Subject: Re: VietMath War: Programmer/Analyst needed in war ????
From: fw7984@csc.albany.edu (WAPPLER FRANK)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 19:11:11 GMT
> `AP' released:
> David Ullrich writes:
> > > Math is indeed the key to the universe. Just don't let academia fool
> > > you in to thinking they have the only copy.
> >
> > Certainly not! Just check sci.math - you'll find all sorts of
> > extra-academic mathematicians. There's Archimedes Plutonium, for example.
> > He's a super-genius; he seems to be the only person in the world who
> [1] Thanks for summarizing what I think. I find it very frustrating to
> have to correct people who misunderstand what I am doing. Typically
> they take a path that I must be 100% wrong in everything that I do.
> [2] I am changing mathematics , math that has been done with counting
> numbers for 3 millenium. I have a terrible war on my hands. And I think
> [3] writing. I find it the case that when people want to attack ad
> hominem,it is almost impossible for them to understand what I am about
> and it is impossible for them to give an objective unbiased summary of
> my work. But when people are open minded and do not take me personally
> [??] But when one physics report announces that p-adics are essential in
> physics and that the counting numbers just do not work in the physics
> experiment. Well, my day in the sun has come.
Fine, if that's what you think.
Otherwise I'd call that a paradox. Frank W ~@) R
Subject: Re: Problema de comunicacion ...was soll das?
From: fw7984@csc.albany.edu (WAPPLER FRANK)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 20:09:51 GMT
TJ \"Spark\" Miller jr. wrote (schrieb):
> Was soll das? (What's that supposed to be?)
>
> Frank Wappler wrote:
> > [btw: If anybody could give me a hint how not to `scream' in quotes,
that would be highly appreaciated. By me, for instance]
> >
> > Senior Prof. Mario Ramos Andrade escribio:
> > > ...
> > > Armio
> >
> > Hatta nu, o'r watt?
> diese Tabelle, was ist? [(what does this diagram mean?)]
> >
> > %.
> > - * *~ | *~ | |
> > | | |
> > - | | |
> > * * | *. *. | *. |
> > - | | |
> > | *~ | * |
> > - | | |
> > | *v*~ | * | Frank W ~@) R
> > - | | |
> > * * Ce n'etait pas siff
> %~
> ler.
> >
> > (P.s.: In Mey I'd rather be the whistler than the thinker.)
> Well?.... (Na?....)
Dieses Diagram ist eine meiner e_mail-Unterschriften - ich hielt es f&r;
angemessen eine Post an misc.education, sci.math, rec.org.mensa, rec.puzzles,
misc.creativity, soc.history.science damit zu unterzeichnen, da ich annahm,
da$ jeder (dort) etwas damit anfangen kann.
Dummerweise war meine Annahme zu `deutsch-lastig'; um den ganzen Spa$ davon zu
haben mu$t Du [Sie??] Deine deutschen Freunde fragen, ob sie neulich mal wieder
"Die Sendung mit der Maus" gesehen oder mal wieder Reinhard Mey geh#rt haben,
oder ins Museum gegangen sind oder mal wieder ein gutes Buch gelesen haben ...
Aber eigentlich ist der Spa$ ja `im Selbstversuch', la$ ihn Dir nicht nehmen
... (dang it, german >>really<< is longer :)
(This diagram is one of my e_mail-signatures - which I found appropriate for
signing a post to misc.education, sci.math, rec.org.mensa, rec.puzzles,
misc.creativity, soc.history.science, assuming that it would be understandable
for everybody (there).
Unfortunately, that assumption was too `german-focused'; to appreciate the
complete fun in it you have to ask your german friends whether they've seen
"Die Sendung mit der Maus" (The Program with the Mouse) recently, or listened
to Reinhard Mey, or went to a museum recently or read a good book ...
But actually, the fun is in trying yourself, don't get spoiled ... :)
Frank W ~@) R
Subject: Re: Concepts of Time
From: fw7984@csc.albany.edu (WAPPLER FRANK)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 23:33:25 GMT
toMm wrote:
> Frank Wappler wrote:
> : tOMm wrote: [sorry for so much editing, I hope I captured correctly what I
found inportant]
> : > ... But in fact the Godel sentence is NOT 'constructable'.
> : > ... [yet] 1) ... it is true.
> : > ... [and] it is a valid theorem. There are many valid theorems which
> : > are not 'constructable'. "3=4" is one of them. It's syntactically
> : > correct, yet ... _false_ ... .
> :
> : I rest my case, leaving you with
> :
> : "G#del's First Incompletness Theorem (incomplete version :)"
> :
> : Certain strings formed using the same symbols with which one can form
> : the Peano Axioms are open for interpretation.
> What was your case? That's NOT Godel's theorem, and it's not even true.
[Meanwhile I read in another of your posts that you now `advocate' to call
"3=4" a (synth. correct) proposition, being different from G#del's Theorem.]
My `case' (as became clear in my conversation with Ilias) is, that I
suggest/defend: Consistency is not a property of axioms (by themselves) >>but<<
whether or not the `universe' U( S ) of derivable theorems of an axiom system S
are `true (i.e. typographically simplify to tautologies)' when instanciated
with all (possible/necessary) combinations of `numbers' from some `model' of S.
(In phrasing that I tried to use `familiar' terminology as precisely as I can.)
This includes:
- Peano axioms (PA) are consistent with N (whose elements are of
course `known' by their `trivial names' - 0, 1, 2, ...; but which are `better
characterized' by their properties from U( S ), for instance: "2" == SS0 ==
which satisfies predicates: "2 = S( S0 + 0 )"; "~(S( 2 ) = 0)", etc.) or
- what is `considered' as >>inconsistent axioms<< (again: I say >>to call<< S
inconsistent is ill-defined):
(1) all( x )[ white( x ) ]; (2) all( x )[ ~white( x ) ].
If you propose a `name' for the first element of Def( S ), let's say "a",
then it is >>your decision<< to either: say "x which is white and ~white" is
not an acceptable statement (in a meta language - mind you) and consequently
no such x exists (Def( S ) = {} - I call that consistent); or you say:
"acceptable" and put it in Def( S ) - I call that consistent as well.
The `problem' with `your decision' (as pin-pointed in my discussion with Ilias)
is (traditionally) how to characterise one `number' completely through
predicates if other `numbers' are still undefined. I propose(d) the following
boot-strap solution:
Check only relative to predicates of numbers already admitted to Def( S ), i.e.
relative to the k-th instanciated universe - IUk( S ) (example: propose "e"
as second member and `test' all combinations of propositions from U( S )
involving "a" and "e" - and only "a" and "e", based on that accept "e" or not;
etc.)
There is reason to think that this is a sound method. However, the >>complete
characterization<< of Def( S ) may become a tedious (but enumerable) process.
> Sheesh! Where does all this talk about 'interpretation' come from? This
> is MATH people. Every symbol has a rigidly defined meaning. There are
> no options for interpretation.
The (paradoxial) `interpretation'-problem is thereby removed, or, at least,
separated as instances of a enumerable, quantifyable decision procedure.
Yours truely, Frank W ~@) R
Subject: Re: need help - theory of chances
From: mathar@qtp.ufl.edu (Richard Mathar)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 17:24:18 EST
In article <56fvvu$emg$1@tornix.tornado.be>, jdcloet@tornado.be (Jean Paul De Cloet) writes:
|>
|> We have a circle with a certain radius, (i.e. 40 km) and a certain
|> diameter. In my example the diameter will be 80 km. So in this example
|> the circle has a surface of about 5026 square km.
|> In this circle we have a certain number of points, (i.e. 750). These
|> points are scattered at random.
|> One of these points is the center of the circle.
|> Now we draw a line from the center of the circle to each one of the
|> 749 remaining points, and we prolong this lines till both borders of
|> our circle, so our lines will have a length of 80 km.
|> We give this lines a certain width (i.e. 25 m). So the surface of each
|> line is 2 square km (80000 x 25 = 2000000).
|> On each of the lines we have drawn so far, we find at least 2 of our
|> 750 points (the center is one of our points and we have drawn our line
|> to a second point).
|>
|> Questions.
|> ----------
|>
|> How big are the chances that we find more than 2 points on such a
|> line. How big are the chances that we find lines with 3, 4, 5 or more
|> points on them.
|> When we have drawn all our lines, how many lines will we have with
|> three, four or more points on them.
|>
|> Is it possible to make a formula which allows us to change each one of
|> the four variables I have spoken of.
|> These variables are :
|> 1) The radius of the circle. A longer radius creates a circle with a
|> bigger surface and a shorter radius will result in a smaller surface
|> of our circle.
|> 2) The length of the lines we are drawing. There is less chance that
|> we will find three or more points on a line of only 10 km than on one
|> of 80 km.
|> 3) The number of points which are in the circle. The more points in
|> the circle, the more lines we draw and the bigger the chance to find
|> lines with more than two points on them.
|> 4) The width of our lines. There are more chances to find more than
|> two points on a wide line than on a narrow one.
A partial answer is:
Radius of the circle: r
Diameter of the circle: 2 r
Area of the circle : A=pi*r^2
width of the line: b
surface area of one line (only if b<
Return to Top
Subject: Re: Autodynamics
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 16 Nov 1996 21:03:51 GMT
Mountain Man writes:
>
>Hahahahahahaha ..... end of discussion.
>Hahahahahahaha ..... what an intellectual singularity.
One of the most cogently argued cases for Autodynamics yet.
A combination of ad hominem attack and argument-from-authority (on
the basis that only a non-authority can be trusted to speak with
authority) rather than a single word of comment on the content of
the article. The article raised a particular case that should be
explained by Autodynamics, or another experiment for them to repeat.
>I find sci.physics the most amusing newsgroup to read for this
>very reason ... "Know_it_Alls" - Please stand up and be recognised.
Certainly we see that one of the KnowNothings has stood up.
--
James A. Carr | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Return to Top
Subject: Re: ZEROS of the 13th degree polynomials
From: tleko@aol.com
Date: 17 Nov 1996 05:05:36 GMT
In article <56i2kj$7k4@nuke.csu.net> ikastan@sol.uucp wrote:
:
: Degree 13 is more than enough; your programs are wrong even for
: degree 1. They fail even for the equation z = 0. According to them,
: 2 + 2i is a zero of z = 0, and so is any number c + ic. That's
: some roundoff error!
You missread the subject which is ZEROS of the 13th degree
polynomials. It starts with z^13+... .=0. It is not z+c=0 where
c is a real constant (certainly not an imaginary).
: As long as you keep (-sin(@) + cos(@)) in them, all 200 are and
: will be wrong.
There is no sin(@) or cos(@) anywhere in the program.
Please explain your argument.
Best regards, tleko@aol.com
Return to Top
Subject: Re: Trivia (P9, P14)
From: Kevin Woods
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 23:53:55 -0500
J M Woodgate wrote:
>
> In article <01bbd0e5$4f491b60$f25002d0@macgyver>, Brian Christopher Sapp
> wrote:
> >
> > I would be very pleased if someone could assist me with the following
> > questions:...
> > 2. Some of the factors of a locker number are 2, 5, and 9. If it has
> > exactly nine additional factors, what is the locker number?
>
> *****This problem is ill-defined and insoluble. The nine additional factors
> could be *any* primes (and need not all be different!) e.g. 2x3x3x5x7^9 is
> a solution, or even 2^10x3x3x5.
The question asks about factors, not just prime factors.
Also, before resorting to much mathematics, consider that the number must be a multiple of 2*5*9. So first
off, how many factors in addition to 2,5, and 9 does 90 have?
We see that it has 9 additional ones, as the question wants.
So, we know that 90 is an answer... could any larger multiple of 90 be an answer? (Which we will leave
unanswered so as not to completely solve the problem)
-Kevin Woods
Return to Top
Subject: Re: zeros of a 200th degree polynomial
From: jasonp@Glue.umd.edu (Jason Stratos Papadopoulos)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 06:05:33 GMT
For the original poster who needed to find the zeros of a 200th degree
polynomial when they're all very close together...One idea is to find
a single root using Newton's method, then deflate the polynomial. Then use
the value gotten as a starting point for one iteration (or two if you want
lots of accuracy) of Newton's method to find the root that's closest to
it, deflate the polynomial, lather, rinse, repeat.
The only problem I see is the roundoff error inherent in even evaluating a
polynomial that big. Also be careful that you don't get chaos bouncing
around from root to root.
Or you could just use roots() in Matlab; the folks at the Mathworks know
way more about the subject than I do.
jasonp
Return to Top
Subject: help: solve this functional relation
From: jasonp@Glue.umd.edu (Jason Stratos Papadopoulos)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 06:19:56 GMT
Hello. I've run across a problem that has me stumped. How would
you go about finding a function "f" such that
1 1
f ( ----------- ) = j f( --- ) ?
2(1+j)(1-j) 1-j
I don't even know where to begin. My guess is that the above defines
an invariance relation for some sort of integral that uses j as a param-
eter.
Anyway, j is supposed to be close to 1, and an asymptotic series for f is
2 3 4 5
(j-1) (j-1) (j-1) 23 (j-1) 263 (j-1)
f(j) = 1 + ----- - ------ + ------ - --------- + ---------- - ....
3 45 189 14175 4677775
Can such a problem even be solved in closed form?
Thanks in advance,
jasonp
Return to Top
Subject: Math Software
From: Jerry Gerber
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 23:10:24 -0800
I am involved in a self-study program in Mathematics, and currently at
intermediate algebra level.
Does anybody know of any excellent software for the PC (for adults,
hopefully) that I can use to continue my studies of algebra, geometry,
trigonometry and calculus?
Thank you for any suggestions...
Jerry Gerber
--
http://www.slip.net/~jgerber
mailto:jgerber@slip.net
Return to Top
Subject: how far into the desert can a jeep go?
From: "Nelson G. Rich"
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 17:47:03 -0500
I can't recall the exact phrasing of this "old chestnut", but it goes
something like this. A jeep that gets such-and-such gas mileage, and with
a gas tank of such and such, and that can hold such-and-such extra gallons
of gas, etc, is to be used to establish a base camp (or something) in the
desert. How far into the desert can it go, etc, etc,
Does this ring a bell with anyone? Thanks for your help,
===========================================================================
Nelson G. Rich | E-mail: rich@naz.edu
Department of Mathematics & Computer Science | Voice: (716) 389-2662
Nazareth College | FAX: (716) 586-2452
4245 East Avenue, Rochester, NY 14618-3790 | WWW: http://www.naz.edu/
U.S.A. | "Only the educated are free."
===========================================================================
Return to Top
Downloaded by WWW Programs
Byron Palmer
