sci.math Google Group

Re: Introducing Form1™, a quick and tiny web browser from MeAmI™

2009-11-23T00:57:21Z

On Nov 22, 7:02 pm, "Boner J. Skidmark" <I_am_a_t...@yahoo.co.jp>
wrote:
hmm... why are you so angry?
maybe you are not
mEami at my b all s, you space m minimum g receive t under m upload
of b omega at r see m english.
Eat my balls, you spamming rectum load of boar semen.
e@space my b all s com ma AP

Re: The Bible And Evolution..compatible?

2009-11-23T00:52:17Z

LOL! I don't know where they pulled that from, but it is no the
scientific method.

Re: The Bible And Evolution..compatible?

2009-11-23T00:51:22Z

Liar, you very clearly dodged it.

Re: The Bible And Evolution..compatible?

2009-11-23T00:51:02Z

Exactly, but one is a theory, and the other is "absolute babble
truth!!!" (pount my bible, yah, yah, yah!!) A lot of theories have
no face. Are you equating your god thing to a theory?

Re: A new definition of Cardinality.

2009-11-23T00:51:00Z

I think you mean in theories like ZF or Scott-Potters', however
in NF and related theories, Neither choice nor regularity
are need to define cardinals, and I do have
the vague sense that this definition of mine here
do not depend on them either?!
Zuhair

Re: The Bible And Evolution..compatible?

2009-11-23T00:49:22Z

But the physics are different. Let me know if you're too slow to
understand that. VTOL =! Balloon.

Re: A new definition of Cardinality.

2009-11-23T00:48:11Z

The above link actually speaks of ZFC, but I don't know really if this
actually depends on choice or not? or weather regularity is needed or
not?
It seems that I got the wrong impression then.
Zuhair

Re: Math/CompSci Interview Question - Thoughts?

2009-11-23T00:45:33Z

Well he certainly wasn't trying to use you as cheap labour to solve his
latest coding problem, that's for sure :) It's a rare interviewer who
asks questions to which he doesn't already know the answer...
Not necessarily - the purpose of these things isn't always to see
whether you can immediately get the right answer. Often they really want

Re: A new definition of Cardinality.

2009-11-23T00:45:30Z

Possibly that we would help:
[link]
Zuhair

Re: General Physical Constant Theorem.By Aiya-Oba

2009-11-23T00:39:34Z

Congratulations for your thoroughly useless numerology.

Re: A new definition of Cardinality.

2009-11-23T00:37:45Z

Well, to say the truth I am not sure either. But from my prior
discussions
I got the impression that working in ZF minus Regularity minus Choice,
it is provable that:
for any set there exist a set of exactly all sets that are
hereditarily strictly sub-numerous to it.
I remember the prove needed some form of induction or so.

Re: f(x)*f(-x)=y(x)

2009-11-23T00:18:32Z

Oh, right. For some demented period I was thinking that f had to be
even, though in that case it would be just sqrt(y) and the whole thing
would be trivial.
- Tim

Re: A new definition of Cardinality.

2009-11-23T00:16:40Z

But the question arises: can you prove in ZF that every set has a
cardinality, on this definition? Not quite obvious to me just at the
moment...
I have an idea that it is known that you need choice or regularity in
order to define cardinals...

Re: f(x)*f(-x)=y(x)

2009-11-23T00:12:33Z

There was a thread awhile back about polynomials
(in several variables) with this property. I'll
see if I can find it (perhaps you started it?).
In any case if we have an even polynomial p(x^2)
in one variable over an algebraically closed
field, it is easily shown p(x^2) = f(x)*f(-x) by
segregating +/- root pairs into polynomial factors.

Re: z^2 represented as a complex power series

2009-11-23T00:11:28Z

Have you actually tried working out the expressions for the n-th
derivative of f? Say, for n > 2?
You obviously need to do the previous part first. The radius of
convergence will be obvious.
- Tim