm capable to do what we want. Code (vb, c#) public class Form1 { private void Button1_Click(object sender, System.EventArgs e) { //Fill a list of number ------------------- long ListSize = 1000000; Random Random = new Random(); List ListOfNumbers = new List(); for (long i = 0; i <= ListSize - 1; i++) { ListOfNumbers.Add(Random.NextDouble() * 10000); } Stopwatch Watch = new Stopwatch(); System.Text.StringBuilder Sb = new System.Text.StringBuilder(); Watch.Start(); Watch.Reset(); Watch.Start(); //Median Numerical ---------------------------------------- double Q; double p = 1 / 2; long n = ListOfNumbers.Count; Q = ListOfNumbers(0); //seed double OldQ; while ((Math.Abs(OldQ - Q) > 0.01)) { OldQ = Q; double SumAx = 0; double SumA = 0; ComputeSums(Q, ListOfNumbers, SumA, SumAx); Q = (SumAx - n + 2 * n * p) / SumA; } Sb.Append(Constants.vbCrLf + Median approx: + Q + , + Watch.ElapsedMilliseconds); this.RichTextBox1.AppendText(Constants.vbCrLf + Constants.vbCrLf + Sb.ToString); } public void ComputeSums(double Q, List x, ref double SumA, ref double SumAx) { for (long i = 0; i <= x.Count - 1; i++) { double a; if (Math.Abs(x(i) - Q) > 0) { a = 1 / Math.Abs(x(i) - Q); } else { a = 0; } SumA += a; SumAx += a * x(i); } } } '------------------------------------------ vb -------- Public Class Form1 Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles _ Button1.Click 'Fill a list of number ------------------- Dim ListSize As Long = 1000000 Dim Random As New Random Dim ListOfNumbers As New List(Of Double) For i As Long = 0 To ListSize - 1 ListOfNumbers.Add(Random.NextDouble() * 10000) Next i Dim Watch As New Stopwatch Dim Sb As New System.Text.StringBuilder Watch.Start() Watch.Reset() : Watch.Start() 'Median Numerical ---------------------------------------- Dim Q As Double Dim p As Double = 1 / 2 Dim n As Long = ListOfNumbers.Count Q = ListOfNumbers(0) 'seed Dim OldQ As Double Do While (Math.Abs(OldQ - Q) > 0.01) OldQ = Q Dim SumAx As Double = 0 Dim SumA As Double = 0 ComputeSums(Q, ListOfNumbers, SumA, SumAx) Q = (SumAx - n + 2 * n * p) / SumA Loop Sb.Append(vbCrLf & Median approx: & Q & , & Watch.ElapsedMilliseconds) Me.RichTextBox1.AppendText(vbCrLf & vbCrLf & Sb.ToString) End Sub Sub ComputeSums(ByVal Q As Double, ByVal x As List(Of Double), _ ByRef SumA As Double, ByRef SumAx As Double) For i As Long = 0 To x.Count - 1 Dim a As Double If Math.Abs(x(i) - Q) > 0 Then a = 1 / Math.Abs(x(i) - Q) Else a = 0 End If SumA += a SumAx += a * x(i) Next i End Sub End Class -P -- > Randy Hudson === === Subject: Re: compactness and local convergence in function space. Bytes: 5380 On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:56:02 EDT, craigt On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:33:21 EDT, craigt Let U denote an open, bounded set in R^n which > containts the origin. > Let 0 <= f_m be smooth and compactly supported in U > with f_m dx -> delta weak* in C(U)* where delta is > the Dirac mass at 0. Also assume the supports of > f_m go to {0}. >Now let u_m solve >- Delta u_m = f_m in U with u_m=0 on the boundary > of U. >Here Delta is the Laplacian. >Let -Delta E = delta in U with E =0 on boundary. > >Now it seems clear that u_m -> E pointwise and we > have at least >u_m -> E in H^1(U_0) >where U_0 subset U and for which >distance(0,U_0) >0. >(I would expect much stronger convergence then this > but..) In fact it seems clear to me that u_m and its > gradient > tend to 0 uniformly in U_0. i don't think so. I knew but couldn't prove they converge in some sense to E. That was a typo, sorry - I meant that u_m - E converges to 0. (As would be clear if you'd, ahem, read the proof below...) >After I posted the question I managed to show (could be wrong) that u_m is bounded in C^{2,p}(U_0) for any 0 < p < 1 and U_0 subset U with dist(0,U_0)>0. So now standard compactness and diagonal arguments show convergence in C^{2,p}_{loc}( bar{U} 0 ). The proof involved using cut-off functions, elliptic regularity and a bootstrap argument. Here the regularity I use if $ Delta u =f $ in $U$ with >suitable control on the boundary and f in L^p then u in W^{2,p} (1 In fact if you assume in addition that f_m is radial > (rotation-invariant) and has integral = 1 then u_m = > 0 > in U_0. The proof of that contains hints on how to > show it tends to 0 if you're not free to add more > hypotheses: First, if phi is a continuous function on the > boundary > of u let's say P[phi] is the solution to the > Dirichlet > problem with boundary data phi. And now if phi is > actually > defined on a superset of the boundary we'll write > P[phi] > for P[phi restricted to the boundary]. Now let g(z) = log(|z|) > > (if you want to do this in R^d for d > 2 it's g(x) = -|x|^(2-d).) > > Then Delta g = c delta, > > where c is an irrelevant constant that I will assume > equals 1. Hence E = g - P[g], > > because E - (g - P[g]) is harmonic in U and tends to > 0 > at the boundary. Similarly u_m = g*f_m - P[g*f_m], > > where * denotes convolution in R^2, because Delta(g*f_m) = f_m. If you assume just that the integral of f_m is 1 then > this > allows you to show that E - u_m and its gradient tend > to 0 uniformly on U_0 without too much trouble. If > you > assume as well that f_m is radial then something > magic > happens: If 0 < r < |z| then the fact that log|z| is harmonic > in the complement of the origin shows that g(z) = 1/(2 pi) int_0^(2 pi) g(z + r exp(it)) dt. > > Now integrating in polar coordinates shows that if > f_m is supported in {|z| < r} and |z| > r then f_m*g(z) = g(z), > > hence u_m(z) = 0. >In any case I want to show the above using just the > PDE's and a suitable choice of test functions. >A first step would be to show we have the sequence > bounded in H^1(U_0) which I can't do. >Any help would be appreciated. >craig > ************************ David C. Ullrich ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: Hulls in sigma algeras Bytes: 3684 On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:26:36 -0400, Stephen J. Herschkorn > >Perhaps the following approach will help: Let E be as above, endowed >with the discrete topology. The product sigma-algebra on E^X is the >same as the Borel sigma-algebra on E^X under the product topology. > >Incorrect, it is not the Borel sigma-algebra. > >The collection, {prod(x in X, U_x): for all x U_x is a subset of E, and for all but >finitely many x U_x = E}, is a base for the product topology, hence a generator for >sigma-algebra. > > <> This does, indeed, generate the sigma-algebra we want. But (unlike the > case in the real line) not every > open set is the union of countably many of these, and in fact not > every open set belongs to the sigma-algebra generated by these. In > particular, a single point (which is closed and therefore > a Borel set) does not belong to the sigma-algebra. Then I am very glad I brought this up, for this correction indicates a >misconception I have held for many years. And, indeed, thinking about >this during this long day, I realized that if what I claimed were true, >then singletons, as closed sets (since we are talking about the product >of Hausdorff sets), would indeed be in the Borel sigma-algebra. Probably this was a typo, or a misunderstanding of counterfactual constructions or something. In fact singletons _are_ in the Borel sigma-algebra - they're not in the product algebra. >Somehow, I saw Kolmogorov's Existence Theorem for stochastic processes >as relating the product sigma-algebra to the product topology. Does >what I claim hold true in probability spaces? Probably not even there. It seems to me that there's a counterexample given almost explicitly here in this thread. Start with a uniform probability measure on {0,1}. >I will have to think about this some more before I ask more questions >(as I am too exahausted to do so right now). ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: Hulls in sigma algeras >On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:26:36 -0400, Stephen J. Herschkorn > >[...] The product sigma-algebra on E^X is the same as the Borel sigma-algebra on E^X under the product topology. > >Incorrect, it is not the Borel sigma-algebra. > [...] >[...] if what I claimed were true, then singletons, as closed sets (since we are talking about the product of Hausdorff sets), would indeed be in the Borel sigma-algebra. > Probably this was a typo, or a misunderstanding of counterfactual >constructions or something. In fact singletons _are_ in the Borel >sigma-algebra - they're not in the product algebra. > Correct, I did not type what I meant, which was something like Since singletons are closed sets in the product topology, they are in the Borel sigma-algebra. So, if I what I claimed were correct, singletons would also be product sigma-algebra. Now on to the correction of another fatigue-induced typo in alt.sci.math.probability... -- Stephen J. Herschkorn sjherschko@netscape.net Math Tutor on the Internet and in Central New Jersey and Manhattan === Subject: Re: Hulls in sigma algeras <030820071455391198%edgar@math.ohio-state.edu.invalid> Bytes: 2189 > Is it the case that the intersection of all members of a sigma-algebra > containing a given element of the underlying space must its self be a > member of that sigma algebra? In general, no. If the sigma-algebra is countably generated, yes. I'm not understanding the problem. Would you detail or formulize what is > meant by the intersection (/) of all members of a sigma algebra? If S > is the algebra, does it mean /{ A | A in S, x in A } for some given x in > the underlying space /S? Yes that is exactly hat I meant (though I am now happy that I understand the answer). My question was: Is it true that for any sigma algebra, S, and element x in /S: /{ A | A in S, x in A } in S === === Subject: Re: Degrees in Algebraic Geometry > On 2007-08-03 18:26:28 -0400, Ryan Reich said: > Here is the answer for curves. If deg D = d, deg phi = e, and deg > phi(D) > = f, then d = e * f. This is true by definition of these numbers and of > phi itself (let's say we're working over an algebraically closed field). If X is not a curve, then you simply have to figure out what deg phi has > to do with pullbacks of irreducible subvarieties, and then you'll be able > to do a similar computation. I thought there might be a relationship between deg(D) and deg(phi(X)) > too, at least in the case when D is very ample. For example, if you > consider the embedding of P^1 in P^N using the invertible sheaves O(n), > then the degree of the image is a rational curve of degree n. So, I was wondering if this can be generalized to > deg(phi(X)) = deg(D) deg(X) > for some variety X. > The thing is, the degree of X is completely non-intrinsic to X, but given X as an abstract variety and D a divisor on it, one can define phi from it. None of these numbers can depend on the degree of X because it can always be embedded in a different space with a different degree. Case in point: let X be a projective line, embedded in the plane either as a) A straight line, or b) A conic section. In case b), pick a point not on the conic and project from it; this gives a map from X to P^1 of degree 2, corresponding to a divisor which is two collinear points. I can even be more explicit: suppose the conic is given by the equation x^2 + y^2 = z^2 and the point of projection is (0 : 0 : 1). Then the map is: a point (x : y : z) on X is mapped to (x : y) on P^1, and is induced by the divisor D = (1 : 0 : 1) + (-1 : 0 : 1) (or any of its linear equivalents). A conic can be rationally parameterized by the well-known equations (except in characteristic 2, but then x^2 + y^2 = z^2 simply means x + y = +/- z anyway. Assume I'm working in C): x = t^2 - s^2, y = 2st, z = t^2 + s^2 (where (s : t) is on P^1) which means that this map also corresponds to the map P^1 to P^1: (s : t) goes to (t^2 - s^2 : 2st). This corresponds to the divisor D = (0 : 1) + (i : 0). Note: deg(D) = 2, deg(phi) = 2, deg(phi(X)) = 1 (since it's mapping into P^1 surjectively). Thus the equation deg(D) = deg(phi) deg(phi(X)) is true either in case a) or case b). But your equation deg(phi(X)) = deg(D) deg(X) reads either 2 = 2 * 2, or 1 = 2 * 2. In order to appreciate WHY your equation can't be right, you have to understand what the degrees mean. deg(phi(X)) is the number of intersections of phi(X) with a generic linear space of codimension dim(phi(X)), likewise deg(X). These have nothing to do with each other since X and phi(X) live in different spaces, and the map from X to phi(X) does not extend in any way to a map of the ambient spaces so there's really no hope of translating statements about intersections in one, to statements about intersections in the other. -- Ryan Reich ryan.reich@gmail.com === Subject: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? Bytes: 5057 > On Aug 4, 1:49 pm, Kamil.S...@gmail.com ... not just highly compressed matter still occupying some significant > volume due to rotation and Pauli exclusion principle? Sorry for this question. I should have read wikipedia first.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit I don't know how rotation and Pauli exclusion principle should > be taken into account in this case, but I think that those > quarks are those which prevent the full collapse. Those quarks are PIECES of neutrino star (=8/8-diamond) > as I have many times tried to explain in these sci-groups when > I have recalled again about those old H-M's drawings > and my old writings about them. Hannu > If those quarks have also that color electricity flame around them as neutrino star has then I would expect that huge explosion would happen. If quarks do not have that color electricity flame around them then I would expect that neutrino star forms. This is a matter which I don't know at the moment how it is but I suspect that the first case would be right. Hannu The Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) limit is an upper bound to the > mass of stars composed of neutron-degenerate matter (neutron stars). > It is analogous to the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars. > The limit was computed by Julius Robert Oppenheimer and George Michael > Volkoff in 1939, using work of Richard Chace Tolman. Oppenheimer and > Volkoff assumed that the neutrons in a neutron star formed a cold, > degenerate Fermi gas. This leads to a limiting mass of approximately > 0.7 solar masses.[1],[2] Modern estimates range from approximately 1.5 > to 3.0 solar masses.[3] The uncertainty in the value reflects the fact > that the equations of state for extremely dense matter are not well- > known. > In an neutron star lighter than the limit, the weight of the star is > supported by short-range repulsive neutron-neutron interactions > mediated by the strong force and also the quantum degeneracy pressure > of neutrons. If a neutron star is heavier than the limit, it will > collapse to some denser form. It could form a black hole, or change > composition and be supported in some other way (for example, by quark > degeneracy pressure if it becomes a quark star). > Because the properties of hypothetical more exotic forms of degenerate > matter are even more poorly known than those of neutron-degenerate > matter, most astrophysicists assume, in the absence of evidence to the > contrary, that a neutron star above the limit collapses directly into > a black hole. > Black holes formed by the collapse of individual stars have masses > ranging from 1.5-3.0 (TOV limit) to 10 solar masses. > References > 1. ^ Static Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations for Spheres of > Fluid, Richard C. Tolman, Physical Review 55, #374 (February 15, > 1939), pp. 364-373. > 2. ^ On Massive Neutron Cores, J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, > Physical Review 55, #374 (February 15, 1939), pp. 374-381. > 3. ^ Bombaci, I. (1996). The maximum mass of a neutron star. > Astronomy and Astrophysics 305: 871-877. > See also > .87 Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation ] === Subject: Re: Are we sure that black holes contain singularities? On Aug 4, 1:49 pm, Kamil.S...@gmail.com ... not just highly compressed matter still occupying some significant > volume due to rotation and Pauli exclusion principle? > Sorry for this question. I should have read wikipedia first.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit I don't know how rotation and Pauli exclusion principle should > be taken into account in this case, but I think that those > quarks are those which prevent the full collapse. Those quarks are PIECES of neutrino star (=8/8-diamond) > as I have many times tried to explain in these sci-groups when > I have recalled again about those old H-M's drawings > and my old writings about them. Hannu If those quarks have also that color electricity flame around > them as neutrino star has then I would expect that huge > explosion would happen. If quarks do not have that color electricity flame around > them then I would expect that neutrino star forms. > Oh no, it cannot be neutrino star in this case due neutrino star is formed from one radiation periphery. I remember that in those old H-M's drawings no color electricity flame was drawn around those quarks. Quarks were drawn two ways: first was those 8-sided regular polygons (color electricity colored and those two types of color electricity scratches in two of them) and second way was such that quarks have light periphery and color electricity spot in center of that (This last was in drawing of structure of proton and neutron, I think that quark resembled black-hole in this last way). I must admit that I don't really know what happens here, but I know that those quarks have born in so extreme conditions if I recall my old writings about H-M's old drawings that in this case they cannot, I think, be compressed to zero dimensions. Sorry about my confusions. Try to figure out this from those old H-M's drawings and my remarks on them due they are reliable. Hannu > This is a matter which I don't know at the moment how it is > but I suspect that the first case would be right. Hannu > The Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) limit is an upper bound to the > mass of stars composed of neutron-degenerate matter (neutron stars). > It is analogous to the Chandrasekhar limit for white dwarf stars. > The limit was computed by Julius Robert Oppenheimer and George Michael > Volkoff in 1939, using work of Richard Chace Tolman. Oppenheimer and > Volkoff assumed that the neutrons in a neutron star formed a cold, > degenerate Fermi gas. This leads to a limiting mass of approximately > 0.7 solar masses.[1],[2] Modern estimates range from approximately 1.5 > to 3.0 solar masses.[3] The uncertainty in the value reflects the fact > that the equations of state for extremely dense matter are not well- > known. > In an neutron star lighter than the limit, the weight of the star is > supported by short-range repulsive neutron-neutron interactions > mediated by the strong force and also the quantum degeneracy pressure > of neutrons. If a neutron star is heavier than the limit, it will > collapse to some denser form. It could form a black hole, or change > composition and be supported in some other way (for example, by quark > degeneracy pressure if it becomes a quark star). > Because the properties of hypothetical more exotic forms of degenerate > matter are even more poorly known than those of neutron-degenerate > matter, most astrophysicists assume, in the absence of evidence to the > contrary, that a neutron star above the limit collapses directly into > a black hole. > Black holes formed by the collapse of individual stars have masses > ranging from 1.5-3.0 (TOV limit) to 10 solar masses. > References > 1. ^ Static Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations for Spheres of > Fluid, Richard C. Tolman, Physical Review 55, #374 (February 15, > 1939), pp. 364-373. > 2. ^ On Massive Neutron Cores, J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, > Physical Review 55, #374 (February 15, 1939), pp. 374-381. > 3. ^ Bombaci, I. (1996). The maximum mass of a neutron star. > Astronomy and Astrophysics 305: 871-877. > See also > .87 Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation ] === but why should/does the zeta function only have 3 continuations ?? (1-> infinity ; 0-> infinity ; whole complex plane ) right , 1 is a pole. but so what ? as has been asked , no i dont mean continuation without poles , since that is not possible ( of course ) i know im not an expert at continuation but shouldnt there be a way ? i mean fourrier series for example ? i have also seen continuations from 0 to 2 for a certain hurwitz zeta function ... i hope there is one afterall. im trying to use it to prove RH... but im stuck here ... greets tommy1729 === Subject: Re: strange , a RH topic yet not many replies .... (snip) But they are in essence not different. Once we have > actually found > the first crossover we have either: > (1) RH is false > or > (2) Sk1 = Sk2 = n. > but if not (1) then not RH is false and if something is not false it is true ... tommy1729 === Subject: Re: strange , a RH topic yet not many replies .... > (snip) But they are in essence not different. Once we > have > actually found > the first crossover we have either: > (1) RH is false > or > (2) Sk1 = Sk2 = n. > but if not (1) then not RH is false and if something is not false it is true ... tommy1729 No, no. Two-valued logic is your ticket to the slippery slope. Tom === Subject: Re: Simple (?) question on conditional probability <15883998.1185984263973.JavaMail.jakarta@nitrogen.mathforum.org> Bytes: 4698 > On 31 Jul., 21:24, Stephen J. Herschkorn > On 31 Jul., 20:55, Grant55 >I've searched the old posts and haven't come > across the answer to this question. Notation: P is > probability; A, B, C, D, and E are random variables; > and & means and. >Suppose I know: P(A), P(E|A), P(C|A&E), P(B|A&C), > and P(D|C&E). >What is P(A&B&C&D&E)? >I realize that P(A&C&E)=P(A)*P(E|A)*P(C|A&E), but > I start to wonder about double counting when I get > to the more complex problem above. >You always have P(U&V) = P(U)*P(V|U). >Substitute U=A&B&C&D, V=E to get P(A&B&C&D&E) = > P(A&BC&D)*P(E|A&B&C&D) >Substitute U=A&B&C, V=D to get P(A&B&C&D) = > P(A&B&C)*P(D|A&B&C) >Substitute U=A&B, V=C to get P(A&B&C) = > P(A&B)*P(C|A&B) >Substitute U=A, V=B to get P(A&B) = P(A)*P(B|A) >All in all you have >P(A&B&C&D&E) = > P(A)*P(B|A)*P(C|A&B)*P(D|A&B&C)*P(E|A&B&C&D) >No doubel counting involved, just repeated use of > the same equation >for two events > But the OP is not given all the conditional > probabilities on the > right-hand side of your last equation. > -- > Stephen J. Herschkorn > sjhersc...@netscape.net > Math Tutor on the Internet and in Central New > Jersey and Manhattan Ah, yes, it seems my reading switched to et-cetera > mode when > confronted > with the list of given probabilities. > So, effectively he knows (writing conditionals as > quotients of and > probabilities): > P(A) > P(A&E)/P(A) > P(A&C&E)/P(A&E) > P(A&B&C)/P(A&C) > P(C&D&E)/P(C&E) > and this is not sufficient to obtain P(A&B&C&D&E) > unless > one of the factors is 0. > Well, the given numbers might pin down some > probabilities > together with the inequalities 0<=P<=1, but that is > not, well, likely. > (For example, if P(A)=0.6 and P(B|A)=0.8, then > P(A&B)=0.48, hence > 0.48 <= P(B) - if P(B)<=.048 by some other argument, > we > could determine P(B) by a bit of luck). > So, you can get P{A&E} > and a third for P(C|A&E), So now (knowing P{A&E} you can get P{A&C&E}. > P(B|A&C), So you know P{A&B&C}/P{A&C}, but you do not know the numerator or the denominator separately. >and P(D|C&E). Again, you now know P{D&C&E}/P{C&E}, but not the numerator or denominator. R.G. Vickson > I want to use P(A&B&C&D&E) to write a likelihood function. Given the data (the observed values of A, B, C, D, and E), I will use the likelihood function to estimate the parameters that go into the third functional form (the parameters that go into the first two functional forms are just nuisance parameters). I am surprised that the available information is insufficient to write P(A&B&C&D&E). If you have time, could you please tell me what else would be required to write the joint probability? === Subject: Throwing Dice Bytes: 1265 Recently I have uploaded an applet on my site that allows finding probabilities of upto 3 dice (fair or unfair) and for sum of digits. As you increase the number of throws, the probabilities get closer to actual figures. http://www.britishcomputercolleges.com/VU/DIce.html === Subject: Re: a theory of countable reals The reason why I think that countable reals build complete ordered field successesfully, is based on the following consideration. When we need the least upper bound, we can address it by words. And only what is represented by words, can be dealt with. Cauchy sequences are constructed from countable number of rationals. And as each number is given by words, their total amount is countable. If we cannot adress the place with words where an individual cut should be put, it cannot be constructed too. they are given as the roots of the equations or some sort of difinitions. One of a property of continuum is that we can pic up points from wherever we want to do. This property is satisfied by the constructible reals. The idea that reals is countable, is accepted by some mathematicians. Conctructivists use complete ordered field property to their reals. I don't know well the details, but the countable complete ordered field may have been accepted by some mathematicians, even though that of computable numbers is not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28mathematics%29 === Subject: Re: Help for equations with parameters needed Michael JĀrgensen schrieb im Newsbeitrag > Here's an idea. Assume that the solution is a set S of k-values. ... === Subject: Re: Can any triangle be point-projected onto any other triangle? form) - can we position them in space, so that the lines connecting > corresponding corners will meet in a point? > (Which corners correspond?) Anyhow, it would be nice, if You tell us a bit more. > Why or what for You are looking into this problem? > What are Your own results? With friendly greetings > Hero > PS Google shows there was a letter from Robert Israel in this thread, > but his message is not displayed. Do you man the following one? |You can even do it in the plane. Let AB and DE be all on one line, |with C on one side of the line and F on the other. The line CF |intersects AD = BE in one point. -- Robert Israel israel@math.MyUniversitysInitials.ca Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada === Subject: Re: Can any triangle be point-projected onto any other triangle? On 5 Aug., 17:56, Robert Israel form) - can we position them in space, so that the lines connecting > corresponding corners will meet in a point? > (Which corners correspond?) Anyhow, it would be nice, if You tell us a bit more. > Why or what for You are looking into this problem? > What are Your own results? With friendly greetings > Hero > PS Google shows there was a letter from Robert Israel in this thread, > but his message is not displayed. Do you man the following one? |You can even do it in the plane. Let AB and DE be all on one line, > |with C on one side of the line and F on the other. The line CF > |intersects AD = BE in one point. > -- Yes, it seems so, as this is new to me. On the left side of the page is a list of contributors with dates.There Your name is mentioned with the date 3 Aug. Every message can be looked up in the middle of the page, except this one. With friendly greetings Hero === Subject: Re: Please people be carefull what you write in the net about God and about God's knowledge !!! Bytes: 11118 ................................ >...and you, Pete, didn't answer the questions I asked you in my last >post. Perhaps you don't know the answer, perhaps you don't want to >answer me. >Talking of being polite... >Tonio I'm sorry if I missed your question, however I don't recall you asking a > question of me that I didn't respsond to. Your last messages to me > contained > to question directed toward me. Please repost the question and I'll do my > best to respond. Thanls Pete- *************************************************** >Well, perhaps you'll be nice to me here and let me know, say 2-3 >SCIENTIFICALLY .... Whooooaaaa there bucko. Show me where I claimed that ID is something I accept as scientific theory? As I said, I'm in the process of studying it so for you to think that I'm convinced that ID is a scientific theory is premature. After I started reading a text by William Dembski I decided the put the book down since he was making all kinds of comments on evolution. Since, at that time, I was far from being versed in evolution I felt that it was inappropriate for me to continue that book at that time. So, you ask, What the heck do I know about ID with such a *very* moderate reading so far. Well, I don't make any claims to be well versed in ID. This whole line of ID discussion was becaused I made a statement concerned with its basic axiom, i.e. that the universe was intelligently designed. I fully understand this axiom. That's why I stated that. Then people like George made a **huge** jump taking what I said as having a full understanding of the theory on which the axiom is based. An irrational assumption on George's part. By the way, to date I see no good reason to argue ID based on evolutionary science. This science is too young and has yet to determine how life originated. For this reason I've stopped reading ID stuff and have backed up to evolution stuff. This will give me a greater understanding of evolution so that I can determine a non-sense arguement from either the ID people or their opponents. ..based assumptions, or axioms, or observations, ... I asked you what the term scientifically based .. meant. Since you didn't respond to that question I have no choice but to take it to mean axom which is defined my the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary which gives 3 definitions. The one which I believe is implied here is the following Axiom: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference. You've started this by assuming that I accept ID as a scientific theory. I have no opinion on that yet since I'm in the middle of studying it. It may hold to the definition of sciene or it may not. If it doesn't then that can't be taken to mean that its wrong either. As Paul Davies said in Cosmic Jackpot - In Davies opinion Although by definition this is not a scientific explanation it is still a rational one. Right now I *do* accept the axiom as a rational one. Whether its a scientific one remains to be seen. And I don't wish to discuss it here as of yet to any extent further than I have to date. > .... or >whatever, on which some scientific deduction or (scientific) reasoning >in general is made within ID...? It can be from Gingerich's book or >from whatever. I think Gingerich says it best in his Lectures when he says. ---------------------------------------------------------- To me, belief in a final cause, a Creator God, gives a coherent understanding of why the universe seems so congenially designed for the existence of intelligent, selfreflective life. Only small changes in numerous physical constants would render the universe uninhabitable.. Somehow, in the words of Freeman Dyson, this is a universe that knew we were coming.2 I do not claim this as a proof for the existence of a Creator, only that to me, the universe makes more sense with this understanding. ---------------------------------------------------------- >So far, and again I repeat that I am not a scholar in these matters, I >I've been used to hear rampant fundamentalist stuff in this matter of >ID, .. fundamentalist stuff? What does that mean? If it refers to the fundamentalist Christians then beware of their arguements. They base them only on religion as I understand it and they have the alternative motive that the theory must be right since the take on faith that theire religion is right. This leads to poor arguemtnts > ..nothing close to science at all. Did you know that Paul Davies has postulated the existance of multi-universes (small pocket like regions of space within the entire universe) in which different regions of the universe (too far away for us to detect anything from those regions to date) in which the constants of nature vary from one to another. I bbelieve Davies believes that this is a scientific theory. He bases this on the existance of such multi-verses. Since we ca not yet have data to say if the theory is right or wrong then what makes it a scientific theory? I think it was Alan Guth who explained that the universe started out with a false vacuum matter. Since we can't go back in time to observe the existance of such matter then again I ask you, what makes it a scientific theory? It is because we use such assertions an axioms and determine whether we can make predictions about the observable universe which is consistent with the axiom. This is the scientific method at work. However as you may notice there will never been anything which will allow us to show that this is fact and we'll never be able to prove the axiom. >It may well be that I'm unaware of some features here, and that is why I >ask from you to expose, even briefly, some scientific evidence for ID that, >apparently, you seem to believe, or know, that is out there. Since I found the quote above by Gingerich to be phrased better than I ever could I'll refer you to that statement. I also recall doing some calculations back in college when I was taking a Thermal Physics course. The calculations astounded me. I had assummed that given enough time then things could fall together to fom life by mere chance. Since I did calculation of something that would work much slower than nature and that calculation showed that success was guarenteed so long as we waited to a number of the lifetimes which is so large as to be consitered an astronmical amount of time. So long in fact that the present lifetime of the universe was but a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the time it would take life to evolve that way. It follows that my thinking was totally wrong so I buried my assumptions which led to my erroneous conclusions. So there must be a mechanism, which has never been discovered to date. I'm hopeful and confident that the mechanism for originating life will be discovered someday. >Thanx >Tonio Who is that? I don't recognize his name > ...that his beliefs are of no concern to us since that is a relativity > group. Do you mean that irritating person who kept saying 'Scoff scoff scofff. Yes. I remember him. I was trying to convince him to stop since we already knew he scoffed at it. but that it doesn't belong in this newsgroup > Well, you and others have crossposted this thread all over the place. I did not so intentionally. When I respond to a thread I just hit Reply to all, say what I want to say, and sent the message. I don't know which newsgroup this belongs to so I leave that alone. > I'm writing from sci.math, and I think that neilist's view, or whoever's, > are as relevant in sci.math, or in a relativity group, as the OP's are, > who is the one that began all this. Math huh? Hmmm. The author of the book I've been recommended to read is edited by William Dembski A mathematician and philosopher. >I believe you that relativity group is not an atheist one, but I bet it is >not a religious group, either. I understand your feelings in this but I do not accept that ID is about religion and in thinking that it does is a serious error in logic/philosophy. To illustrate this point I took a very well known scientific paper and used it to elaborate why I do not hold that ID is religion. See - http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/religion/view_of_god.htm If you're at all curious my reigion web site is at http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/religion/ Pete === Subject: Re: Please people be carefull what you write in the net about God and about God's knowledge !!! <9oqdnX4Cl5Fady3bnZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@comcast.com> <3Ggsi.1965$Ug2.1803@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <-aednf463om7BC_bnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@comcast.com> <97ydne3gfftglC7bnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@comcast.com> <7v6dnVrPm7CpnivbnZ2dnUVZ_ommnZ2d@comcast.com> Bytes: 15053 ................................ >...and you, Pete, didn't answer the questions I asked you in my last >post. Perhaps you don't know the answer, perhaps you don't want to >answer me. >Talking of being polite... >Tonio I'm sorry if I missed your question, however I don't recall you asking a > question of me that I didn't respsond to. Your last messages to me > contained > to question directed toward me. Please repost the question and I'll do my > best to respond. Thanls Pete- *************************************************** Well, perhaps you?ll be nice to me here and let me know, say 2-3 >SCIENTIFICALLY .... Whooooaaaa there bucko. Show me where I claimed that ID is something I > accept as scientific theory? As I said, I'm in the process of studying it so > for you to think that I'm convinced that ID is a scientific theory is > premature. After I started reading a text by William Dembski I decided the > put the book down since he was making all kinds of comments on evolution. > Since, at that time, I was far from being versed in evolution I felt that it > was inappropriate for me to continue that book at that time. So, you ask, > What the heck do I know about ID with such a *very* moderate reading so far. > Well, I don't make any claims to be well versed in ID. This whole line of ID > discussion was becaused I made a statement concerned with its basic axiom, > i.e. that the universe was intelligently designed. I fully understand this > axiom. That's why I stated that. Then people like George made a **huge** > jump taking what I said as having a full understanding of the theory on > which the axiom is based. An irrational assumption on George's part. By the way, to date I see no good reason to argue ID based on evolutionary > science. This science is too young and has yet to determine how life > originated. For this reason I've stopped reading ID stuff and have backed up > to evolution stuff. This will give me a greater understanding of evolution > so that I can determine a non-sense arguement from either the ID people or > their opponents. ..based assumptions, or axioms, or observations, ... I asked you what the term scientifically based .. meant. Since you didn't > respond to that question I have no choice but to take it to mean axom > which is defined my the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary which gives 3 > definitions. The one which I believe is implied here is the following Axiom: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference. You've started this by assuming that I accept ID as a scientific theory. I > have no opinion on that yet since I'm in the middle of studying it. It may > hold to the definition of sciene or it may not. If it doesn't then that > can't be taken to mean that its wrong either. As Paul Davies said in Cosmic > Jackpot - In Davies opinion Although by definition this is not a > scientific explanation it is still a rational one. Right now I *do* accept the axiom as a rational one. Whether its a > scientific one remains to be seen. And I don't wish to discuss it here as of > yet to any extent further than I have to date. .... or >whatever, on which some scientific deduction or (scientific) reasoning >in general is made within ID...? It can be from Gingerich?s book or >from whatever. I think Gingerich says it best in his Lectures when he says. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > To me, belief in a final cause, a Creator God, gives a coherent > understanding of why the universe seems so congenially designed for the > existence of intelligent, selfreflective life. Only small changes in > numerous physical constants would render the universe uninhabitable.. > Somehow, in the words of Freeman Dyson, this is a universe that knew we were > coming.2 I do not claim this as a proof for the existence of a Creator, only > that to me, the universe makes more sense with this understanding. > ---------------------------------------------------------- So far, and again I repeat that I am not a scholar in these matters, I >I've been used to hear rampant fundamentalist stuff in this matter of >ID, .. fundamentalist stuff? What does that mean? If it refers to the > fundamentalist Christians then beware of their arguements. They base them > only on religion as I understand it and they have the alternative motive > that the theory must be right since the take on faith that theire religion > is right. This leads to poor arguemtnts ..nothing close to science at all. Did you know that Paul Davies has postulated the existance of > multi-universes (small pocket like regions of space within the entire > universe) in which different regions of the universe (too far away for us to > detect anything from those regions to date) in which the constants of nature > vary from one to another. I bbelieve Davies believes that this is a > scientific theory. He bases this on the existance of such multi-verses. > Since we ca not yet have data to say if the theory is right or wrong then > what makes it a scientific theory? I think it was Alan Guth who explained > that the universe started out with a false vacuum matter. Since we can't go > back in time to observe the existance of such matter then again I ask you, > what makes it a scientific theory? It is because we use such assertions an > axioms and determine whether we can make predictions about the observable > universe which is consistent with the axiom. This is the scientific method > at work. However as you may notice there will never been anything which will > allow us to show that this is fact and we'll never be able to prove the > axiom. It may well be that I?m unaware of some features here, and that is why I >ask from you to expose, even briefly, some scientific evidence for ID that, >apparently, you seem to believe, or know, that is out there. Since I found the quote above by Gingerich to be phrased better than I ever > could I'll refer you to that statement. I also recall doing some > calculations back in college when I was taking a Thermal Physics course. The > calculations astounded me. I had assummed that given enough time then things > could fall together to fom life by mere chance. Since I did calculation of > something that would work much slower than nature and that calculation > showed that success was guarenteed so long as we waited to a number of the > lifetimes which is so large as to be consitered an astronmical amount of > time. So long in fact that the present lifetime of the universe was but a > tiny tiny tiny fraction of the time it would take life to evolve that way. > It follows that my thinking was totally wrong so I buried my assumptions > which led to my erroneous conclusions. So there must be a mechanism, which > has never been discovered to date. I'm hopeful and confident that the > mechanism for originating life will be discovered someday. Thanx >Tonio Who is that? I don't recognize his name ...that his beliefs are of no concern to us since that is a relativity > group. Do you mean that irritating person who kept saying 'Scoff scoff scofff. > Yes. I remember him. I was trying to convince him to stop since we already > knew he scoffed at it. but that it doesn't belong in this newsgroup Well, you and others have crossposted this thread all over the place. I did not so intentionally. When I respond to a thread I just hit Reply to > all, say what I want to say, and sent the message. I don't know which > newsgroup this belongs to so I leave that alone. I?m writing from sci.math, and I think that neilist?s view, or whoever?s, > are as relevant in sci.math, or in a relativity group, as the OP?s are, > who is the one that began all this. Math huh? Hmmm. The author of the book I've been recommended to read is > edited by William Dembski A mathematician and philosopher. I believe you that relativity group is not an atheist one, but I bet it is >not a religious group, either. I understand your feelings in this but I do not accept that ID is about > religion and in thinking that it does is a serious error in > logic/philosophy. To illustrate this point I took a very well known > scientific paper and used it to elaborate why I do not hold that ID is > religion. See -http://www.geocities.com/physics world/religion/view of god.htm If you're at all curious my reigion web site is athttp://www.geocities.com/physics world/religion/ > Pete *********************************************************** Pete, you seem toi forget a good lot of what's been going in this thread in which you've been participating. For example, you didn't following : > Oh, I have heard of ID, indeed. I?ve heard of adivination, tarot, the > ouija and the unbelievably wickedness of Xenu, as well...so what? [[ None of those are seriously considered by the scientific community. ID is. ]] You answer is the last part of the above, between the double [[ ]] brackets, and it shows, imo, that you believe that the scientific community considers ID seriously. Well, it is not, in fact. Even if some good, honest scientists believe in ID, that does NOT mean the scientific community takes it seriously, and even less it means that it is been taken seriously from a scientific point of view. I, for example, take immensely seriously the love I feel for my family, but I do NOT do so as part of my scientific work, leave alone to explain it to someone else! When and if someone gives some scientific background to ID then it >will be, possibly, considered as belonging to this or that branch of science. Not yet, though. Tonio [[ I guess you need to know what books to look for. Try Own Gingerich's new book ]] some scientific background given by some scientists....and please tell, how else could I understand your words? Now you tell me that Whooooaaaa there bucko. Show me where I claimed that ID is something I accept as scientific theory? . Well, perhaps you didn't claim it, but dude: did you lead me to believe you did or what. You ALSO claimed, in your past post, that I didn't ask you anything...well, pal: I did, and I copied and pasted that part for you. I understand you oversaw that, but don't tell I didn't ask you. Anyway, my final stand remains just the same: if and when ID be given some scientific base then it'd possibly be considered as something some part of the scientific community would deal with. If Paul Davies has put forward some theory about multiple universes or whatever, he'd better give some sound physical, MATHEMATICAL base to his conjectures, otherwise I think it won't be seriously considered by no serious scientists around. And this does NOT mean his theory has to fulfill this or that natural law or whatever: I can perfectly imagine a conjectural hypothesis in the physical realm where it is EXPLAINED soundly how this or that law don't apply. Here is, among other parts and as far as I can see it, where ID fails. Final point: attempts to take gods, a creator, a supreme being, a high energy, or however you like to call it, out from ID look pretty lame and even desperate, in my humble opinion. Intelligent design begs the existence of some kind of being who's applied that intelligence to the creation of the world (interesting thing this is: there are TWO, and not only one, dogmatic affirmations here: there was a creation and it was an intelligent one). I'd love to read, and understand, how a honest, courageous believer in ID can explain the intelligence part, leave alone the creation one, in ID without referring it to some entity (forget the being thing), to whom (or to which) other people, say an atheist like myself, would call simple god. Tonio === Subject: Re: Please people be carefull what you write in the net about God and about God's knowledge !!! Bytes: 7029 >Pete, you seem toi forget a good lot of what's been going in this >thread in which you've been participating. For example, you didn't >remember neilist ... I have a bad memory for storage and recall. My doctors believe that this may be due to a side effect of undergoing High Dose Ara-C chemotherapy when I had Leukemia. It seems to be getting a bit better. Perhaps you'll be more understanding in the future when I forget something? I would greatly appreciate it. I don't recall the _name_ of neilist because I have rarely seen him post here. In fact I did a search on his name and it only came up three times. > Oh, I have heard of ID, indeed. I've heard of adivination, tarot, > the ouija and the unbelievably wickedness of Xenu, as well...so what? This was my response: ------------------------------------------------------ None of those are seriously considered by the scientific community. ID is. ------------------------------------------------------ >You answer is the last part of the above, between the double [[ ]] >brackets, and it shows, imo, that you believe that the scientific >community considers ID seriously. Then you'd be wrong. I did not make that statement to imply that scientific community considers ID seriously. I don't know what they think of it yet. >Well, it is not, in fact. Pleasse provide the reference to the source which led you to this conclusion. I'd be interested in reading it. >Even if some good, honest scientists believe >in ID, that does NOT mean the scientific community takes it seriously, >and even less it means that it is been taken seriously from a >scientific point of view. I never said that any of those things. Wow. You sure must think little of my ability to reason. Why is that? >When and if someone gives some scientific background to ID then it >will be, possibly, considered as belonging to this or that branch of >science. >some scientific background given by some scientists....and please >tell, how else could I understand your words? The motivation of what believers in ID within the physics community accept ID do so based on various scientific facts. >Now you tell me that Whooooaaaa there bucko. Show me where I >claimed that ID is something I accept as scientific theory? . Well, >perhaps you didn't claim it, but dude: did you lead me to believe you >did or what. I'm sorry if that is what you concluded. (the bucko thing was not meant to be derogatory. Its just me being cute) >You ALSO claimed, in your past post, that I didn't ask you >anything...well, pal: I did, and I copied and pasted that part for >you. I understand you oversaw that, but don't tell I didn't ask you. The only thing I saw as far as a question was when you replied with .so what? and in response to that I replied with ------------------------------------------------------ None of those are seriously considered by the scientific community. ID is. ------------------------------------------------------ Is that the question you're refering to? If so then I did respond to it. If it wasn't then I didn't see you ask me a question and I still don't see it. However if you did and I'm blind to it then okay. I was wrong. You have my sincere applogy. But please restate it in no uncertain terms between bars (as I have done above) so that I'm 100% clear on what question we're speaking of. >Anyway, my final stand remains just the same: if and when ID be given >some scientific base ... I accept it as an axiom based on the perrfectly tuned parameters that the universe has which if slightly off by one iota then they're be no live. Coupled with the possibility that this universe no longer appears as if it will collapse and then re-expand giving an oscillating universe with new parameters each time I see this as a very logical axiom and accept it until it is proven wrong. >then it'd possibly be considered as something >some part of the scientific community would deal with. >If Paul Davies has put forward some theory about multiple universes .. For more on mutilverse cosmology please see http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/publications/papers/MultiverseCosmologicalMo dels%2083.pdf >Final point: attempts to take gods, a creator, a supreme being, a high >energy, or however you like to call it, out from ID look pretty lame Then there is no longer any reason to discuss this more, is there? Pete === Subject: Re: Please people be carefull what you write in the net about God and about God's knowledge !!! <9oqdnX4Cl5Fady3bnZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@comcast.com> <3Ggsi.1965$Ug2.1803@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <-aednf463om7BC_bnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@comcast.com> <97ydne3gfftglC7bnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@comcast.com> <7v6dnVrPm7CpnivbnZ2dnUVZ_ommnZ2d@comcast.com> <49ednUkkzatzvyvbnZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@comcast.com> Bytes: 4775 >Pete, you seem toi forget a good lot of what's been going in this >thread in which you've been participating. For example, you didn't >remember neilist ... I have a bad memory for storage and recall. My doctors believe that this may > be due to a side effect of undergoing High Dose Ara-C chemotherapy when I > had Leukemia. It seems to be getting a bit better. Perhaps you'll be more > understanding in the future when I forget something? I would greatly > appreciate it. I don't recall the name of neilist because I have rarely seen him post > here. In fact I did a search on his name and it only came up three times. Oh, I have heard of ID, indeed. I?ve heard of adivination, tarot, > the ouija and the unbelievably wickedness of Xenu, as well...so what? This was my response: > ------------------------------------------------------ > None of those are seriously considered by the scientific community. > ID is. > ------------------------------------------------------ You answer is the last part of the above, between the double [[ ]] >brackets, and it shows, imo, that you believe that the scientific >community considers ID seriously. Then you'd be wrong. I did not make that statement to imply that scientific > community considers ID seriously. I don't know what they think of it yet. ****************************************************** Well Pete, this really bewilders me. Perhaps it is my defficient command in english, which is not even my second language, leave alone my first one. None of those [Tonio: meaning tarot, ouija, etc] are seriously considered by the scientific community. ID is. Pete, read the above carefully: are you implying with the above that ID is considered seriously by the scientific community??? the above: Then you'd be wrong. I did not make that statement to imply that scientific community considers ID seriously. I don't know what they think of it yet. Please Pete, help me out here: aren't these two sentences contradictory with each other? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding something here big time? Tonio === Subject: Re: Please people be carefull what you write in the net about God and about God's knowledge !!! Bytes: 5944 >Pete, you seem toi forget a good lot of what's been going in this >thread in which you've been participating. For example, you didn't >remember neilist ... I have a bad memory for storage and recall. My doctors believe that this > may > be due to a side effect of undergoing High Dose Ara-C chemotherapy when I > had Leukemia. It seems to be getting a bit better. Perhaps you'll be more > understanding in the future when I forget something? I would greatly > appreciate it. I don't recall the _name_ of neilist because I have rarely seen him post > here. In fact I did a search on his name and it only came up three times. Oh, I have heard of ID, indeed. I've heard of adivination, tarot, > the ouija and the unbelievably wickedness of Xenu, as well...so what? This was my response: > ------------------------------------------------------ > None of those are seriously considered by the scientific community. > ID is. > ------------------------------------------------------ You answer is the last part of the above, between the double [[ ]] >brackets, and it shows, imo, that you believe that the scientific >community considers ID seriously. Then you'd be wrong. I did not make that statement to imply that > scientific > community considers ID seriously. I don't know what they think of it yet. ****************************************************** Well Pete, this really bewilders me. Perhaps it is my defficient command in english, which is not even my second language, leave alone my first one. None of those [Tonio: meaning tarot, ouija, etc] are seriously considered by the scientific community. ID is. >Pete, read the above carefully: are you implying with the above that >ID is considered seriously by the scientific community??? Sure. Its just not labeled as a scientific theory as of yet. Is there problem with that? >the above: Then you'd be wrong. I did not make that statement to imply that scientific community considers ID seriously. I don't know what they think of it yet. >Please Pete, help me out here: aren't these two sentences >contradictory with each other? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding >something here big time? Yes. I contradicted myself. Remember that memory thing? However I believe in the second one I meant to write it to imply that its not take seriously as a scientific theory. Please keep in mind that all this is new to me and I don't even consider myself a layman yet. There are two things I accept at this point. (1) I will accept the axoim There is a designer until proven wrong and (2) Believe that the finely tuned parameters are good enough reason for it to be taken seriously. However since this is all nonsense to you and I told you that I'm a layman at this then I don't understand your continued interest in what I believe. If you want me to continue to respond in this thread then I'm afraid I'll have ask why you feel this way, i.e. its a nonsense theory you want to talk about with me. Or is it that because of a few contradictions I'm making as a layman are something you want to point out to the forum? Pete === Subject: Re: Please people be carefull what you write in the net about God and about God's knowledge !!! <3Ggsi.1965$Ug2.1803@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <-aednf463om7BC_bnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@comcast.com> <97ydne3gfftglC7bnZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@comcast.com> <7v6dnVrPm7CpnivbnZ2dnUVZ_ommnZ2d@comcast.com> <49ednUkkzatzvyvbnZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@comcast.com> <9audnccOO8F5tyvbnZ2dnUVZ_ournZ2d@comcast.com> Bytes: 7050 >Pete, you seem toi forget a good lot of what's been going in this >thread in which you've been participating. For example, you didn't >remember neilist ... I have a bad memory for storage and recall. My doctors believe that this > may > be due to a side effect of undergoing High Dose Ara-C chemotherapy when I > had Leukemia. It seems to be getting a bit better. Perhaps you'll be more > understanding in the future when I forget something? I would greatly > appreciate it. I don't recall the name of neilist because I have rarely seen him post > here. In fact I did a search on his name and it only came up three times. > Oh, I have heard of ID, indeed. I?ve heard of adivination, tarot, > the ouija and the unbelievably wickedness of Xenu, as well...so what? This was my response: > ------------------------------------------------------ > None of those are seriously considered by the scientific community. > ID is. > ------------------------------------------------------ >You answer is the last part of the above, between the double [[ ]] >brackets, and it shows, imo, that you believe that the scientific >community considers ID seriously. Then you'd be wrong. I did not make that statement to imply that > scientific > community considers ID seriously. I don't know what they think of it yet. ****************************************************** Well Pete, this really bewilders me. Perhaps it is my defficient > command in english, which is not even my second language, leave alone > my first one. None of those [Tonio: meaning tarot, ouija, etc] are seriously > considered by the scientific community. > ID is. Pete, read the above carefully: are you implying with the above that >ID is considered seriously by the scientific community??? Sure. Its just not labeled as a scientific theory as of yet. Is there > problem with that? the above: Then you'd be wrong. I did not make that statement to imply that > scientific community considers ID seriously. I don't know what they think of > it > yet. Please Pete, help me out here: aren't these two sentences >contradictory with each other? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding >something here big time? Yes. I contradicted myself. Remember that memory thing? However I believe in > the second one I meant to write it to imply that its not take seriously as a > scientific theory. Please keep in mind that all this is new to me and I don't even consider > myself a layman yet. There are two things I accept at this point. (1) I will > accept the axoim There is a designer until proven wrong and (2) Believe > that the finely tuned parameters are good enough reason for it to be taken > seriously. However since this is all nonsense to you and I told you that I'm a layman > at this then I don't understand your continued interest in what I believe. > If you want me to continue to respond in this thread then I'm afraid I'll > have ask why you feel this way, i.e. its a nonsense theory you want to talk > about with me. Or is it that because of a few contradictions I'm making as a > layman are something you want to point out to the forum? Pete- ************************************************** Oh, we were just having a chat, that?s all. You believe ours is a finely tuned universe, I don?t think it is a logically sound reasoning to deduce stuff from one unique thing (namely, our world) and etc. Of course, this may bear some importance in some places. For example, I ?ve learned that in some states of USA some people is actually trying to force teachers, schools, etc. to teach ID within science classes. This is absurd and dangerous to me since: 1) ID is not science at all....so far, at least; 2) It may be a not-too-subtle attempt to get religion thru the back door into public schools, and ; 3) It may give the idea to kids that ID is a scientific thing and they can be misled to believe religious stuff IN A SCIENCE class. But for the above, it just was a nice correspondence. Tonio === Subject: Re: Please people be carefull what you write in the net about God and about God's knowledge !!! Bytes: 6852 > Pete, you seem toi forget a good lot of what's been going in this > thread in which you've been participating. For example, you didn't > remember neilist ... > I have a bad memory for storage and recall. My doctors believe that this > may > be due to a side effect of undergoing High Dose Ara-C chemotherapy when I > had Leukemia. It seems to be getting a bit better. Perhaps you'll be more > understanding in the future when I forget something? I would greatly > appreciate it. > I don't recall the _name_ of neilist because I have rarely seen him post > here. In fact I did a search on his name and it only came up three times. > Oh, I have heard of ID, indeed. I've heard of adivination, tarot, > the ouija and the unbelievably wickedness of Xenu, as well...so what? > This was my response: > ------------------------------------------------------ > None of those are seriously considered by the scientific community. > ID is. > ------------------------------------------------------ > You answer is the last part of the above, between the double [[ ]] > brackets, and it shows, imo, that you believe that the scientific > community considers ID seriously. > Then you'd be wrong. I did not make that statement to imply that > scientific > community considers ID seriously. I don't know what they think of it yet. ****************************************************** Well Pete, this really bewilders me. Perhaps it is my defficient > command in english, which is not even my second language, leave alone > my first one. None of those [Tonio: meaning tarot, ouija, etc] are seriously > considered by the scientific community. > ID is. > Pete, read the above carefully: are you implying with the above that > ID is considered seriously by the scientific community??? Sure. Its just not labeled as a scientific theory as of yet. Is there > problem with that? > the above: Then you'd be wrong. I did not make that statement to imply that > scientific community considers ID seriously. I don't know what they think of > it > yet. Hi Guys, I thought I would jump into an argument which I haven't followed one bit, but let me make the following comments. 1. Is ID (i.e. the notion that there is an intelligent designer) a scientific theory? My answer: it depends on your philosophy - how do you define science? 2. Does science as a discipline accept the finely tuned universe as evidence of ID? My answer: see (1). 3. Are there individual scientists with strong reputations who believe that the finely tuned universe is strong evidence for ID? My answer: most definitely yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins 4. Is this notion of ID in conflict with Darwin's Theory of Evolution? My answer: of course not. This notion of ID and Darwin's Theory of Evolution are completely unrelated. That a person can accept one theory has absolutely no bearing on whether they can accept the other theory. That this relationship might exist is a mistake made by both those who advocate for evolution, and those who advocate against it. 5. Is this notion of ID in conflict with any current scientific theory? My answer: of course not. 6. Does Darwin's Theory of Evolution contradict the Bible? My answer: it depends upon how you interpret the Bible. I think that it is possible to accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, and yet also believe Darwin's Theory. But I only came to that position after a great deal of thinking about the whole issue, and I am still open to change my mind. 7. Why did I pose question 6 since in answering question 4 I said that this is completely unrelated? My answer: because I bet that this was the starting point of this whole discussion, and you guys got completely sidetracked into the finely tuned universe issue. Stephen === Subject: Re: Please people be carefull what you write in the net about God and about God's knowledge !!! Bytes: 10044 > *************************************************** > Oh, I have heard of ID, indeed. I've heard of adivination, > tarot, the > ouija and the unbelievably wickedness of Xenu, as well...so > what? > None of those are seriously considered by the scientific > community. ID is. > Pete- > ********************************************************** >No, it isn't as far as I know. ID can be whatever you like it to >be >but it isn't science so far, and thus it can't be considered, >seriously or whatever, by the scientific community. > On what basis do you make this assertion?. >When and if someone gives some scientific background to ID then >it >will be, possibly, considered as belonging to this or that branch >of >science. >Not yet, though. >Tonio > I guess you need to know what books to look for. Try Own > Gingerich's new book. > Pete > ID is just creationism in a brown paper wrapper. > No. That's not true at all. ID makes no assumptions about the > Creator > whereas Creationism is that described in Genesis, a > Judeao-Christian > concept. However if by Creationism you mean the universe was > desinged > then that's the definition of creationism. > And creationism says that the world and everything in it was > poofed > into existence in six days, .. > That' six days of God, not six days of men. The Bible itself > indicates that the days of man may not be the same as the days of > God. Many Christians take it to mean 6 different stages. There's a > book on this too. > It's written by Nathan Aviezer, a Physicist from Bar Ilam > university > (or something like that) in Israel. He compares Genesis with modern > science and is abl to very nicely make a direct comparison. > according to their 'science' textbook, the book of Genesis. But > with ID, instead of being honest and saying what they really mean, > that God did it,.. > It doesn't say God in ID. It says intelligent designer. Its > speculated that a universe could be created by a super advanced > moral > race. See >http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/religion/view_of_god.htm > ... they leave it to the reader to decide what/who this > intelligent > agent might have been. Sorry, whether it is God, the tooth fairy, > some 17th dimension space alien, or the flying spaghetti monster, > resorting to 'supernatural' agents to explain anything doesn't, in > fact, explain anything, and is not science, and, in fact, is not > only dishonest, but intentionally ignores hundreds of years of > scientific findings to the contrary. > Supernatural? Who said anything about supernatural? You need to > understand what ID really is before you try to argue against it and > I > don't see that you understand it. Read that link above starting > with > the second portion which begins with The question now arises, Can > a > mortal due to same thing? > Pete > Bhwhahahahahahahaha!!! > For future reference: When people start posting such childish > responses > then those people have a very high probability of being sent to my > killfile. I find that kind of response not onlu irritating but also > demeaning. I am unable to think of a reason why I would continue to > expose myself to such nonsense. For future reference: This thread is inappropriate for the science > newsgroups you are posting it to. > I will say this. This particular physics newsgroup is the wrong one for > the topic of intelligent design. > George - Would you like to read Dr. Owen Gingerich's set of lectures on > this topic? I have them on disk in PDF format. If so then tell me how > to > get them to you. Perhaps I can place them on my website long enough for > you to download it. This way you'll have a solid idea of what ID means > tothe physics community. Why the hell would I want to do that? ID is not science, not by any > stretch of the imagination. Take it somewhere else, and get it off the > science newsgroups. > Who is Behe by the way? You never answered that question for me. > Pete If you don't know who Behe is, then you don't know jack about > Intelligent Design. Not only is that nonsense since there are many experts in ID. My pastor > pointed me in the direction of another author who was supposed to be well > known in ID. That I don't know a name is simnply because I have not read > enough about ID to have recognized it you. But to claim I don't know > anything is silly. Tjhe way you phrased it is insulting and is the last > proof that I need to see that communicating with you is not preferable for > me. Consider yourself killfiled. Best wishes and have a happy life Pete- ******************************************************** >...and you, Pete, didn't answer the questions I asked you in my last >post. Perhaps you don't know the answer, perhaps you don't want to >answer me. >Talking of being polite... >Tonio I'm curious about your comment? On what basis do youy believe that I'm not being polite? Did it occur to you that you never asked me a question that I didn't respond too? My memory? She not so good. lol! As I see from your other following response that you now understand that you didn't post a question directed towards me. So how's about you not making prejudgements again. Here you asserted that and you, Pete, didn't answer the questions I asked you in my last post. This is claim in which you left to room for error on your part. Thus your response on my person Talking of being polite... was now, as you see, unwarrented. Pete === Subject: Re: cube root of a given number Bytes: 11339 On 28 jul, 09:48, sttscitr...@tesco.net [CUT more on his nonsense attacks ad-hominen because he is absolutely unable to find any precedent on the methods shown in my webpages] SUMMARY: -------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************** 1.- You failed to present any precedents on the new simple methods based on the Rational Mean: http://mipagina.cantv.net/arithmetic/rmdef.htm Which is the very essence of my first posting, so they were forced to try to rise many other issues and false statments to hide their incapacity and rash comments on this matter. *************************************************** 2.- You failed in trying to divert the issue on root- solving to the issue on philology and gramatical use of the phrase : GENERALIZED CONTINUED FRACTION. The phrase: GENERALIZED CONTINUED FRACTION does not stand exclusively for those continued expressions who yield simultaneous Diophantine approximations (general pell's equation) as you falsely alleged, that's another false statement from yours. That's another lie from yours. All the readers can find full info on this topic on GCF at (page 3-4, Section 1.1.1): http://assets.cambridge.org/052181/8052/sample/0521818052ws.pdf really means, you have just unsuccessfully tried to cause confusion and attack me ad- hominen. You also didn't know that one of the most important characteristics of the very particular sample on GCF shown in the webpage: http://mipagina.cantv.net/arithmetic/gencontfrac.htm IS THAT SUCH GCF IS JUST A GENERALIZED REPRESENTATION OF DANIEL BERNOULLI'S METHOD FOR ROOT-SOLVING, which at the same time is es PERIODIC CONTINUED- FRACTION REPRESENTATION of irrational numbers of degree higher than 2. With the particularity that all this concept was TRIVIALLY devised by agency of the Rational Mean processes. Anything you want to tell about such GCF is automatically applied to Daniel Bernoulli's method. Now, you want me to explain to you how the Lineal Homogeneous Recurrence Relations of Daniel Bernoulli's method works with complex numbers. WRONG, take a book by yourself and learn that method, and slow down your overbearing ignorance. Your stupidity and envy drived you to fall in such a continued-rat- trap which has been specially settled for overbearing ignorants like you. *************************************************** 3.- You failed to present any posting from mine stating: My methods always yield ALL THE BEST APPROXIMATIONS. They were challenged to do that but failed. *************************************************** 4.- You failed your attempts to discredit the new extremely simple high- order arithmetical algorithms by arguing that they do not produce best approximations (which is of course another lie from yours that anyone can confirm by reading my wepages). Of course,I have never said in any posting from mine nor in my webpage and book that these new methods ALWAYS produce ALL the best approximants, that's another lie from yours. You are just a liar trying to cause confusion. Notwithstanding, the issue on Best-Approximations is by no means a requisite for classifying these new methods as true root-solving algorithms. Any true root-solving algorithm only need to converge towards the root- value according to the standard convergence criteria. Your only intention is to create confusion. What really matters here is not about if you are an ignorant but about your unethical behavior and your attacks not only against me but against people who do not inhabit this list (http://mipagina.cantv.net/ arithmetic). I think you should be investigated, indeed, because if you are teaching mathematics at some school (I really don't think so but it might be) then educational authorities should take care about your unethical behavior. *************************************************** 5.- You have not only failed all your attempts but, at the same time, showed a shameful unethical and psychopathic behavior and huge cheeks. *************************************************** END OF SUMMARY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES ON YOUR ATTACKS AD-HOMINEN AND YOUR UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR: Notice that I have spent some time in explaining some points here just because of all those young people who inhabit this newsgroup, indeed, I think you are far beyond any help, indeed. I even feel pity for you and your friend, as well as I did for some few others in the past. You have failed again. Your attacks ad-hominen have been demoslished by the new GENERAL RATIONAL MEAN CONCEPT. Now, you have to face your unethical behavior. You have accused me of having no idea about the meaning of the phrase GCF, you have assaulted me in so many ways and called me liar without signing any single insulting posting from yours. It is clear that You have entered to this thread with the only intention of creating confusion and attacking me by many ways, just because you are incapable of showing to the sci.math audience any single precedent on the new hig-order arithmetical algorithms shown in my webpages. Now, your cowardly behavior starts to face the consequences of your nonsense attacks against me. You should cogitate on the fact that neither you nor your friends WILL BE ABLE TO STOP THESE NEW SIMPLE METHODS. You will not be able to prevent people from reading them. Neither you nor any of your friends will be able to stop this. These new methods and their scope are far beyond any unsuccessful attacks and insults from yours. They are far beyond you and your friends or anyone else. On 26 jul, 22:16, sttscitr...@tesco.net mathematical knowledge is still quite so fantastic. For God sake. You have finally shown the true reason for your insanity. Your problem is just a matter of envy, jealousy, etc. Well, you are far beyond any help, indeed. The main point here is neither about any person named XXXXXXX XXXX, nor about whoever could find of some interest those methods, nor about a me (on the contrary, I did not consider such methods as my methods even when sometimes for the sake of brevity I am forced to use such words). The main point here is about something that you are so far to understand. You are far beyond help. On 26 jul, 22:16, sttscitr...@tesco.net [CUT more on his nonsense attacks ad-hominen because he is absolutely unable to find any precedent on the methods shown in my webpages] SUMMARY: -------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************** 1.- You failed to present any precedents on the new simple methods based on the Rational Mean: http://mipagina.cantv.net/arithmetic/rmdef.htm Which is the very essence of my first posting, so they were forced to try to rise many other issues and false statments to hide their incapacity and rash comments on this matter. *************************************************** 2.- You failed in trying to divert the issue on root- solving to the issue on philology and gramatical use of the phrase : GENERALIZED CONTINUED FRACTION. The phrase: GENERALIZED CONTINUED FRACTION does not stand exclusively for those continued expressions who yield simultaneous Diophantine approximations (general pell's equation) as you falsely alleged, that's another false statement from yours. That's another lie from yours. All the readers can find full info on this topic on GCF at (page 3-4, Section 1.1.1): http://assets.cambridge.org/052181/8052/sample/0521818052ws.pdf really means, you have just unsuccessfully tried to cause confusion and attack me ad- hominen. You also didn't know that one of the most important characteristics of the very particular sample on GCF shown in the webpage: http://mipagina.cantv.net/arithmetic/gencontfrac.htm IS THAT SUCH GCF IS JUST A GENERALIZED REPRESENTATION OF DANIEL BERNOULLI'S METHOD FOR ROOT-SOLVING, which at the same time is es PERIODIC CONTINUED- FRACTION REPRESENTATION of irrational numbers of degree higher than 2. With the particularity that all this concept was TRIVIALLY devised by agency of the Rational Mean processes. Anything you want to tell about such GCF is automatically applied to Daniel Bernoulli's method. Now, you want me to explain to you how the Lineal Homogeneous Recurrence Relations of Daniel Bernoulli's method works with complex numbers. WRONG, take a book by yourself and learn that method, and slow down your overbearing ignorance. Your stupidity and envy drived you to fall in such a continued-rat- trap which has been specially settled for overbearing ignorants like you. *************************************************** 3.- You failed to present any posting from mine stating: My methods always yield ALL THE BEST APPROXIMATIONS. They were challenged to do that but failed. *************************************************** 4.- You failed your attempts to discredit the new extremely simple high- order arithmetical algorithms by arguing that they do not produce best approximations (which is of course another lie from yours that anyone can confirm by reading my wepages). Of course,I have never said in any posting from mine nor in my webpage and book that these new methods ALWAYS produce ALL the best approximants, that's another lie from yours. You are just a liar trying to cause confusion. Notwithstanding, the issue on Best-Approximations is by no means a requisite for classifying these new methods as true root-solving algorithms. Any true root-solving algorithm only need to converge towards the root- value according to the standard convergence criteria. Your only intention is to create confusion. What really matters here is not about if you are an ignorant but about your unethical behavior and your attacks not only against me but against people who do not inhabit this list (http://mipagina.cantv.net/ arithmetic). I think you should be investigated, indeed, because if you are teaching mathematics at some school (I really don't think so but it might be) then educational authorities should take care about your unethical behavior. *************************************************** 5.- You have not only failed all your attempts but, at the same time, showed a shameful unethical and psychopathic behavior and huge cheeks. *************************************************** END OF SUMMARY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES ON YOUR ATTACKS AD-HOMINEN AND YOUR UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR: Notice that I have spent some time in explaining some points here just because of all those young people who inhabit this newsgroup, indeed, I think you are far beyond any help, indeed. I even feel pity for you and your friend, as well as I did for some few others in the past. You have failed again. Your attacks ad-hominen have been demoslished by the new GENERAL RATIONAL MEAN CONCEPT. Now, you have to face your unethical behavior. You have accused me of having no idea about the meaning of the phrase GCF, you have assaulted me in so many ways and called me liar without signing any single insulting posting from yours. It is clear that You have entered to this thread with the only intention of creating confusion and attacking me by many ways, just because you are incapable of showing to the sci.math audience any single precedent on the new hig-order arithmetical algorithms shown in my webpages. Now, your cowardly behavior starts to face the consequences of your nonsense attacks against me. You should cogitate on the fact that neither you nor your friends WILL BE ABLE TO STOP THESE NEW SIMPLE METHODS. You will not be able to prevent people from reading them. Neither you nor any of your friends will be able to stop this. These new methods and their scope are far beyond any unsuccessful attacks and insults from yours. They are far beyond you and your friends or anyone else. On 26 jul, 22:16, sttscitr...@tesco.net mathematical knowledge is still quite so fantastic. For God sake. You have finally shown the true reason for your insanity. Your problem is just a matter of envy, jealousy, etc. Well, you are far beyond any help, indeed. The main point here is neither about any person named XXXXXXX XXXX, nor about whoever could find of some interest those methods, nor about a me (on the contrary, I did not consider such methods as my methods even when sometimes for the sake of brevity I am forced to use such words). The main point here is about something that you are so far to understand. You are far beyond help. On 26 jul, 22:16, sttscitr...@tesco.net How can I prove that x = y > is the perpendicular bisector > of the line segment joining > the points (a, b) and (b, a)? Any ideas how to approach this > problem are much appreciated. -- > conrad (1) Show that the line y = x bisects the segment joining (a, b) and (b, a). (2) show that the line y = x is perpendicular to the the segment joining (a, b) and (b, a). === Subject: Re: perpendicular bisector How can I prove that x = y > is the perpendicular bisector > of the line segment joining > the points (a, b) and (b, a)? Any ideas how to approach this > problem are much appreciated. -- > conrad (1) Show that the line y = x bisects the segment joining > (a, b) and (b, a). (2) show that the line y = x is perpendicular to the the segment joining > (a, b) and (b, a). (a - b)/[-1*(a - b)] or -1 is the slope the line perpendicular to this has slope of 1. So I end up with y = -x + k and y = x + k But how do I get rid of the k? -- conrad === Subject: Re: perpendicular bisector Bytes: 2319 > How can I prove that x = y > is the perpendicular bisector > of the line segment joining > the points (a, b) and (b, a)? > Any ideas how to approach this > problem are much appreciated. > -- > conrad (1) Show that the line y = x bisects the segment joining > (a, b) and (b, a). (2) show that the line y = x is perpendicular to the the segment joining > (a, b) and (b, a). (a - b)/[-1*(a - b)] or -1 is the slope > the line perpendicular to this > has slope of 1. So I end up with y = -x + k > and y = x + k But how do I get rid of the k? -- > conrad You have established that the lines through (a,b) and (b,a) is perpendicular to line y = x,( step 2). Now show that the midpoint of the segment from (a,b) to (b,a) lies on line y = x. === Subject: Non-Ullrichism; Re: a theory of countable reals; constructivism > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:52:29 +0900, toshiaki > [...] > I think that a complete ordered field is given in this way. > What you think doesn't matter - there does not exist a countable > complete ordered field. What you think doesn't matter comes off as gratuitously derogatory. > Here are some more civil ways to get the point across. I am afraid you are mistaken. There does not exist a countable > complete ordered field. > You are mistaken. There does not exist a countable complete ordered > field. > There does not exist a countable complete ordered field. > The reason why I think that countable reals build >complete ordered field successesfully... > At least one poster (viz., David C. Ullrich) has pointed out to toshiaki that, provably, no ordered field can be both complete and countable. (More generally, any complete totally ordered set is uncountable. For a proof, one may consult the chapter on compactness in Munkres's text, _Topology_.) Yet toshiaki continues to state that he doubts this fact. If toshiaki previously repeatedly posted such denials of stated mathematical facts, then I erred in my characterization of the derogatory nature of David's remarks as gratuitous. I completely understand how such an unwillingness to learn can annoy readers. (Toshiaki's most recent post annoys me. My practice is to usually ignore such posts all together, but that's just me.) If this is the case, then I apologize to David for any offense he may have at taken at my remarks. >The idea that reals is countable, is accepted by >some mathematicians. Conctructivists use complete >ordered field property to their reals. > I don't know well the details, but the countable >complete ordered field may have been accepted by some >mathematicians, even though that of computable numbers >is not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28mathematics%29 > I confess to not completely understanding constructivism, and the doubt toshiaki's claim that constructivist mathematicians accept the consistency of the countability of the reals with fact that the reals form a complete ordered field. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of constructivism can clarify this matter. If this issue of constructivist real numbers is indeed hard to comprehend, then perhaps this obscurity is the source of toshiaki's misunderstandings. I, for one, would not be so harsh on toshiaki in this case. -- Stephen J. Herschkorn sjherschko@netscape.net Math Tutor on the Internet and in Central New Jersey and Manhattan === Subject: Re: Non-Ullrichism; Re: a theory of countable reals; constructivism > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:52:29 +0900, toshiaki > On Jul 16, 10:33 am, toshiaki > > [...] > I think that a complete ordered field is given in > this way. > What you think doesn't matter - there does not > exist a countable > complete ordered field. What you think doesn't matter comes off as > gratuitously derogatory. > Here are some more civil ways to get the point > across. I am afraid you are mistaken. There does not exist > a countable > complete ordered field. > You are mistaken. There does not exist a > countable complete ordered > field. > There does not exist a countable complete ordered > field. The reason why I think that countable reals build >complete ordered field successesfully... > At least one poster (viz., David C. Ullrich) has > pointed out to toshiaki > that, provably, no ordered field can be both complete > and countable. > (More generally, any complete totally ordered set is > uncountable. For a > proof, one may consult the chapter on compactness in > Munkres's text, > _Topology_.) Yet toshiaki continues to state that he > doubts this fact. > If toshiaki previously repeatedly posted such denials > of stated > mathematical facts, then I erred in my > characterization of the > derogatory nature of David's remarks as gratuitous. > I completely > understand how such an unwillingness to learn can > annoy readers. > (Toshiaki's most recent post annoys me. My practice > is to usually > ignore such posts all together, but that's just me.) > If this is the > case, then I apologize to David for any offense he > may have at taken at > my remarks. >The idea that reals is countable, is accepted by >some mathematicians. Conctructivists use complete >ordered field property to their reals. > I don't know well the details, but the countable >complete ordered field may have been accepted by > some >mathematicians, even though that of computable > numbers >is not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28mathem > atics%29 > I confess to not completely understanding > constructivism, and the > me. Nonetheless, I > doubt toshiaki's claim that constructivist > mathematicians accept the > consistency of the countability of the reals with > fact that the reals > form a complete ordered field. Perhaps someone with > a better > understanding of constructivism can clarify this > matter. If this issue of constructivist real numbers is > indeed hard to > comprehend, then perhaps this obscurity is the source > of toshiaki's > misunderstandings. I, for one, would not be so harsh > on toshiaki in > this case. -- > Stephen J. Herschkorn > sjherschko@netscape.net > Math Tutor on the Internet and in Central New Jersey > and Manhattan Hmmm. Does Toshiaki accept that all real functions are continuous? What is a counting function? Tom === Subject: Re: absurd naivete of CEO and executives of WalMart with their cashierless checkout or self-checkout and why WalMart loses money Bytes: 1299 The letters in Archimedes Plutonium can (must) be re-arranged to spell Mouse Dimple Cunt Hair > Recently there was a TV documentary on WalMart, but it never mentioned > the topic which I am concerned about === Subject: Re: absurd naivete of CEO and executives of WalMart with their cashierless checkout or self-checkout and why WalMart loses money off on a tangent. What I said, quite clearly in plain English, is that > Wal-Mart's policy does not tempt honest people to steal. A person who > commits a crime of opportunity is dishonest, period. Just because they > don't do it often (because they are calculating and wait for an > opportune moment) does not make them any less a thief. I said absolutely nothing about when a person sees somebody else > steal: that's where you went off totally on your own. As a matter of > fact, however, if I did see someone steal, I would either call the > person on it in line (in a nice diplomatic manner, of course ;>)) or > report it. Wouldn't you do the same? If you have the choice between > doing the right thing or doing nothing, would you choose the passive > route? M Well that is what I am saying. That even if honest people never steal from WalMart's self checkout lines, that they are then bound up morally to have to do something about other people in the act of stealing in those self-checkout lines and thus begin to decide that WalMart is no longer the type of store that they or their family members want to have any business with. Stores need a sense of security where stealing is not easy. WalMart's self checkout is as close to facilitated and condoned stealing as what you can become. WalMart can easily change their logo of Always low prices, always to that of Easy stealing, easy Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies === Subject: Re: absurd naivete of CEO and executives of WalMart with their cashierless checkout or self-checkout and why WalMart loses money > Recently there was a TV documentary on WalMart, but it never mentioned > the topic which I am concerned about > and that is the self-checkout. For one, I am admiring of the WalMart executives who let this > innovation develop and for trusting of customers > and general public. On the other hand, I think what extreme naiveness > or absurd naivete if simple-mindedness > can be called absurd. How about if banks became cashierless or tellerless and just had a > pile of money where the customer does > his/her own counting. What is prompting me to write this to the Internet today, even though > it has been irritating to me for months > now, is the experience I had today. Of where a customer in a self > checkout stand ended up with alot of > free food where the rung up items were mixed with the unrung items and > thus end up being free. When a food store allows people to cashier themselves would have to > depend very much on supreme > honesty of people, where even the people who consider themselves as > honest would be tempted to game > the situation. And does Walmart expect honest people to report dishonest people. I > for one will not be a police cop > for WalMart when I see some dishonest activity ahead in the line. Even > though I did comment to the > manager of WalMart Inc. today. The trouble with self-checkout is that it tempts people to be > dishonest and it ends up with WalMart losing > alot of merchandise. And when anyone who is gaming the situation is confronted, it would be > terribly difficult for WalMart to > prosecute these as shoplifting where they will say-- oh, I made a > mistake and call it a technology > fault. I do not follow WalMart company closely but I have been hearing that > WalMart's profits have been slipping > for past quarters. So I am inclined to believe that the sagging > profits and earnings of WalMart is connected > to their silly notion of Self Checkout. I do know that WalMart has a computer record of all the goods they > have, an inventory. And so it should > be easy to check the inventory with the goods sold and leaving the > stores for the past several quarters. > So I would reckon that the amount of lost goods to self checkout (call > it thievery or shoplifting or whatever > you want to call it) is probably connected with those sagging > quarterly profits. Now as time goes on and WalMart retains its silly self checkout > stands, I would reckon that the amount of > lost goods will increase as people become more savvy on cheating the > system. And this is a problem > for the wider community in that WalMart would be teaching people how > to cheat and be dishonest. Now Walmart would say that if cheating becomes large enough that the > prices at WalMart will rise, but > I doubt that because then other stores would be cheaper in price, and > something WalMart would not > tolerate. In that the honest people who shop are paying for the > dishonest people in the rising prices. > So what WalMart has done is reported sagging profits and earnings > rather than raising prices overall for > the goods. But as this Self Checkout thievery escalates there may > come a time where WalMart will have > to raise prices to the point where it is no longer a discount store > but pricey as its rivals. Now there is some benefit to WalMart with its self-checkout stands in > that it is a time saver for some > shoppers and where WalMart did not have to hire a cashier to tally for > those customers. But the bigger > problem masks the small benefit, and that bigger problem is widespread > cheating. If it gets to the point where WalMart has to raise prices overall > because of the huge amount of theft due > to cashierless checkout stands, then WalMart would be no better of a > store than its rivals, and it would > then become clear that honest shoppers are paying the tab for those > cheater-shoppers. So I would wager that if an accounting analysis of all the goods and > inventory of WalMart going back to pre- > self-checkout and then during self-checkout that the sagging profits > of WalMart can be correlated to the > amount of thievery due to self-checkout. And another benefit that WalMart sees in self-checkout is that it > tends to draw alot of customers. But they > are drawn to it for honest reasons of speed but also for dishonesty in > an attempt to game the situation. > So you have an increase in customers, but only because they try to > cheat WalMart. Now I post this to sci.math because I think I may have a solution or a > help in WalMart's self-checkout > technology. WalMart depends on weight scale for honesty in that the > machine goes ahead if the weight > is correct. But weight is easily cheated. What my idea is that a self- > checkout stand has the customer > punch in first what the total number of items they are buying before > they can proceed. So the total number > of items and then the weight of each item as they proceed. And these > Self Checkout Stands should only > be used by people with 10 items or less. And instead of WalMart having > 50% of the stands as self-checkout > have only 2 or 3. So my idea to increase the honesty of self-checkout is to add these > features: > (1) have only 2 or 3 self checkout stands > (2) allow only customers with 10 items or less to use these stands > (3) have the customer punch in the number of items he/she is buying > first so that the video camera > can see if something is going on dishonestly > (4) these allow the floor monitor of self checkout to be as watchful > as a cashier As for me, if my WalMart experiences of shopping continue to see > rampant dishonesty at WalMart, I will > someday just refuse to shop at WalMart. Yes, WalMart is suffering from its losses due to self-checkout and > perhaps some people are really that > needy to game WalMart. But the final truth of the situation is that > WalMart is teaching people how to be > dishonest and tempting dishonesty. And it could get so bad that this > form of shoplifting becomes commonplace > to a whole generation of young people. Although what I have seen so > far is that the young people have been > honest with self-checkout whereas some middle aged people were not. So I think the executives of WalMart must be and have been so > extremely naive as to think that shopping > can rely on honesty of people. I have asked whether WalMart has self checkout only in parts of the > USA where it is considered more > honest communities, but I hear that self checkout is all over the > place at WalMart. > It's just possible that WalWart have thought about this already and decided that the cost savings are enough to justify the extra risk of theft. === Subject: Re: absurd naivete of CEO and executives of WalMart with their cashierless checkout or self-checkout and why WalMart loses money <5hm4rpF3kqaj9U1@mid.individual.net> Bytes: 2784 > It's just possible that WalWart have thought about this already and decided > that the cost savings are enough to justify the extra risk of theft. When people find out a business is unfair, they begin to avoid the business and go elsewhere. WalMart can do a spot check of their stealing. They do not need to do a complete inventory, although they can. A spot check of some items that alot of people would like to steal instead of pay for, such as butter or milk or steaks. Items in which they would get at the Self-Checkout Booth and mix up with items already rung up. A spot check of all WalMart stores with self-checkout, if they reveal that yesterday 10,000 milk, butter, steak were stolen, would indicate how bad and vulnerable is the Self Checkout Booth. Just one such report would then cause alot of honest people to refuse to shop at WalMart. There is going to be stealing at stores no matter what the security situation, however, when a store facilitates stealing will over time cause an exodus of honest people who simply do not want to see an environment where stealing is facilitated. P.S. the solution for WalMart is the Sam's Club procedure of a scan- gun used before the customer reaches the self-checkout booth. Problem solved. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies === Subject: Re: absurd naivete of CEO and executives of WalMart with their cashierless checkout or self-checkout and why WalMart loses money <5hm4rpF3kqaj9U1@mid.individual.net> Bytes: 1879 It's just possible that WalWart have thought about this already and decided > that the cost savings are enough to justify the extra risk of theft. Indeed. More generally it is possible, since WalMart is the most successful retailer in the history of retail, that if an observer sees WalMart doing something that appears naive or unprofitable it is a limitation on the observer. One wonders how the OP's market cap and quarterly revenue compare to WMT's. Marshall === Subject: a weapon for WalMart to try to get rid of its rivals such as Albertson, Kroger, HyVee, A&P etc Re: cashierless checkout or self-checkout <5hm4rpF3kqaj9U1@mid.individual.net> Bytes: 6734 It's just possible that WalWart have thought about this already and decided > that the cost savings are enough to justify the extra risk of theft. Indeed. More generally it is possible, since WalMart is the > most successful retailer in the history of retail, that if an > observer sees WalMart doing something that appears naive > or unprofitable it is a limitation on the observer. One > wonders how the OP's market cap and quarterly revenue > compare to WMT's. > Marshall I suspect, and it is only a suspicion on my part that WalMart executives know all along that self-checkout is rampant stealing. Not stealing of whole cartwagons of groceries but the stealing of say one or two items in a group of items. So that shoppers of the competitors of WalMart such as Albertson or Kroger or A&P or HyVee or any number of competitors of WalMart are squeezed that much more. When a shopper goes to WalMart and games the self-checkout so that she/he gets a free item or two or three free items what is normally called stealing, then those shoppers shift from buying at Albertsons or Kroger or HyVee and become regular shoppers of WalMart as they continue in the stealing of a few items so they feel happy going home that they got something for free. Now WalMart will put up with this stealing of a few items because they can absorb the cost of a few items stolen in exchange for taking away shoppers of Albertsons or Kroger or A&P or HyVee. WalMart has the choice of allowing stealing of a few items by every shopper in order to increase overall volume of customers. So that WalMart stores are filled up and competitor stores have a ghosttown sort of feeling of few shoppers. So the SELF CHECKOUT booth is WalMart's latest scheme in filling up WalMart stores and emptying out competitive rival stores such as Albertsons et al. And WalMart can tolerate the stealing of one or two items by every shopper of WalMart and maintain its low prices. The scheme is that WalMart is saying come shop with us and it is okay if you steal one or two items in the Self Checkout booth so long as you shop with WalMart and no longer shop at other stores. I suspect that is what the WalMart executives had planned out with their SELF CHECKOUT booths. They knew stealing would rise. They probably figured the stealing would be of one or two or three items per 50 items. And that WalMart would be prepared to accept that stealing rate. I suspect they endorsed that plan because their overall goal was to drain the aisles of WalMart competitors and make WalMart look like the only retail store that is bustling with business. The numbers data of reports to Wall Street for WalMart and its competitors support my suspicions above. In that WalMart has had increasing numbers of shoppers and body counts to the store and sales have risen since Self Checkout was installed but that profits and earnings have declined even though sales increased. The obvious reason is that the number of thefts and stealing of merchandize is so large that profits remain flat even though sales and customer body count has increased. So in a summary form-- I suspect that Self Checkout is WalMart's latest ploy to run its competitors out of business with the price that WalMart pays by allowing stealing and thievery of 1,2,or 3 items per every 50 items. The trouble with that plan or schemery is that WalMart executives did not count on news getting out as to the dishonesty of Self Checkout. That the news media would look into this with a microscope and reveal how much stealing and the methods of gaming the self checkout booth. That the News Media would show how WalMart is trying to eliminate its rivals by saying shoppers, come to WalMart where we will let you steal a few items per 50 if you become loyal to us So I suspect WalMart never realized that the Internet and the News Media would focus in on their Self Checkout and expose it for what it is worth-- making alot of people cheaters and stealers. That the honest people will be outraged by WalMart's Self Checkout and will shun WalMart and instead shop at WalMart's rivals. So if WalMart were to continue with this Self Checkout as is at present moment in time, what will end up in the future is that mostly dishonest people who want a few freebies every time they shop go to WalMart and the honest people shop at the rivals of WalMart. And that as more and more people learn from the news that WalMart is encouraging stealing, the more and more people will turn away from WalMart. Perhaps there are emails by WalMart executives that confirm my above suspicions about the implementation and the endorsement of the Self Checkout Booth. The Wall Street numbers and figures of profit and sales of WalMart and its rivals surely support my above suspicions. P.S. I continue to post to sci.math this thread because much of this story is a VonNeumann gametheory only with an insidious variable of stealing added into the mix. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies === Subject: upper semidifferentiable functions? Bytes: 1932 Hi all, I am an engineering student learning some nonsmooth optimization stuff now. I have doubts of this semismoothness defintion introduced by A. Bihain: ***definition of semismooth: a locally Lipschitz functin f: R^n -> R is called upper semidifferentiable at x in R^n iff for all d in R^n and for all sequence {t_k} subset R_+, and {g_k} subset R^n, with {t_k} -> 0 and g_k in partial f(x+t_k*d), there is a sequence of positive integers K subset N, such that lim_{k _> infinity, k in K} {[f(x+t_k*d) - f(x)]/g_k - } <= 0. Can anyone give me a geometric description sbout this definition? I can not understand it well. ***Can we prove that a piecewise linear function f:R^n -> R, which is continous and locally Liptschitz, is upper semidifferentiable? I guess it is but I have no idea how to prove it. Beet === Subject: Milenko Kindl Cvrcko sdfssdfsdfsdfsdfsfs Bytes: 2287 Milenko Kindl Cvrcko eaturing Gadahn for days. In the video, which had Arabic subtitles, Gadahn wore a traditional Arab red-and-white checkered scarf and spoke in English. It was not known when the footage was filmed because he did not describe any specific events. Years of bitter trial and experience have revealed the danger (embassies) pose and shown that the only way to deal with them when they refuse to leave of their own accord is to expel them by force, Gadahn said. Al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman Zawahri, also appeared in the terror group's latest video, outlining what he described as the crimes of Western countries against the Islamic world. As he spoke, the video showed images of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as mosques being destroyed. The March 2006 attack that killed Foy, which was claimed by al-Qaida, also killed three Pakistanis and wounded about 50 others a day before President Bush made an official visit to Pakistan. === Subject: Milenko Kindl Cvrcko sdfssdfsdfsdfsdfs Milenko Kindl Cvrcko eaturing Gadahn for days. In the video, which had Arabic subtitles, Gadahn wore a traditional Arab red-and-white checkered scarf and spoke in English. It was not known when the footage was filmed because he did not describe any specific events. Years of bitter trial and experience have revealed the danger (embassies) pose and shown that the only way to deal with them when they refuse to leave of their own accord is to expel them by force, Gadahn said. Al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman Zawahri, also appeared in the terror group's latest video, outlining what he described as the crimes of Western countries against the Islamic world. As he spoke, the video showed images of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as mosques being destroyed. The March 2006 attack that killed Foy, which was claimed by al-Qaida, also killed three Pakistanis and wounded about 50 others a day before President Bush made an official visit to Pakistan. === Subject: Convergence of sequences of RVs Bytes: 2043 Hi all, I have a problem which is very confusing to me. Can you please give me any hints? --------------------- Xn is the number of customers an ATM served up to discrete instant of time n. Xn is a Binomial distribution: P(Xn=k)= n_C_k * p^k *(1-p)^(n-k). Asume that at time instance N, the ATM breaks down and therefore the customer number the ATM served will remain XN thereafter. N is a random variable with geometric distribution with mean 100. Does the sequence converge almost surely and if so to what? ----------------------------------------------- This problem is really confused to me since Ias I understand it, Xn obviously converges to XN and the probability of this event is equal to the probability of breaking down of the ATM which is 1. Thus Xn --> XN with prob = 1 and Xn converges almost surely. If my thought is reasonable, why do they give some other information such as Xn is Binomial and N is Geometric. ...??? I am very confused. Can you please confirm if my solution is correct? === Subject: Kakutani skyscraper & ergodic Bytes: 1071 do some one can explain to me why if T is ergodic so do T|a is when T| a is Kakutani skyscraper ? === Subject: Re: Dr P K Menon Bytes: 1709 > Dr Puliakote Kesava Menon was an eminent mathematician and also the > director of the Joint Cypher Beareau of India (1956 to 1977) and also > a Professor in the Indian Statistical Institute. > He was famous for his contributions especially to Menon-Hadamard and > Menon Abelian difference sets. Would like a write up of him if anyone here has got it or can point me > in the right direction. > Hi Joyo, what kind of info do u need on Dr Menon. === Subject: Re: 6th August 1945 when Japan suffered firts atomic explosion In a war people are killed. Maybe Tojo and his buddies should have thought of that before they attacked the United States. Don't you thing that there should be some proportionality to our response?. How many people(How many civilians) were killed in Pearl Harbor (say, including Bataan)?. How many in Japan?.(not to mention the long-term effects of radiation). Do you think it fair to use a tank to respond to someone who pokes you in the ear? I am referring to your argument alone, and not the decision itself. The bomb as a response to Pearl Harbor and other wars seems way out of proportion. === Subject: Re: 6th August 1945 when Japan suffered firts atomic explosion > In a war people are killed. Maybe Tojo and his > buddies should have thought of that before they > attacked the United States. Don't you thing that there should be some > me proportionality to our response?. How many > people(How many civilians) were killed in Pearl > Harbor (say, including Bataan)?. How many in > Japan?.(not to mention the long-term effects of > radiation). Do you think it fair to use a tank to respond to > someone who pokes you in the ear? > > I am referring to your argument alone, and not the > decision itself. The bomb as a response to Pearl > Harbor and other wars seems way out of proportion. If you are attacked with a knife, will you not use a gun on your attacker, if you have one? The fact is that without disproportionate response to uncivilized behavior, conflict will never end and civilization will not survive perpetual conflict. Tom === Subject: Re: 6th August 1945 when Japan suffered firts atomic explosion If you are attacked with a knife, will you not use a gun on your attacker, if you have one? Yes, I most likely would. But the analogy may break down: Our survival was not in immediate danger, as it is when someone is threatening you with a knife.(I assume that was the point of the analogy). There was an opportunity at the time to do a more measured response. Say, target bomb all factories with non-atomic weapons. Would this , or something similar in degree, not have been possible? In addition, when you respond with a bomb, you are not just killing the original attacker, as is the case with your analogy. The fact is that without disproportionate response to uncivilized behavior, conflict will never end and civilization will not survive perpetual conflict. Well, but this may contradict at least my definition of what civilized is, which includes proportionality. I understand the benefits of using blunt force in the short term for ending a conflict. But there is a loss of moral authority in the longer run which is not negligible in its effects to suppress agreessive behavior ( less people will likely support your enemy if you are seen as having the moral high ground). Not to mention the precedent that was set in deciding to use the atomic bomb, which may have otherwise remained a taboo, at least for a while. In addition, tho as a separate subject,part of what makes us feel better as citizens here, I believe (this applies to me, not claiming to speak for others) is that we claim to stand for more than others. And I don't believe that using the bomb supports that claim. Tom === Subject: Re: 6th August 1945 when Japan suffered firts atomic explosion > On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 13:47:37 -0400, Robert J. > Kolker > We need to lession. People all over the world > appreciate patience of > of Japenese. >Wrong! The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were > partial repayments for >the attack on Pearl Harbor. Don't get angry. Get > even There's no comparison. The attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of war. It was illegal for Japan to attack without first > declaring war. The incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was > genocide. Nope. Genocide involves an attempt to eradicate a > race or culture. There was no attempt to eradicate the Japanese. All > we wanted to do > was make them surrender. > Yes, this is the primary fact of all armed conflict-- a war is not won until the enemy's will to fight is destroyed. Apparently, we are going to have to relearn that today, or resign ourselves to perpetual war. Tom === Subject: Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:32:38 -0400, Tony Orlow thinking. I responded to another post of Lester's just a bit ago asking >what a boundary was, exactly, and I think I know what he means by >functional. Lester, please do feel free to correct me, but it seems that you mean >that each element in one infinite set corresponds to one in the other, >if there's a bijection, so there is a way to determine each >corresponding element exactly, given an element in one of the sets, no? >That makes sense to me. There is a function that transforms the >representation of each element in one set into the representation of a >unique corresponding element in the other set. But, this depends on each >element having an exact representation. So, I think, when Professor Zick is talking about boundaries, it's not >about max and min values in a quantitative sense, but about being able >to represent values in finite strings, about representation, almost in a >way like it is with Wolfgang. In this sense, indeed, there are no >boundaries to the reals in (0,1], because the representations of the >members of that set, in whatever number system, include arbitrarily long >strings that cannot be represented finitely, namely, the irrationals. Tony, I don't think you grasp quite how subtle and complex the problem of set definition is here. I'm not even really sure what mathematikers intend the term set to mean in exact terms. But if we just suppose it to mean a series of whatever, numbers in this case, then there are several considerations which arise in this connection. Let's suppose we try to define a set of reals from 0 to 1, where I take 0 and 1 to indicate points on a line. The problem then is that the only thing defined between 0 and 1 is a straight line segment and transcendentals don't lie on any straight line segment; only rationals and rac constructible irrationals do. So right off the bat trying to define a set of reals between 0 and 1 cannot include transcendentals because transcendentals don't lie between points; they only lie on curves. It can only include rationals and rac constructible irrationals such as the square root of two etc. However if we include only rationals and rac constructible irrationals we then find the set would include both finite and infinite series. So it really doesn't matter what we say is in the set. It's the nature of the set itself which determines what can and can't be there. Nor would it be the limits of the set which determines whether it's finite or infinite but the nature of the elements in the set which can be of either type. Consequently I'm going to have to back off my earlier comments on functionality. They still apply to the generation of transcendentals but the issue regarding the contents of sets and set definition leads me to suspect we're dealing with something a lot more subtle than conventional suppositions regarding finite and infinite sets alone. ~v~~ === Subject: Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory Nntp-Posting-Host: hera.cwi.nl ... > So you argue that replacing the first line of the matrix > > 111111... > 11000... > 111000... > 1111000... > ... > > by 1000... does not have any effect concerning the number of 1's in > the set of lines? ... > Interesting. The addition of an actually infinite line makes no > effect. Normally only the addition of nothing makes no effect. This is a prime example of your bad reasoning. As far as I can see *each* line is infinite in length. And further you did not *add* a line, you replaced a line. -- 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: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory <46ac1376@news2.lightlink.com> <46b54e7f@news2.lightlink.com> Bytes: 4988 > No, I'm labouring under the misconception that it has to be DONE. > Which means that if you are going to multiply every element by 2, you > have to by definition multiple an element in the second half of the > set by 2 (after all, that's clearly an element in the set, right?) If > you can't multiply an element in the second half of the set by 2, you > can't multiply every element in the set by 2. But by how that set is > defined it SEEMS clear that doing so would result in a number that > isn't in the set anymore. If you claim that we DID multiply every > element by 2, then some elements don't seem to BE in the set anymore; > if you claim that we didn't, then we couldn't have multiplied every > element by 2. And simply using a set definition doesn't in any way > address this reasoning. [...] Non sequitur. You state that multiplying any finite value in the set > produces another finite value in the set. Then you say that it seems > that some results of those multiplications might be values that are > not in the set after all, contradicting what you just said. > So which is it? Do you have an example of a such a multiplication of a finite natural > that results in a number that's not in the set of naturals? > So, I recall having put forth the notion that the problem with a > bijection such as that between the naturals and the evens is that, in > the finite case, where there are finite bounds to a given set of values, > doubling every value within the set doubles the value range as well, > but that's not the case here. Where the bounds of a set are defined > solely in terms of finiteness, there is no exact value range, and the > value range does NOT double when all values are doubled. But for the value range (I think this basically means how far it is from one end to the other end), the property that we need here is not inexactness (which would be the case if one end were inexact) - the property is non-existence (since the second end does not exist). Well, yawn, we've been here before... > How's that again? If there is no exact value range, how can you > say anything about the values in that range? No, there's no value range at all, so while it is perfectly easy to say things about (e.g.) the natural numbers, this does not include their value range. > Where the value range is simply countably infinite, doubling it does > not change its size, right? As above. > If you achieve the power set, then you have > a different cardinality. What does it mean to achieve a set? (If you really wanted to learn any maths, Tony, you could start by trying to think properly about why you keep using words that no-one else can understand. Alternatively, I suppose a bright [?] future awaits you as an Interpreter of Zickbabble. > Where there is no end, getting there half as fast doesn't get you > there any later. So there is no end - then to what does the there in the next clause refer? :) Yes, that's about it... Brian Chandler http://imaginatorium.org === Subject: Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory <2007072407211043658-zenkierkegaard@hotmailcom> Mathematics requires that if for every n in N, WM's nth line contains an > nth element, one can concatenate all those nth elements into one > diagonal. So you argue that replacing the first line of the matrix 111111... > 11000... > 111000... > 1111000... > ... by 1000... does not have any effect concerning the number of 1's in > the set of lines? > How did you manage to misread what I said as saying that? But as in either case there are infinitely many 1's in [n,n] positions > of all the lines taken together, so your change makes no difference in > the diagonal at all.- Zitierten Text ausblenden - Interesting. The addition of an actually infinite line makes no effect. Normally only the addition of nothing makes no effect. === Subject: Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory Bytes: 3205 > Mathematics requires that if for every n in N, WM's nth line contains an > nth element, one can concatenate all those nth elements into one > diagonal. > So you argue that replacing the first line of the matrix > 111111... > 11000... > 111000... > 1111000... > ... > by 1000... does not have any effect concerning the number of 1's in > the set of lines? > How did you manage to misread what I said as saying that? But as in either case there are infinitely many 1's in [n,n] positions > of all the lines taken together, so your change makes no difference in > the diagonal at all. Interesting. The addition of an actually infinite line makes no > effect. Normally only the addition of nothing makes no effect. Nothing has been added it has merely been pointed out that all of the positions [row,col] = [n,n], already exist, and can be as easily accessed as the positions [row,col] = [n,1], which also exist. WM wants to have his infinitness vertically but not diagonally, but as long as row <= col, one has both. === Subject: Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory <2007072407211043658-zenkierkegaard@hotmailcom> Bytes: 3960 > You support matheology. I support the logic of mathematics rather than the unreasoning faith of > WM. LOL. I have no unreasoning faith in anything which cannot be addressed and hence cannot be used for anything. I support mathematics to the extent that if one accepts an axiom system, > one must accept those logical consequences of that axiom system that > follow from those axioms. Yes, and one must also accept that some of such systems lead to contradictions. - Matheology requires to have diagonals which have infinitely more > digits than the numbers of the due matrix. Mathematics requires that if for every n in N, WM's nth line contains an > nth element, one can concatenate all those nth elements into one > diagonal. Yes, but only if one can also concatenate all those nth elements into one line. The diagonal is a vector, namely the sum of that line L and the column C: D = L + C. This shows (like the usual bijection) that no actually infinite column and no actually infinite diagonal can exist without an infinite line existing too. - Matheology requires to believe in the existence of real numbers > which nobody can distinguish. Mathematics requires that if an axiom system requires the existence of > inaccessable objects , then, at least within in that axiom system, they > exist. Even if the system requires the existence of non-existing objects? In ZFC, for example, one can define lots of bijections that one cannot > construct, for example, well orderings of the reals. As I said, matheology for people who are strong in believing and weak in reasoning (in reasonable reasoning). And even in the physical world, one can define,e.g., unicorns without > necessarily being able to construct them. And without raising them to existence. > Mathematics does not require anyone to believe anything beyond the > correctness do formal logic, i.e., that the logical consequences of a > set of assumptions follow from those assumptions. But if they do not fit into your world then they are neglected. But WM requires everyone believe what WM believes. On the contrary, I require to believe nothing. Regrads, WM === Subject: Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory Bytes: 5629 > You support matheology. I support the logic of mathematics rather than the unreasoning faith of > WM. LOL. I have no unreasoning faith in anything which cannot be addressed > and hence cannot be used for anything. I support mathematics to the extent that if one accepts an axiom system, > one must accept those logical consequences of that axiom system that > follow from those axioms. Yes, and one must also accept that some of such systems lead to > contradictions. One need not accept that any particular axiom system leads to a sef-contradiction unless it can be shown to do so. And WM has not done that. What WM claims is that any system he does not like contradicts HIS non-system > - Matheology requires to have diagonals which have infinitely more > digits than the numbers of the due matrix. Mathematics requires that if for every n in N, WM's nth line contains an > nth element, one can concatenate all those nth elements into one > diagonal. Yes, but only if one can also concatenate all those nth elements into > one line. Why a line? WM's columns are infinite, so just make a diagonal work like a column. > The diagonal is a vector, namely the sum of that line L and > the column C: D = L + C. This shows (like the usual bijection) that no > actually infinite column and no actually infinite diagonal can exist > without an infinite line existing too. As Wm knows next to nothing about mathematical vectors, he screws up things again. His lines and his columns are members of different vector spaces, so cannot be added unless embedded ini a common space, but in any such common space, the diagonals also must exist. > - Matheology requires to believe in the existence of real numbers > which nobody can distinguish. Mathematics requires that if an axiom system requires the existence of > inaccessable objects , then, at least within in that axiom system, they > exist. Even if the system requires the existence of non-existing objects? One system may easily require existence of things which need not exist in any other system. Each system is complete unto itself. In ZFC, for example, one can define lots of bijections that one cannot > construct, for example, well orderings of the reals. As I said, matheology for people who are strong in believing and weak > in reasoning (in reasonable reasoning). What WM has said about his peculiar world of MAthUnRealism is only for people who have no reasoning at all. Mathematics does not require anyone to accept anything except the validity of logic. Matheology requires everyone to accept all of WM's truths even when they conflict logically with each other. And even in the physical world, one can define,e.g., unicorns without > necessarily being able to construct them. And without raising them to existence. Unicorns have as much physical existence as do numbers. Numbers are quite as much purely creations of the mind. Mathematics does not require anyone to believe anything beyond the > correctness do formal logic, i.e., that the logical consequences of a > set of assumptions follow from those assumptions. But if they do not fit into your world then they are neglected. Axiom systems which do not interest anyone are neglected, but those of wide interest are not. None of them actually fit into the world, though physicists find that some of them come closer that others. But WM requires everyone believe what WM believes. On the contrary, I require to believe nothing. What you require, and what you believe seem then to be quite different, as your ability to believe 12 impossible things before breakfast puts even the Red Queen to shame. === Subject: Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory <2007072407211043658-zenkierkegaard@hotmailcom> Bytes: 3424 > You support matheology. I support the logic of mathematics rather than the unreasoning faith of > WM. LOL. I have no unreasoning faith in anything which cannot be addressed > and hence cannot be used for anything. Without exception, every one of your proofs involves at least one step which is not a logical deduction, but is instead a leap of faith with no justification. > I support mathematics to the extent that if one accepts an axiom system, > one must accept those logical consequences of that axiom system that > follow from those axioms. Yes, and one must also accept that some of such systems lead to > contradictions. Not so far. What you call contradictions are places where you have substituted faith for reasoning. I don't like where that deduction leads you declare, I choose to believe what I believe rather than where logic leads. > - Matheology requires to have diagonals which have infinitely more > digits than the numbers of the due matrix. Mathematics requires that if for every n in N, WM's nth line contains an > nth element, one can concatenate all those nth elements into one > diagonal. Yes, but only if As I said above, every one of your proofs involves something with no logical basis. A pure statement of faith. Here comes the one for this post: > ...only if one can also concatenate all those nth elements into > one line. There is no such requirement. You made it up. It's faith-based. It has no axiomatic basis. - Randy === Subject: Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory Why is anyone humouring these morons. There is no point in discussing mathematical details with them. The contention that infinite sets don't exist is meaningless. It depends on what you mean by exist and perhaps, depending on what you _do_ mean by exists, on unknown physical things. Does two exist or multiply or... If for their own reasons these people are uncomfortable with the use of any concept that may correspond to the infinite then by all means they can go and reformulate all of what they consider to be the _useful_ results of mathematics without it. Good luck to them - if they succeed they are likely to turn up some interesting stuff along the way! If it is possible (and I suspect all that can be done is to brush the infinities under the carpet), it will be very difficult and very ugly. Finally none of these fellows strike me as very bright so I think we shall be waiting a very long time. I will resist replying to any of the countless ludicrous points made by these imbeciles as it will only invite further pointless discussion. To summarise my poisition: Exists? Doesn't exist? I don't know, I don't care, and to be frank I think that it is a fairly meaningless statement. Maths works. If you want to do maths without infinities go ahead and do it. If you make any significant progress, great, we'd all like to see it. Otherwise off. === === Subject: Re: implication > brique > Wake up, Constance..... I never said James was lying. > I do think he is spinning the facts to follow his > usual Red Menace/Muslim Horror agenda. One can apply > the same formula as describes the French ZUS's and > quite aptly so describe any number of US ghettos You are nuts. The comparison is ridiculous. The most violent ghetto in the US used to be East Palo > Alto. The problem was that the police were corrupt and > crooked - not that the ghetto was ruled by Sharia law > and that police were apt have the crap beaten out of > them should they show their faces. The ghettoes were ruled by 'gang law', unless you wish to claim only ghetto's rules by sharia can be allowed to be counted as ghettos? There are ghettos all over where the police are reluctuant to enter unless mob-handed, where the police cant be bothered to enter unless it is to collect their paypackets from those who wish them to stay out. There is nothing special about such a ghetto, I doubt there is a nation that does not have them and few are on the tourist itinerary. Rather more than > twelve percent of france is now subject to Islamic law, > and no longer subject to French law. That is not > lawlessness, that is more like successful insurrection. Utter bollocks. Really James, is that the best you can manage? There are far more arguable matters you can find to take issue with the French on. Making up such arrant nonsense merely shows you up as an deranged idiot. === Subject: Re: implication <1186069409.30410.0@demeter.uk.clara.net> <1186128300.6494.0@proxy01.news.clara.net> <1186223431.28176.0@proxy02.news.clara.net> <1186267128.16077.0@despina.uk.clara.net> <4b8bb3p2hd0rjkqtb3grt5rk4njhbs0vch@4ax.com> <1186341767.96947.0@iris.uk.clara.net Rather more than > twelve percent of france is now subject to Islamic law, > and no longer subject to French law. That is not > lawlessness, that is more like successful insurrection. Utter bollocks. Really James, is that the best you can manage? > There are far more arguable matters you can find to take issue with the > French on. > Making up such arrant nonsense merely shows you up as an deranged idiot. I have friends and business contacts in France and I have heard nothing specific and concrete about shari'a being imposed anywhere. There are ravings on web sites, but nothing specific. Perhaps the believers can supply us with some better information; I intend to have my friends check these tales out. === Subject: Re: implication <1185874456.32255.0@proxy01.news.clara.net> <1185892550.7612.0@proxy02.news.clara.net> <1185957410.97941.0@demeter.uk.clara.net> <1186041171.25471.0@damia.uk.clara.net> <1186069409.30410.0@demeter.uk.clara.net> <1186128300.6494.0@proxy01.news.clara.net> <1186223431.28176.0@proxy02.news.clara.net> <1186267128.16077.0@despina.uk.clara.net> Bytes: 7679 > > On Aug 3, 4:11 am, James Whitehead > James Whitehead > > > A spate of riots over a year ago.. > > James A. Donald: > > > The violence and car burning continues at about the same > > > pace as ever it did. It has merely ceased to be > > > newsworthy. The area of France controlled by the French > > > government continues to diminish. > > James Whitehead > > without any evidence... just lenty to the contary > > Google for Sensitive Urban Zones. > > See for example the entry 2006 October 31 in http://coolblue.typepad.com/the_cool_blue_blog/france_surrenders/inde... > > It rapidly becomes apparent that Sensitive means they are not > under > > the control of the French government. > > The number of Sensitive Urban Zones was increasing rapidly, > until, > at > > 818, the French government stopped collecting data on them! > > According to older information, when the French government was > still > > acknowledging the problem, twelve percent of the French > population > > live in such zones. > Its very hard to discuss anything with people like yourself and > moggin > who > > when shown the truth simply delete it. Re - the greatest risk to > your > > family. > > SUZs are areas of priority for economic development - they are > typified by > > poor buildings and low income and high unemployment - and > therefore > often > > have larger proportions of immigrants. Associated with this are > higher > crime > > rates - drugs prostitution etc. The French typically map these out > so > that > > special funding - tax breaks can be undertaken... The kind of > lies > peddled > > by people like yourself and the extreme Christian (sic) sites are > exactly > > the stuff of Hitler re the Jews - i just hope there are > sufficient > other > > Americans who will see through this and perhaps prosecute those > that > spread > > this material. You belong in jail. > It's perfectly legal to tell lies in the U.S., including those > > which incite racial and religious hatred. In fact it is > > expected. > It's not a lie when the balance of the information available says the > same thing. At worst an understandable error; more likely, not an > You find page upon page contradicting James Whitehead's portrayal and > confirming James Donald's. For instance: > As for the last of these three categories of dysfunction, the phrase > Zones Urbaines Sensibles - Sensitive Urban Zones - designates the > most intractable areas, where the rule of law has vanished and a > normal economy no longer functions. > Page after page tell us the same thing. > Why, Constance, James let you out to play? Why, he seemed to be holding > his > own in this debate, well, maybe he felt vulnerable so required your aid > and > comfort. > Anyway, ZUS's exist, same as ghetto's exist in the USA which meet the > same > defining criteria as you use for the ZUS. So now that the claim that James's description of these areas is a > lie has been exploded, the new claim is that it's not a lie but the > US is just as bad. Wake up, Constance..... I never said James was lying. > I do think he is > spinning the facts to follow his usual Red Menace/Muslim Horror agenda. One > can apply the same formula as describes the French ZUS's and quite aptly so > describe any number of US ghettos. It's the nature of 'developed' societies > to dump their problems in a declining neighbourhood then have the less > unfortunate flee as rapidly as possible. In the UK we call them 'sink > estates'. Maybe its not so 'developed' even, Tsarist Russia called theirs > the 'Pale of Settlement'. Nothing particularily 'french' or 'muslim' about > the matter. The story would presumably change again once it was > demonstrated that the US is not as bad, and then when the next story > after that was refuted it would change yet again. And you, as ever, will be ass-kissingly desperate to obscure the issues with > your usal leap in and muddy the waters display of sychronised > sychophancy...... I suppose Google is also desperate to obscure the issues. If you'll correctly, responded, and that you changed the subject - and presumably would change the subject again once the new approach blew up in your face. === Subject: Re: implication 3, > > On Aug 3, 4:11 am, James Whitehead > James Whitehead > > > A spate of riots over a year ago.. > > James A. Donald: > > > The violence and car burning continues at about the same > > > pace as ever it did. It has merely ceased to be > > > newsworthy. The area of France controlled by the French > > > government continues to diminish. > > James Whitehead > > > without any evidence... just lenty to the contary > > Google for Sensitive Urban Zones. > > See for example the entry 2006 October 31 in >http://coolblue.typepad.com/the_cool_blue_blog/france_surrenders/inde... > > It rapidly becomes apparent that Sensitive means they are not > under > > the control of the French government. > > The number of Sensitive Urban Zones was increasing rapidly, > until, > at > > 818, the French government stopped collecting data on them! > > According to older information, when the French government was > still > > acknowledging the problem, twelve percent of the French > population > > live in such zones. > > Its very hard to discuss anything with people like yourself and > moggin > who > > when shown the truth simply delete it. Re - the greatest risk to > your > > family. > > SUZs are areas of priority for economic development - they are > typified by > > poor buildings and low income and high unemployment - and > therefore > often > > have larger proportions of immigrants. Associated with this are > higher > crime > > rates - drugs prostitution etc. The French typically map these out > so > that > > special funding - tax breaks can be undertaken... The kind of > lies > peddled > > by people like yourself and the extreme Christian (sic) sites are > exactly > > the stuff of Hitler re the Jews - i just hope there are > sufficient > other > > Americans who will see through this and perhaps prosecute those > that > spread > > this material. You belong in jail. > It's perfectly legal to tell lies in the U.S., including those > > which incite racial and religious hatred. In fact it is > > expected. > It's not a lie when the balance of the information available says the > > same thing. At worst an understandable error; more likely, not an quotes). > > You find page upon page contradicting James Whitehead's portrayal and > > confirming James Donald's. For instance: > As for the last of these three categories of dysfunction, the phrase > > Zones Urbaines Sensibles - Sensitive Urban Zones - designates the > > most intractable areas, where the rule of law has vanished and a > > normal economy no longer functions. > Page after page tell us the same thing. > Why, Constance, James let you out to play? Why, he seemed to be holding > his > own in this debate, well, maybe he felt vulnerable so required your aid > and > comfort. > Anyway, ZUS's exist, same as ghetto's exist in the USA which meet the > same > defining criteria as you use for the ZUS. > So now that the claim that James's description of these areas is a > lie has been exploded, the new claim is that it's not a lie but the > US is just as bad. Wake up, Constance..... I never said James was lying. > It is plain, you reply to my comment, reference the comment itself in the same sentence as the claim that James's description has been called a lie. The context of your comment is clear. Perhaps it is not what you intended, perhaps you should read what you write before posting.... I do think he is > spinning the facts to follow his usual Red Menace/Muslim Horror agenda. One > can apply the same formula as describes the French ZUS's and quite aptly so > describe any number of US ghettos. It's the nature of 'developed' societies > to dump their problems in a declining neighbourhood then have the less > unfortunate flee as rapidly as possible. In the UK we call them 'sink > estates'. Maybe its not so 'developed' even, Tsarist Russia called theirs > the 'Pale of Settlement'. Nothing particularily 'french' or 'muslim' about > the matter. > The story would presumably change again once it was > demonstrated that the US is not as bad, and then when the next story > after that was refuted it would change yet again. And you, as ever, will be ass-kissingly desperate to obscure the issues with > your usal leap in and muddy the waters display of sychronised > sychophancy...... I suppose Google is also desperate to obscure the issues. If you'll > correctly, responded, and that you changed the subject - and > presumably would change the subject again once the new approach blew > up in your face. You introduced the claim that James was lying and sought to defend him from that accusation, an accusation I hadn't made. So, who is changing subjects, why, you are Constance, as ever,.seeking to move the debate from the subject to yet another synchophantic defence of your beloved leader. === Subject: Re: Truth Among Mathematikers and Empirics > theorems are true >because the transformation of terms from > assumption to >result is a closed loop. Although we might spend weeks discussing the always > popular > question of what constitutes mathematical truth, I > think > that you have captured the essence of what makes a > theorem > a theorem, whether or in what sense it is true, in > the above > quote. I wonder if you would care to amplify and > clarify what > you mean here. 1) Please follow up to sci.logic as well as sci.math, > as > I am a sci.logic subscriber. 2) Please ignore Lester's gibes. No one takes him > seriously. -- > hz at least for the time being. Maybe later. At the present, I am struggling with a pending job transfer and other personal matters. Actually, I feel a bit guilty spending all this time with Zick; it isn't as taxing or time consuming, though, as a serious exchange would be. My reason for making reply to this nonsense at all, is that the world is largely populated with Zicks, i.e., with irrational believers. Mathematics and Logic are necessarily rational enterprises. So far as what I write here, you are welcome to quote me in your other group, and I stand ready to defend any statement I make, if asked, though I cannot always promise an immediate reply. So far as expanding on my statement you quote above, I tried to do that in the previous post, using that ring of questions and answers that forms a closed loop from the theorem is proved, back to the theorem is can strive for more depth in due course: Well, at least Mr. Zick is making a positive statement, even if it's easily proven logically wrong. His claim--like that of any believer--is shown to be irrational. The fact is, that if existence is self-contradictory, logic itself doesn't exist. Aristotle's first principle (identity), and his second (non-contradiction) necessarily assume existence. The third (excluded middle) might be jettisoned, but one does not successfully make claims for existence (even the existence of self- contradictory existence) without assuming existence. Think of it in terms of parity--two negative terms multiplied together, have a positive result. Were Mr. Zick to get a little education in the subject, he would very quickly learn that theorems are true because the transformation of terms from assumption to result is a closed loop. I know that this has all been patiently explained by Randy Poe in this thread, but I will make another attempt for the benefit of lurkers who might not be convinced that truth can be known rationally. Q1: How do we know a theorem is true? A: The theorem is proved. Q2: How do we know the proof is true? A: There are no gaps of deduction between one statement and another. (All mathematics is the study of propositions of the form, A implies B.) Q3: How do we know that the deductions are true? A: They are consistent with the axioms from which the conclusions follow. Q4: How do we know the axioms are true? A: The axioms are a self consistent system of assumptions without proof. Q5: How do we know the system of axioms is true? A: We don't. Q6: How do we know a theorem is true if the system of axioms may not be true? A: The theorem is proved. So if one might be tempted to think that Zick has brilliantly discovered a flaw in mathematical logic--reflect on the fact that a theorem is true _because_ it is tautological. Proofs close the gap between what we believe is true and what we can prove is true. Closing the gap with the fewest number of unproven assumptions is the goal of what is known as mathematical epistemology. Much progress has been made in the last 200 years or so, in demonstrating the limits of how we define systems, both mathematically and empirically. Another in this thread has discussed what is probably the best known example--the demarcation between Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean space. Rational truth, unlike Zick's private notion of truth, is progressive. Our rational approach to mathematical logic has been very productive in adding to our knowledge--If Gregory Chaitin is right in his research into the limits of computation, even simple arithmetic holds enough unsolved mysteries to keep us busy for thousands more years. Tom === Subject: Re: Truth Among Mathematikers and Empirics >I expect that what you say is true in Zick's particular >case. One must be reminded, though, that the world >is mostly populated with Zicks; i.e., those who believe >that truth is held in their private perceptions and not >a function of rational thought. We do what we can to >counter ignorance and superstition, even when it seems >to be always winning. Well you have to be a little careful here, sport. When you denigrate > logicians, Herb might just turn on you. Not that he's a logician, But I will be _portraying_ a logician on a new mini-series premiering >next fall on NBC! Titled Schlock Holmes. > just that he puts on a pretty bad act. Everybody's a critic. But not everybody's true. ~v~~ === Subject: Re: Truth Among Mathematikers and Empirics On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:16:03 -0400, Wolf limit > |sin x| has an upper limit. It will be observed, tangentially, > that it contains all its limit points. > It will? And how are you going to do that, pray tell? > By pointing out that for all x, the limit of |sin x_0| as x_0 goes > to x is equal to |sin x|. > Goes is present tense. Transcendentals require all past, present, > and future tenses as well. > No ? Well, fancy that. Goes is the indefinite tense. Is going expresses the present in >English. English has no present tense, despite what the grade school >grammar books say. There is only one other tense in English, the >imperfect past: went. All other time relationships are expressed means >of verb phrases, not tenses. I think it'd be more accurate to say other languages employ the archaic use of inflections to indicate tense whereas English uses auxilliary verb phrases to indicate tenses. This is little different than noting modern languages use independent prepositions to indicate what Latin and Greek indicated with word inflections. >So now you know. But is what we know true? ~v~~ === Subject: Re: Truth Among Mathematikers and Empirics Bytes: 1957 > theorems are true >because the transformation of terms from assumption to >result is a closed loop. Although we might spend weeks discussing the always popular >question of what constitutes mathematical truth, Weeks? How about centuries. > I think >that you have captured the essence of what makes a theorem >a theorem, whether or in what sense it is true, in the above >quote. > I wonder if you would care to amplify and clarify what >you mean here. WEBTV ass kissing in living color. Nielsen can hardly wait. >1) Please follow up to sci.logic as well as sci.math, as > I am a sci.logic subscriber. 2) Please ignore Lester's gibes. No one takes him seriously. They take him just the same. ~v~~ === Subject: Re: Truth Among Mathematikers and Empirics > Well you have to be a little careful here, sport. > When you denigrate > logicians, Herb might just turn on you. Not that > he's a logician, But I will be _portraying_ a logician on a new > mini-series premiering > next fall on NBC! > Theor3ms, the thrilling story of a crime-fighting > logician who > obtains confessions via forcing! Now that is really nerdy, Chas! LOL! Tom === Subject: Re: Truth Among Mathematikers and Empirics >I'm tired of his predictable horse. Of course you are. That's why you find it impossible to quit. You're > absolutely fascinated and horrified all at once. No, I'm past that. Your little song and dance is just a bore now. > Sure. ~v~~ === Subject: Re: Truth Among Mathematikers and Empirics On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:50:45 -0400, Wolf with you because it really has no bearing on the definition of > infinite sets which was the original subject of our conversation. My position is and always has been that infinite sets are not > finite. And if you wish to argue with that I suggest you do so and > skip the philosophical recitativo because no one I know is interested > in a recapitulation of what you think about anything which you can't > demonstrate is true to begin with. Fine. What's finite? - Randy >Now, now Randy, you haven't paid attention. What about inhyrosite sets? See I'm defining inhyrosite sets as not >hyrosite. That's perfectly obvious, isn't it? I mean Lester understand. What's that, Wolf, the canuck tense? >Don't you, Lester? Lester? Oops, I guess I overestimated Lester's perfligosity. Sorry 'bout that. ;-) We all recognize that you were sorry, you have been sorry, you are sorry, you will be sorry, you will have been sorry, and we shall all have been sorry you were quite so sorry instead of being competent. ~v~~ === Subject: Re: Truth Among Mathematikers and Empirics > So if I argue that an infinite set is not finite you would argue > that it is? >No, I would merely point out what a clueless you are. Oh well I expect even clueless s get it true once in a while, Yes -- I was just about to say that even a blind pig occasionally >finds an acorn. Even blind pigs and academic logicians occasionally find acorns, less often do they find truth. ~v~~ === Subject: Re: Truth Among Mathematikers and Empirics On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:41:43 -0700, Subluxian > Well you have to be a little careful here, sport. When you denigrate > logicians, Herb might just turn on you. Not that he's a logician, > But I will be _portraying_ a logician on a new mini-series premiering > next fall on NBC! >Theor3ms, the thrilling story of a crime-fighting logician who >obtains confessions via forcing! When he's not lecturing on Truth, Justice, and the Mathematical Way. ~v~~ === Subject: Re: Truth Among Mathematikers and Empirics > In other words you have no argument against my observation. Other than its puerility. Out of the mouths of babes . . . whereas it takes sophistry to lie. ~v~~ === Subject: Re: Truth Among Mathematikers and Empirics On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:49:07 -0000, Eric Gisse Or perhaps you'd like to kick in some empirical evidence to invalidate > Euclid's parallel postulate? I love it how you churn up multi-hundred post threads in math and >physics newsgroups Multi-hundred? You're a piker. But then no one suggested otherwise. > when you don't even understand simple algebra. So I guess that's a no, Herb wouldn't like to kick in some empirical evidence to invalidate Euclid's parallel postulate because he understands simple algebra. >Get your attention somewhere else. I get quite enough of it here thank you very much. ~v~~ === Subject: Re: Truth Among Mathematikers and Empirics >What do you mean by infinite set? An infinite set is not finite. Well, I guess that about sums up your ability to >define anything. Whereas your ability to define anything true is summed up where? ~v~~ === Subject: Re: Truth Among Mathematikers and Empirics On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:32:02 -0700, Randy Poe you argue they aren't. >That's a perfectly good definition of infinite set >provided you have one for finite set. > Actually it doesn't make any difference unless you can argue > successfully against the definition of an infinite set. >How do you define finite set? > I don't. Not my job. My job was to define an infinite set which you > admit is a perfectly good definition of an infinite set. I said it's a perfectly good definition of an infinite set >if you provide a definition of finite set. Can you read? My statement is directly above, just >a few lines. The point being it's a perfectly good definition of an infinite set if it's true and if you can't argue against it it's true whether or not a finite set is defined. I didn't invent the phrase finite set or set for that matter so I don't have to define finite set. I was just hired on to define an infinite set which I did. >You objected once to the Dedekind definition of infinite >set which I posted here. I would presume that you have >a better one. An infinite set is not finite. >Is the set of even naturals finite or not finite? Who knows? I'm a mathematician not a bean counter. >Can you justify your answer? I can justify my answer as true because you can't argue any alternative to my answer is true. At least you would look pretty foolish if you tried. ~v~~ === Subject: Re: Truth Among Mathematikers and Empirics On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:28:06 -0700, Randy Poe On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 11:56:12 -0700, Randy Poe with you because it really has no bearing on the definition of > infinite sets which was the original subject of our conversation. > My position is and always has been that infinite sets are not > finite. And if you wish to argue with that I suggest you do so and > skip the philosophical recitativo because no one I know is interested > in a recapitulation of what you think about anything which you can't > demonstrate is true to begin with. >Fine. What's finite? > What difference does that make? Because if finite doesn't have a meaning, Did I say finite doesn't have meaning? > then the >phrase not finite isn't very useful for checking whether >a particular set meets the conditions. I can't recall as ever having seen a mathematiker check whether a particular infinite set meets any conditions least of all whether an infinite set is actually infinite. That might prove a little awkward. Usually mathematikers just talk about what they would do if a set were infinite. > If you can't argue with the basic > definition, it's true whatever finite means. Well, what does it mean? Take the set of even natural >numbers. Is that finite or not finite? How do you tell? Isn't what I was hired on to do, Randy. I got paid to tell you what an infinite set was. No one seems able to argue with that. That's true. ~v~~ === Subject: Re: Scientists Confirm Absolute Logic.By Aiya-Oba The Universal Model I would like to emphasize that, this groundbreaking scientific observation; equator of self-contradiction (Absolute Logic), is a pure demonstration of how possible it is, for two totally independent phenomena (one metaphysical and the other physical), to lead to same fact about Spacetime. It calls for re-evaluation of our human conduct and value. The usefulness of understanding or knowledge of the facts is in proper conduct for mutual prosperity. Awareness of the fact that, the best form of conduct (moral conduct) is that which reflects the Central value of All in all, is elevated understanding. The quantum foundation of SpaceTime:equator of self-contradiction (Absolute Logic), is the universal model and common crux of Religion, Philosophy and Science. -Aiya-Oba. === Subject: Re: Bug in Mathematica 6 - Product - 2 - bug the long liver (1997--2007--?) Bytes: 3055 > (**************************************************************) If the same bugs exist through numerous software releases, > I think that is valuable public information. It just should not happen. -- Brad Cooper (**************************************************************) Our little demo continues... Hello again from the VM machine > which is still ignored by CAS manufacturers. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Product[(n + a)/(n + b), {n, 1, Infinity}] ---------------------------------------------------------------- > VERSION OUTPUT RESOLUTION > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mathematica 6.0 Gamma[1 + b]/Gamma[1 + a] <---------- BUG #2 Mathematica 5.2 If[Re[a - b] >= 0, Infinity, 0] <----- BUG #1 Mathematica 4.2 If[Re[a - b] >= 0, Infinity, 0] <----- BUG #1 Mathematica 3.0 If[Re[a - b] >= 0, Infinity, 0] <----- BUG #1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- HINT: Product[(n + a)/(n + a), {n, 1, Infinity}] (* a == b *) 1 Voila! > This is Mathematicq 6.0.1: Why do you think these below give different responses? Remove[Global`*] Product[(n + a)/(n + b), {n, 1, Infinity}] /. {a -> 2, b -> 1} 1/2 Remove[Global`*] Product[(n + 2)/(n + 1), {n, 1, Infinity}] Product::div: Product does not converge Nasser > (**************************************************************) Best wishes, Vladimir Bondarenko VM and GEMM architect > Co-founder, CEO, Mathematical Director http://www.cybertester.com/ Cyber Tester, LLC > http://maple.bug-list.org/ Maple Bugs Encyclopaedia > http://www.CAS-testing.org/ CAS Testing > === Subject: Re: who is the moon belonging to? > who is tha moon belonging to? > When comparing the mass ratio of Mars and Deimos and the Earth/Moon system. It becomes obvious that the Earth's moon belongs to Jupiter or possibly even Saturn. === Subject: Re: who is the moon belonging to? : : : > who is tha moon belonging to? : > Tha moona is a belonging to me-a, I is-a owning it. Keep-a offa my moona. === Subject: Re: who is the moon belonging to? We planted our flag there, also on Mars. > Therefore we own both. > One final appeal: If you must respond to mathematician/Hannu, have some courtesy to the newsgroups he is spamming by removing every group from the newsgroups line except the one you're responding in. If you can't manage that, just remove sci.bio.paleontology. Starve the trolls. === Subject: Re: who is the moon belonging to? Bytes: 2211 On Aug 4, 11:43 am, cargos now that tha north pole region belongs ta russians becus > thay put their flag there, > then tha south pole belongs ta germans becus thay have ufo > bases there, > who is tha moon belonging to? > can a movie about tha moon give a moon? > tha most probable to get to moon are tha chinese, will thay > own tha moon? I think that the moon belong to lunatics (=crazy about the moon)? Hannu The moon belongs to whoever can defend it. defend? you mean murder, this is barbaric === Subject: Re: who is the moon belonging to? <46B4E955.D01771FD@hate.spam.net> Bytes: 2368 > who is tha moon belonging to? [snip remaining crap] The moon belongs to any nation, corporation, or other legal fiction > that makes such claim and can maintain continuous habitation. continuous habitation!? is america still owned by apaches? If you > have a problem with that, present your petition in person, locally. > Note local laws allowing informal airlock dumping of non-citizens > followed by permanent vehicle impoundment. Miltary action counter to said claim is a de facto declaration of war > upon another nation-state re 11 September 2001. It is a difficult and > expensive uphill climb but a very cheap and easy - and energetic - > downhill fall, re The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Heinlein. -- > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 === Subject: Re: Do any integers occur in both sequences? the >Encyclopedia Of >Integer Sequences. (Those familiar with the EIS will be familiar with > the >formatting.) %S A131937 1,4,8,14,21,29,38,49,61 >%N A131937 a(1)=1; a(2)=4. a(n) = a(n-1) + (nth > positive integer which >does not occur in sequence A131938). >%e A131937 A131938: 2,5,10,16,23,32,42,53,... >Positive integers not in A131938: > 1,3,4,6,7,8,9,11,... >So A131937(8) = A131937(7) + 11 = 49. >%Y A131937 A131938 >%O A131937 1 >%K A131937 ,more,nonn, %S A131938 2,5,10,16,23,32,42,53,65,78,93,109 >%N A131938 a(1)=2; a(2)=5. a(n) = a(n-1) + (nth > positive integer which >does not occur in sequence A131937). >%e A131938 A131937: 1,4,8,14,21,29,... >Positive integers not in A131937: > 2,3,5,6,7,9,10,11,... >So A131938(8) = A131938(7) + 11 = 53. >%Y A131938 A131937 >%O A131938 1 >%K A131938 ,more,nonn, >Do any positive integers occur in both A131937 and >A131938? In other words: Does A131937(k) = >A131938(j) for any j and k {j and k are >= 1}, where > j >need not equal >k? I have not thought about this too hard; so for all I >know, the proof >is quite easy. I conjecture that no particular positive integer > occurs >in both >sequences. >Here is a smaller result related to these sequences, >which I doubt >will >help (dis)prove the main conjecture: Let a(n) = A131937(n), b(n) = A131938(n), a(0) = > b(0) = >0. Let n = any positive integer. Then n occurs (a(n) - a(n-1) - 1) times in sequence >{b(n) - b(n-1) - n + 1}. And n occurs (b(n) - b(n-1) - 1) times in sequence >{a(n) - a(n-1) - n + 1}. Not too earth-shattering -- but while we're on the >subject... >Also, I wonder if anyone can come up with a closed > form >for >{A131937(n)} >and {A131938(n)}. >They seem like they might be related to Beautty >sequences somehow. Leroy Quet Leroy, What I found interesting about these two sequences > is, > if you subtract the smallest sequence from the > largest > term for term you end up with a pattern progression. 2,5,10,16,23,32,42,53,65,78,93,109,126,144,163,183,20 > 5, > -1,4,8, > 14,21,29,38,49,61,74,88,103,120,138,157,177,198, > ------------------------------------------------------ > --- > 1,1,2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, > 6, 7, 228,252,277,303,330,358,388,419,... > - 220,244,269,295,322,350,379,409,... > ----------------------------------- > 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10, Having trouble with the alignment but you can get > the > idea. Will this pattern continue to have > (6/8),(1/9),(7/10), > (1/11),(8/12),(1/13),(9,14),(1/15),... > Where each even negation progresses by one followed > by the next (one) odd negation.? If this is the case then all you need is the largest > sequence (2,5,10,16...) to generate the smaller > sequence > because of the pattern brought about by the > negations. Dan Ok, the pattern does fail @ 8,8,8,8,8,8,9,10<-- here where it continues into a progressivily more complex pattern -- The difference between the two sequences term for term! 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 4 , 4 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 6 , 6 , 6 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 8 , 8 , 8 , 8 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 11 , 11 , 11 , 11 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 15 , 15, 15 , 15 , 15 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 19 , 19 , 19 , 19 , 19 , 19 , 19 , 20, 21 , 22 , 23 , 23 , 23 , 23 , 23 , 23 , 23 , 23 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 27, 27 , 27 , 27 , 27 , 27 , 27 , 27 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 32 , 32 , 32, 32 , 32 , 32 , 32 , 32 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 38 , 38 , 38 , 38, 38 , 38 , 38 , 38 , 38 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 44 , 44 , 44 , 44, 44 , 44 , 44 , 44 , 44 , 44 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 50 , 50 , 50, 50 , 50 , 50 , 50 , 50 , 50 , 50 , 50 , 50 , 51,... If somone can figure this one out you may come up with a closed form for finding either sequence. Dan === Subject: Re: Do you know about the nine- proof? Bytes: 1430 > http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/observ.htm > Be aware still defending the solution of the Phaistos disc by name. > Sorry. The early Roman calendar: http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-roman.html http://web.gvdnet.dk/GVD002393/observ.htm O.H. === Subject: Re: Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR Bytes: 8915 > On Aug 4, 2:19 pm, Paul B. Andersen The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the > special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That > proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly > overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who > are interested, read the references below. > http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm > --- Researched and brought to us by Dirk Van de moortel > http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf > http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm > --- Researched and brought to us by Sam Wormley > Or for the layman's sake, just visit Androcles' website on GPS below. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm > GPS now works without any of the nonsense introduced by SR and GR at a > fraction of cost originally intended by the physicists. Engineers > once again are proven to be orders of magnitudes more intelligent than > physicists. In the meantime, the physicists are still crying > over spilled milk with Professor Taylor's and Professor Ahsby's BS > write-ups on GPS. This is a official specification document which > the builders of the satellites must comply to. > http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/icd200cw1234.pdf > I quote section 3.3.1.1 from this document: > << > 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan. > The L-band signals shall be contained within two 20.46-MHz bands > centred about L1 and L2. The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 > signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source > within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears > to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency > and clock rates -- as they would appear to an observer located in > the SV -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock > rates are offset by delta_f/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in > the P-code shipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a delta_f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. > This is equal to 10.22999999543 MHz. The nominal carrier frequencies (fo) > shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively. > > There is nothing to discuss. It is an indisputable fact that > the -4.4647E-10 correction calculated by Ahsby is built into > each and every GPS-satellite, which prove that the GPS works > with the corrections introduced by GR. Let's see. The P-code chipping rate on board the satellite is > programmed to 10.22999999543MHz. The receiver just has to assume a > chipping rate of 10.23MHz ever with accuracy so much compromised to > lower the cost down to bare-bone. Both the P-code chipping rate on > board the satellite and the P-code chipping rate in the receiver do > not have to be adjusted ever. So, how does this 38uSec per day come > in? Do you not realize a 38uSec per day is very much different from > -4,4647E-10 (no units)? Since you now claim to have figured it out, I don't think I will have to explain. :-) But that's a bluff, obviously, so I will explain anyway. See below. > I also would like to leave a homework assignment for you, our twisted > professor from Norway, on how the difference in 10.22999999543MHz > versus 10.23000000000MHz of P-code chipping rate would affect the > accuracy of GPS acquisition. The difference in the shipping rate is of course of no consequence, the Doppler shift at the receiver is vastly greater than this anyway. this small change in the shipping rate to be of any consequence? It is completely beside the point! _The reason why this shift has to be done is because of the SV clock!_ Only one frequency standard is used at any time in the satellites. (there are three standards, the best of them is at any time used) This one frequency standard is used for _everything_ in the satellite, including the clock. The SV clock ticks out one second every 10230000 cycles from this standard. (a frequency synthesizer is obviously used). Now the correction is delta_f/f = -4.4647E-10, that means that the corrected frequency f' = (1 - 4.4647E-10)*f (1 - 4.4647E-10)*10.23000000000MHz = 10.22999999543MHz So what about the 38us? There are 86400 seconds in a day. 86400*4.4647E-10 sec = 385750.08E-10 sec = 38.575008E-6 ~= 38 us Got it? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The important point is that if the SV clock rates were not corrected, they would drift out of sync from GPS time after few minutes. The clocks have to be in sync within 100 ns for the GPS to work. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > BTW, why should it be a fraction of the cost to build the frequency > standards (Cesium and Rubidium atomis clocks) to the frequency > 10.23000000000 MHz in stead of 10.22999999543 MHz ? If you cannot answer this question, I understand that GPS is not your > field of expertise. The fact remains that the nonsense of GR and SR > do not play a role in the GPS design. No, I cannot answer this question, and neither can you, because the truth is that it costs nothing to include the GR correction in the frequency standards. It is the precision that is costly, not the actual frequency. However, it is a nice try for you to try to find something in the GPS > spec to support your religious belief of SR and GR though. You are > not the first. Fat Gisse and Not Man have preceded you and were both > shot down. You are the third victim. Frustrated, eh? :-) It is simply a documented fact that the GR correction is included in every GPS satellite, and it doesn't cost anything extra to do so. It is also a fact that this correction is necessary for the GPS to work. Facts are facts, even if you don't like them. > Speaking of the gravitational time dilation as predicted by GR, Mr. > Dual-Space's hypothesis championed by some John Polak-something, and > others, how would this relativistic effect affect the tuning of the > carrier frequencies, L1 (1.57542GHz) and L2 (1.2276GHz)? The answer > is none. You need to understand how engineers work. This is completely beside the point. Anybody with the slightest knowledge of radio engineering will understand that the carrier frequencies received by the receivers are Doppler shifted order of magnitudes more than the minute GR correction. The satellites are moving! So what? Why did you think that this should be of any consequence? The bandwidths of the channels are 20.46 MHz, so the GR-correction and the much bigger Doppler shifts are small compared to the bandwidth. The only way GR comes into the GPS is in the correction of the frequency standard, which is necessary to keep the SV clocks in sync with GPS-time within 100 ns during each time the clock can be corrected from the ground (once a day). BOTTOM LINE: Without the GR-correction, the clocks would drift out of sync by 38us - hundreds of times more than can be tolerated - between each time the clocks are corrected from the ground. Got it? It shouldn't be hard to get unless you are a complete moron. And the receivers don't have to worry about the GR-correction! They can safely assume that the time reported by the satellite is correct. (Which it is - because of the GR-correction.) Paul === Subject: Re: Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR There is no need to impose such a requirement on each satellite. The > satellites do not have to synchronize with the ground. The satellites > only have to synchronize among themselves. It is much simpler to > synchronize among themselves in which no nonsense of SR or GR is > employed to do so. You are obviously completely ignorant of how the GPS actually is operated. > The satellites synchronize themselves to each other, eh? :-) What's wrong with the statement? Maybe you are not capable to understand it? > Could it be because you are extremely mentally challenged? :-) This seems to apply to yourself more than to anybody else. Proof: see above. === Subject: Re: Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR > There is no need to impose such a requirement on each satellite. The > satellites do not have to synchronize with the ground. The satellites > only have to synchronize among themselves. It is much simpler to > synchronize among themselves in which no nonsense of SR or GR is > employed to do so. You are obviously completely ignorant of how the GPS actually is operated. > The satellites synchronize themselves to each other, eh? :-) What's wrong with the statement? > Maybe you are not capable to understand it? > Could it be because you are extremely mentally challenged? :-) This seems to apply to yourself more than to anybody else. You might check Koobee Wublee's contributions. The man is *severely* disturbed. Proof: see here: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AbsurdClaim.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PrivateLagrangian.htm l http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LonelyTop.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SmellHere.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TwoMetrics.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DiffGeoAero.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FlatSphere.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRBogus.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReasonLaws.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NewLagrangian.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LosingIt.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AerospaceRelativity.h t ml http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NewPotential.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WhatWrong.html Dirk Vdm === Subject: Re: Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR ---- It cranked you! ---- ... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Look, here they are again, Dingleberry H. Wabnig <.... -. .. @ .- DOT .-- > ahahaha... ahahanson === Subject: Re: Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:10:20 -0000, Koobee Wublee > .. But, here's the beef, Wabie, FACTS: >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm > Oh Jesus hanson, Androcles does not even know the difference > between TRIANGULATION and TRILATERATION. > He constantly produces bull .88 la carte, and you eat that. I don't understand the word 'trilateration' either. It is not even >found in my Random House Webster's Dictionary. [hanson] >Do you how dense you are, Wabie, to post that choice? >Hint:... Well, never mind. You are not equipped with >your mentality in your Kindergarten environment to >comprehend it, since you can't even take the hint that >there must be good reason why NO Einstein Dingleberry >cohort of yours came to your aid. ... See, they, unlike >you, Wabie, do not want to embarrass themselves so >blatantly in public, like you constantly do... ahahaha.... > Why do you avoid that little ^C ^V? > Frightened hanson? > Fear to expose yourself blatantly in public? > You did it already a hundred times, you are branded > for life as a liar, as a cowardy scaredy-cat.... > here is the x again. Do it. > Recuperate from your antisemitic brain disease. > Restore your dignity and credibility. The tune to our national anthem Stars Spangled used to be an English >pub song sung among the drunken working class in England. The tune to >Die Fahne Hoch (banned in most Europe) used to be a Yankee pub song >sung by drunken American bar goers. Trading off topic subjects, I >still don't know your point. > A Question for hanson: > What is the GPS carrier frequency? > [ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected) > [ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected) > [x] example for hanson This is all wrong. You must be referring to the P-code chipping rate >of 10.23MHz in which it is a receiver spec. The 10.22999999543MHz you >can very much ignore, it would not affect anything else. You >obviously do not understand the question you have imposed on Mr. >hanson. It is best if you understand the question you are >asking someone else. The official GPS Bible from Mighty U.S.A. Governement: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf from where I sloppily cited >This frequency offset results in an output of >10.22999999543 MHz, which is frequency divided to obtain the appropriate carrier modulation >signal (1.022999999543 MHz). The same output frequency source is also used to generate the >nominal L1 carrier frequency (fo) of 1575.42 MHz. So it is carrier modulation signal to be precise, and to give you the credit. The central question remains up. w. -- A Question for the anti-relativists: What is the GPS carrier modulation signal? [ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected) [ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected) === Subject: Re: Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA.... he sloppily cited wile he promoted his central question > ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA.... So, you cranking yourself so grievously is NOT because you are constantly wabiggering, sloppily citing, believing in governments which pride themselves for lying, calling yourself a dog, referring to yourself as a sheep, thanking God that you are an atheist... ahaha... and announcing that you are Einstein's Dingleberry who fantasizes in grand crackpot fashion that you discovered the central question... Wabie, if these are not the reasons then it must have been these here's which really crank you: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:10:20 -0000, Koobee Wublee > and elsewhere Wabnig, the Dingleberry: > Nazi Korporal Wabnig & Sharon: > ahahahaha... Wabbie, you are such a precious self cranking rackpot galore, so hilariously ridiculuos that it is unavoidable not to with you... You rival the equally hilarious Jew fanatics with your own self-aggrandizing and self-anointed posting that gives you the feeling that you are important.... ahahahaha.... ahahaha... ahahahanson === Subject: Re: Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR > I don't understand the word 'trilateration' either. It is not even > found in my Random House Webster's Dictionary. precision does not mean that relativistic effects are not measurable. Go on then, measure it, head. > *Competent* engineers can actually build things that work based on > their knowledge of the physical world. Yeah, I help build this submarine, > http://www.chdt.org.uk/images/ZZ_1160137781_Ocelot2.jpg > this plane, > http://tinyurl.com/2772tn > this flight simulator, > http://www.link-miles.co.uk/images/picright.jpg > was QA manager for this arm in 1984-87, > http://www.americanrobot.com/products_merlin_robots.html What does 'help build' mean? Chief designer? Design the electrical systems? Run the plumbing? But then, competence in one field does not imply competence in another. I know EEs whom I wouldn't trust their judgement in nuclear physics issues. So what have you done lately (like less than 20 years ago)? > and a lot of other things besides. What have you built, head? I've done data analysis on a few of these satellites: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/observatories.html Actively generating dataset visualizations from eight of these satellites: http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/missions/index.php and a few of these: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/MissionControl/ You probably saw some of my work on the news when a hurricane was about to make landfall. 'Andro' has refused to > demonstrate this. Bull, you lying cunt, you only had to ask and I gave a demonstration > here: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm This is a thought experiment, not a demonstration. You should number your equations so anyone wishing to actually go through it can clearly identify equations where they have questions. And if you have the expertise claimed above, you have even less excuse not to build a WORKING demonstration of your GPS claim. For the most part, your theory is indistinguishable from Ken Seto's claims. He arrogantly defends his physics and math errors with almost the same level of profanity as you. He also claims levels of technical expertise that seems to have existed only a decade or more in the past but which he seems incapable of applying in the present. > Without you or 'Andro' presenting such a demonstration or experiment, > spewing your claims around online are the intellectual equivalent of > 'wanking' (Andro's term). You've had the demonstration, wanker. What have you or the prat > Einstein got to offer? A ing thought experiment, you stooopid cunt? A 'thought experiment' is all you've offered for your GPS claim. Or have you forgotten the difference between a real experiment and web cartoons? > I'll keep an eye out for when you can actually DO something with your > alleged knowledge. We are waiting to see what you've done, little boy. 'Cygnut' is trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated. > Only knowledge is dangerous and he doesn't have any. > Keep on pulling your pudding, wanker. > [Andro 5 -- Cygnut 0] Enjoy your scorekeeping. It seems to be one of the few things that gives you any joy and it doesn't bother me in the slightest (though I am getting annoyed with your incessant profanity - I'm from the southern US - what's your excuse?) My guess is you're a retiree, or perhaps on disability, living alone, with nothing better to do than make a nuisance of yourself online. This is your only way anyone will pay attention to you. Sad. Tom -- Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1 cygnusx1@mac.com They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated. Only knowledge is dangerous. --Frank Herbert, Dune Messiah === Subject: Re: Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR Bytes: 5690 : : > : > The fact that they don't need to record spacecraft events to that high : > precision does not mean that relativistic effects are not measurable. : > : > Go on then, measure it, head. : > : > *Competent* engineers can actually build things that work based on : > their knowledge of the physical world. : > : > Yeah, I help build this submarine, : > http://www.chdt.org.uk/images/ZZ_1160137781_Ocelot2.jpg : > this plane, : > http://tinyurl.com/2772tn : > this flight simulator, : > http://www.link-miles.co.uk/images/picright.jpg : > was QA manager for this arm in 1984-87, : > http://www.americanrobot.com/products_merlin_robots.html : : What does 'help build' mean? Chief designer? Design the electrical : systems? Run the plumbing? It means something you'll never be, sonny. Part of a team. : But then, competence in one field does not imply competence in another. : I know EEs whom I wouldn't trust their judgement in nuclear physics : issues. And you are not competent to judge, you have no mathematical ability, whereas I do. You don't even know the meaning of the word competent. Measure this: Half of (1+2) = 1, the other half is 2, but we ignore that half. That's the relativistic effect shown here: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/eq22.A.GIF http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif Now measure it, -for-brains. : So what have you done lately (like less than 20 years ago)? I've answered your question, you stooopid moron. Your turn now. Measure half of (1+2) and prove it's 1 for me. It's a relativist effect. we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. -- St. Einstein the wit. We establish means you and all the other imbeciles, it doesn't include me, hanson, Kooblee Wublee, Tom Potter or anyone else with a lick of sense, because YOU can measure relativistic effects. : > and a lot of other things besides. : > : > What have you built, head? : : I've done data analysis on a few of these satellites: : : http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/observatories.html Oh yeah? Did you analyse St. Einstein the wit's paper first? I did. Here it is, analyst. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm : : Actively generating dataset visualizations from eight of these : satellites: : : http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/missions/index.php : : and a few of these: : : http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/MissionControl/ : : You probably saw some of my work on the news when a hurricane was about : to make landfall. Nope, I live in Britain, you live in cloud cuckoo land. : > : > 'Andro' has refused to : > demonstrate this. : > : > Bull, you lying cunt, you only had to ask and I gave a demonstration : > here: : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm : : This is a thought experiment, not a demonstration. What the do you hallucinate SR and GR are? : You should number : your equations so anyone wishing to actually go through it can clearly : identify equations where they have questions. Tell it to Einstein, they are his equations, you moron. : And if you have the expertise claimed above, you have even less excuse : not to build a WORKING demonstration of your GPS claim. : : For the most part, your theory is indistinguishable off, I don't have a theory, I'm a competent engineer and you are an incompetent head. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm is an analysis of Einstein's paper with his unnumbered equations, wit. Competent analysts can measure relativistic effects and get zilch. === Subject: Re: Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR [snip to essence] > off, I don't have a theory, I'm a competent engineer and you are an > incompetent head. Competent engineers and elementary physics: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroModulation.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras3.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras2.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EMWaves2.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/KineticEnergy.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TimeIsFreq2.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Component.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SoundSource.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PureNonsense.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Chuckle2.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoreEM.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EMWaves.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sound.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Magnetic.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TimeIsFreq.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Coulomb.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NoEnergy.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MakeFool.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroMMX.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EnergyConservation.ht m l Competent engineers and Boolean algebra: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XOROnceMore.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORrevisited.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORContinued.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORpersistence.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORforever.html Competent engineers and differentials: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DiffConst.html Competent engineers and integrals: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Integral.html Competent engineers and geometry: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SimpleEnough.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FullyAware.html Competent engineers and transformations: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroTransform.html Competent engineers and calculations: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Percentages.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FALSE.html Competent engineers and groups: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroGroups.html Competent engineers and logs: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogsHuh.html Competent engineers and vectors: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html Competent engineers and polar coordinates: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PolarManager.html Competent engineers and limits: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Limit.html Competent engineers and equations: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GOGI-GIGO.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Doofus.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html Competent engineers and square roots: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GoodTeachers.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TwoTurds.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Humour.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html Competent engineers and partial differential equations: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff4.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotFxy.html Dirk Vdm === Subject: Re: Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR Bytes: 6255 > These are very strong words. Well, the 'matrix crap' is used in the > your buddy moortel. Read it, and ask yourself where the SR and GR > corrections are. >http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm > ...and how is this an authoritative resource? > The above link should be very professionally intuitive. For the > layman, Androcles' website is a very good place to start. It is a good place to start for hysterical mirth. > Take my Androcles, please! > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm > Or one of the ubiquitous links brought to you by Wormlike also > contains the ranging equation that explains how to apply the data > received from four satellites to solve the unknown of the receiver's > relative time and position to the four satellites. > Apparently you never learned how to do proper research, as evidenced > by referencing this site and Androcles in support of your arguments. > Not once have you pointed *US* to the GPS specs in support of your > arguments. > After all, you have no college degree and no experience. How can you > criticize anyone with degrees and many years of experience? Your > statements above do not make just any sense. Eric's statements make perfect sense. > I have a Ph.D. in chemistry, which I guess qualifies ME to criticize > YOU. As can be seen by the professional bigots that he associates with in alt.kook, and by his vulgar, emotional, irrational attacks on Muslims and folks who make posts unfavorable to Jews, and by the handle he uses, to The_Man race and religion preempts all. To a child with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The_Man ' is qualified to defend and promote Judaism at all costs, but his opinion is of little value if an issue has a Jewish element in it. The idea that General Relativity is essential to the GPS system is an Urban Legend promoted by Jews and by GTR Charlatans on the taxpayer dole. The output frequency of an oscillator is affected by its' environment, but the fact of the matter is that numerous single and compound models can account for this, (The best and simplest being the one Newton used over 200 years ago to compute the shape of the Earth and the tides, from the frequencies of pendulums sent round the world by England.) and System Engineers don't concern themselves with esoteric causes of offsets and affects are, they simply design a closed feedback system with the necessary offsets and linearization's built in. General Relativity is a Tower of Babel that wastes time, money and minds on such pursuits as time travel, worm holes, gravity waves, rubber rulers and clocks, and the birth and death of the universe. One would think that if the GTR Charlatans possessed such powerful, esoteric knowledge, that they would enter the free market like the guys from Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Intel, Texas Instruments, Apple, etc. and make billions of dollars, rather than sucking up billions of the taxpayer's dollars. Can you imagine how much better society would be, if the billions of dollars being used to rationalize General Relativity for religious reasons, and determine the necessary Classical Physics hacks needed to force it to model observations correctly, were spent on DNA R&D??? After Newton's model, there were immediate and rapid advances in mechanics, astronomy, etc. After Maxwell's model there were immediate and rapid advances in chemistry, electricity, etc. After Watson's and Crick's DNA model there were immediate and rapid advances in medicine, genetics, animal husbandry, the history of the Earth and Mankind, etc. Here we are, 100 years after General Relativity and it continues to generate more hype and heat than light and advances. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. -- Tom Potter *** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 *** *** May 2007 Anti-Bigot Award *** http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp http://no-turtles.com http://www.frappr.com/tompotter http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter http://tom-potter.blogspot.com -- === Subject: Re: Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR <6uJsi.50276$Fc.17762@attbi_s21> <46b5b2e8$0$16371$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> Bytes: 6166 > These are very strong words. Well, the 'matrix crap' is used in the > your buddy moortel. Read it, and ask yourself where the SR and GR > corrections are. >http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm > ...and how is this an authoritative resource? > The above link should be very professionally intuitive. For the > layman, Androcles' website is a very good place to start. It is a good place to start for hysterical mirth. > Take my Androcles, please! >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm > Or one of the ubiquitous links brought to you by Wormlike also > contains the ranging equation that explains how to apply the data > received from four satellites to solve the unknown of the receiver's > relative time and position to the four satellites. > Apparently you never learned how to do proper research, as evidenced > by referencing this site and Androcles in support of your arguments. > Not once have you pointed *US* to the GPS specs in support of your > arguments. > After all, you have no college degree and no experience. How can you > criticize anyone with degrees and many years of experience? Your > statements above do not make just any sense. Eric's statements make perfect sense. > I have a Ph.D. in chemistry, which I guess qualifies ME to criticize > YOU. As can be seen by the professional bigots > that he associates with in alt.kook, > and by his vulgar, emotional, irrational attacks on Muslims > and folks who make posts unfavorable to Jews, > and by the handle he uses, to The_Man everything looks like a nail. The_Man ' > is qualified to defend and promote Judaism at all costs, > but his opinion is of little value > if an issue has a Jewish element in it. The idea that General Relativity is essential > to the GPS system is an Urban Legend promoted > by Jews and by GTR Charlatans on the taxpayer dole. Look up urban legends... GPS at http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=GPS&getit=Go&sp-a=00062d45-sp00000000&s p-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp - c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0 Relativity at http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=relativity&getit=Go&sp-a=00062d45-sp000 00000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x = any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0 The output frequency of an oscillator is affected by > its' environment, but the fact of the matter is that > numerous single and compound models can account for this, > Then just show us U.S. Government specs that say so. Or Chinese Government specs that says so. BTW, you had me worried. We didn't see you online for several weeks. I was afraid that Chinese anti-espionage units had captured you. I wasn't TOO worried, knowing that they are incredibly stupid (what with allowing an incredibly intelligent and educated American engineer free movement to travel the country near sensitive military site, and take photographs). They are so stupid, that they don't even realize that the photos you posted online have hidden messages. I also know that you are good at double-talk. Nevertheless, good job. We still need some information from you for the Mossad, particulary on nthe Chinese arms sales to the government of Sudan. Do your best, but don;t take any unnecessary chances. The last guy we sent on this mission has never been heard from again :-( === Subject: Re: Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR The idea that General Relativity is essential > to the GPS system is an Urban Legend promoted > by Jews and by GTR Charlatans on the taxpayer dole. > Potter originally posted ...that an oscillator will oscillate at a slightly higher frequency in orbit, than they would on the surface of the Earth... I asked Potter, Will an oscillator oscillate at a slightly higher frequency at an orbital radius of 8000 km, Potter? If so, by how much? If not, why? As predicted, Potter, will bluster and not answer the question! === Subject: Re: Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR The idea that General Relativity is essential > to the GPS system is an Urban Legend promoted > by Jews and by GTR Charlatans on the taxpayer dole. Potter originally posted ...that an oscillator will oscillate at > a slightly higher frequency in orbit, than they would on the surface > of the Earth... But he is right. What's the problem? Gravaitational time dilation is real, it is a fact. It is not a feature of GR only, also other theories confirm this, for example my own theory; but we differ in the calculated result; see below. > I asked Potter, Will an oscillator oscillate at a slightly higher > frequency at an orbital radius of 8000 km, Potter? If so, by how much? > If not, why? > As predicted, Potter, will bluster and not answer the question! According to my own calculation method for an orbital radius of 8000km (ie. in an altitude of 1627 km) the gravitational time dilation would be +20.6 microseconds per day . (According to GR the result is: +12.2 microseconds per day, maybe Dirk Van de Moortel can verify this). And from this value one can calculate the rate the oscillator will oscillate slightly more. Just give the frequenz of your oscillator and I will do the calculation for you. FYI: I'm not defending GR, but the gravitational time dilation is real, but the GR calculation just gives IMO a wrong value. === Subject: Re: Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR > The idea that General Relativity is essential > to the GPS system is an Urban Legend promoted > by Jews and by GTR Charlatans on the taxpayer dole. > Potter originally posted ...that an oscillator will oscillate at > a slightly higher frequency in orbit, than they would on the surface > of the Earth... But he is right. What's the problem? > Gravaitational time dilation is real, it is a fact. > It is not a feature of GR only, also other theories confirm this, > for example my own theory; but we differ in the calculated result; see below. > > I asked Potter, Will an oscillator oscillate at a slightly higher > frequency at an orbital radius of 8000 km, Potter? If so, by how much? > If not, why? > As predicted, Potter, will bluster and not answer the question! According to my own calculation method for an orbital radius of 8000km > (ie. in an altitude of 1627 km) the gravitational time dilation > would be +20.6 microseconds per day . > (According to GR the result is: +12.2 microseconds per day, > maybe Dirk Van de Moortel can verify this). > And from this value one can calculate the rate the oscillator will oscillate slightly more. > Just give the frequenz of your oscillator and I will do the calculation for you. > FYI: I'm not defending GR, but the gravitational time dilation is real, > but the GR calculation just gives IMO a wrong value. The above given values are for a non-rotating earth and a stationary object in the orbit. Adding earth rotation and object velocity gives of course some different values. If interessted give the v of the object... === Subject: Re: Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR > The idea that General Relativity is essential > to the GPS system is an Urban Legend promoted > by Jews and by GTR Charlatans on the taxpayer dole. > Potter originally posted ...that an oscillator will oscillate at > a slightly higher frequency in orbit, than they would on the surface > of the Earth... > But he is right. What's the problem? > Gravaitational time dilation is real, it is a fact. > It is not a feature of GR only, also other theories confirm this, > for example my own theory; but we differ in the calculated result; see below. > > I asked Potter, Will an oscillator oscillate at a slightly higher > frequency at an orbital radius of 8000 km, Potter? If so, by how much? > If not, why? > As predicted, Potter, will bluster and not answer the question! > According to my own calculation method for an orbital radius of 8000km > (ie. in an altitude of 1627 km) the gravitational time dilation > would be +20.6 microseconds per day . > (According to GR the result is: +12.2 microseconds per day, > maybe Dirk Van de Moortel can verify this). > And from this value one can calculate the rate the oscillator will oscillate slightly more. > Just give the frequenz of your oscillator and I will do the calculation for you. > FYI: I'm not defending GR, but the gravitational time dilation is real, > but the GR calculation just gives IMO a wrong value. The above given values are for a non-rotating earth and a stationary object in the orbit. > Adding earth rotation and object velocity gives of course some different values. > If interessted give the v of the object... > Perhaps you can give the right answer then... Will an oscillator oscillate at a slightly higher frequency at an orbital radius of 8000 km? If so, by how much? If not, why? Potter doesn't have the capability to answer... so qbit stand in for Potter. Come on you guys it's not that hard!