sci.math Google Group

Re: Satisfying Cardons' impossible quadratic equation.

k_over_hb...@yahoo.com (Andrew Usher) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:33:20 UT

Wrong. And by the way "Cardon" [sic] solved this correctly 500 years
ago.
Andrew Usher

Re: question about integers / divisibility

isr...@math.myuniversitysinitials.ca (Robert Israel) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:27:34 UT

You might also try p=5, q=9, r=16, n=4.

INVERSE 19 " AN EQUATION TO HONOR OUR FRIEND PROF EDGAR ESCULTURA PHD, PERHAPS THE MATHEMATICIAN OF THE 2OTH CENTURY

hope9...@verizon.net (Inverse 19 mathematics) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:26:12 UT

Because Prof Escultura had the intution to know which "way Lady
Mathematics lays" and tried to disprove Andrew Wiles of Princeton
and 0.999, and he has tried to disprove Inverse 19 , but has not
suceeded. This Mystery equation is in his honor from Inverse 19 the
new mathematics:
(1/2+1/3) - (1/3+1/4) =

Re: 'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False?

namducngu...@shaw.ca (Nam Nguyen) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:12:41 UT

What are those specific technical reasons that you _actually_
used to back you up?

Re: JSH: Math, logic, pragmatic reality and primes

amz...@gmail.com (amzoti) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:54:14 UT

You mean like when you wrote the following.

Re: Messages From the Stone Age (New Scientist 20.02.2010)

pe...@zohrab.name (peter zohrab) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:48:17 UT

On Feb 27, 2:37 am, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
wrote:
Thank you for the links (one of which I knew about), but they don't
disprove my suggestion that education of the young is just as special
about (if not unique to) humans as language and tool-use. Probably,
they are all (i.e. language, tool use and education) non-unique but

Re: Messages From the Stone Age (New Scientist 20.02.2010)

pe...@zohrab.name (peter zohrab) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:36:26 UT

On Feb 26, 5:51 am, Harlan Messinger
Not at all. The fact that scientists *think* that their purpose is
the conception and testing of more new ideas does not prevent them
from being less open to radically new ideas than to ideas which are
closer to their accustomed ways of thinking.

Re: JSH: Math, logic, pragmatic reality and primes

anonymous.rubbert...@yahoo.com (A) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:33:43 UT

What do you think it means for something to be an axiom?

Re: Messages From the Stone Age (New Scientist 20.02.2010)

pe...@zohrab.name (peter zohrab) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:33:29 UT

The relevance to sci.lang is that some other people have assumed that
the symbols are likely to be linguistic in nature. I do not assume
that my proposal is necessarily correct, so I posted to sci.lang in
order for there to be discussion (or at least thought) as to whether
they are linguistic, arithmetical, or some other kind of symbol.

Re: JSH: Biggest mystery, pondering again hostility

jst...@gmail.com (JSH) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:27:28 UT

But what's the correlation?
I mean, dude, you're not making any sense. Nothing you put in the
post can handle just that simple question which shows all you put is
crap.
Can you connect the dots?
What's the correlation?
James Harris

Re: JSH: Math, logic, pragmatic reality and primes

jst...@gmail.com (JSH) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:21:58 UT

Maybe. I don't know. Years ago it was just this notion that I'd find
a simple proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, hoping maybe there was one,
when I believed Andrew Wiles had a proof.
But I mean, how could I REALLY take that seriously? I kind of did but
also it wasn't like there was much of a downside. Try. Fail. So

Re: 'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False?

marshall.spi...@gmail.com (Marshall) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:07:06 UT

I do, but they involve logic and reasoning, so you're shit-out-of-
luck.
Marshall

Re: Upper Bound to a recurrence relation.

n...@no.no (James Waldby) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:05:12 UT

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:32:29 -0500,
Write p = y_n and q = y_(n+1) for brevity and suppose p = 3-d
for some small positive d. Then q = 5 - 6/p = 5 - 6/(3-d) =
( 15 - 5*d - 6)/(3-d) = (9-5*d)/(3-d) < (9-3*d)/(3-e) = 3.

Re: question about integers / divisibility

isr...@math.myuniversitysinitials.ca (Robert Israel) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:03:10 UT

Try p=q=1. But otherwise it is true.
Try p=1, q=1, r=2.

Re: Satisfying Cardons' impossible quadratic equation.

jclarke.use...@cox.net (J. Clarke) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:35:23 UT

Changing an equation to another equation and then solving it and saying
that the solution is "correct" is not "thinking outside the box", it is
lying.
Why are you plotting "this curve starting in the 4th and then passing
into the third quadrant" when the equation you are talking about has no
points in either of those quadrants?