The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: threedimensionalworld on June 02, 2011, 12:45:44 PM

Got any math questions you've wanted answers to but too afraid to ask? ILL TRY TO ANSWER THEM (unless someone else does it better first). 8)
(I make this thread for you because of the interest in math here)

Does P = NP?

Why can't I divide by zero?

Does P = NP?
Think carefully, 3DW. We have $1,000,000 riding on this.

Does P = NP?
Obviously P is not equal to NP, sorry if you wanted proof... I can't prove it.
Why can't I divide by zero?
Normally you can't divide by zero because multiplication by zero wouldn't give back the original (it would give zero instead), of course there are situations where you can too.

im going to bed will answer more questions tommorow.

does e?

does e?
does e what??

Say you have 1 divided by 0, I think it would give 1 because you haven't divided it by anything.

Exact value of Pi. No rounding please.

Exact value of Pi. No rounding please.
At my local chippy, ?3.10. You may have misspelt pie.

Say you have 1 divided by 0, I think it would give 1 because you haven't divided it by anything.
hahaha
Exact value of Pi. No rounding please.
pi is what mathematicians call a real number. This is defined as an infinite sequence of fractions which "gets closer and closer" to some limit. One way of writing out these sequences is using digits e.g. 3.141592653589... corresponds to the sequence (3,31/10,314/100,31415/100,...) but the ...'s are cheating: every ... should be able to be replaced with a method for continuing it indefinitely. The solution is to write a formula for the sequence of fractions: Here is one: f(0) = 0; f(n+1) = f(n) + (4(1)^n)/(2n+1)
So f(1) = 0 + 4/1 = 4; f(2) = 4  4/3; f(3) = 4  4/3 + 4/5; f(4) = 4  4/3 + 4/5  4/7; f(5) = 1052/315; f(6) = 10312/3465.
so pi = (f(n))_n = (4,8/3,52/15,304/105,1052/315,10312/3465,...)
if you have any more questions about it ask away!

pi is what mathematicians call a real number.
I think you mean irrational. Of course it's real.

Is the real part of any nontrivial zero in the Riemann zeta function 1/2?

pi is what mathematicians call a real number.
I think you mean irrational. Of course it's real.
(http://www.meh.ro/wpcontent/uploads/2010/07/meh.ro4851.jpg)

Is the real part of any nontrivial zero in the Riemann zeta function 1/2?
:'( :'( :'( :'(
what the heck sort of answer did you want?

Can you give me a proof for the segment addition postulate? It's gonna be on my test.

Is the real part of any nontrivial zero in the Riemann zeta function 1/2?
:'( :'( :'( :'(
what the heck sort of answer did you want?
THE CORRECT ONE! I expect a proof.

Say you have 1 divided by 0, I think it would give 1 because you haven't divided it by anything.
hahaha
What? I think we can safely say that zero means nothing. I am not holding an apple, I have zero apples. Zero denotes nonexistence, as there is nothing there. Thus, you are dividing it by nothing, which is another way of saying you are not dividing it by anything.

What? I think we can safely say that zero means nothing. I am not holding an apple, I have zero apples. Zero denotes nonexistence, as there is nothing there. Thus, you are dividing it by nothing, which is another way of saying you are not dividing it by anything.
By that logic, multiplying 1 by 0 also gives you 1, because you have not multiplied it by anything.
For a more direct rebuttal, consider what division means. 8 divided by 5 means "8 divided into 5 equal parts"  each part would be 1.6 in magnitude. Now consider the meaning of 1 divided by 0; if you divide a single unit of something  say, a brick  into exactly zero parts, how many bricks do you have in each part? It isn't 1, because zero parts of one brick each nets you zero bricks.

Can you give me a proof for the segment addition postulate? It's gonna be on my test.
??? I don't know what theory you are even talking about, it will be easiest for you to read notes about this or ask your teacher..

Is the real part of any nontrivial zero in the Riemann zeta function 1/2?
Yes. All of them, in fact. I would write down the proof, but it is too large to fit in the margins.

Is the real part of any nontrivial zero in the Riemann zeta function 1/2?
Yes. All of them, in fact. I would write down the proof, but it is too large to fit in the margins.
Oh, how conveeeeeenient.

ooo. I have a question actually... so I have been trying to come up with a "nice" equation that describes the electric field inside the plane of a ring... my integrals keep getting reaaaaally ugly and I was wondering if you can come up with a nice integral for it...

4+4/4=?

4+4/4=?
2, obviously.

4+4/4=?
2, obviously.
It's funny because you knowingly gave the wrong answer.
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofileaksnc4/41800_132964640069789_7386_n.jpg)

Prove that the derivative of e^x is e^x.

4+4/4=?
2, obviously.
It's funny because you knowingly gave the wrong answer.
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofileaksnc4/41800_132964640069789_7386_n.jpg)
It's funny because nobody writes equations that way. Math is a language, and writing 4+4/4 is just poor wording on the writer's part because it is ambiguous. Now, if we follow the order of operations to the letter, yes, we'll get five. However, real mathematicians write it like this:
(http://euclid.hamline.edu/~arundquist/latex/showequation.php?eqn_id=182871)
OR
(http://euclid.hamline.edu/~arundquist/latex/showequation.php?eqn_id=182872)

4+4/4=?
2, obviously.
It's funny because you knowingly gave the wrong answer.
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofileaksnc4/41800_132964640069789_7386_n.jpg)
It's funny because nobody writes equations that way. Math is a language, and writing 4+4/4 is just poor wording on the writer's part because it is ambiguous. Now, if we follow the order of operations to the letter, yes, we'll get five. However, real mathematicians write it like this:
(http://euclid.hamline.edu/~arundquist/latex/showequation.php?eqn_id=182871)
OR
(http://euclid.hamline.edu/~arundquist/latex/showequation.php?eqn_id=182872)
It isn't ambiguous at all if the reader is at all familiar with the order of operations.

Is the real part of any nontrivial zero in the Riemann zeta function 1/2?
Yes. All of them, in fact. I would write down the proof, but it is too large to fit in the margins.
Fermat: the greatest troll in the history of mathematics.

Prove that the derivative of e^x is e^x.
dx[ln(x)] = 1/x
dx[ln(e^x)] = dx[e^x]/e^x = dx[ x ] =1
For a fraction to be equal to one, both the numerator and denominator must be the same. Therefore, dx[e^x] = e^x
Man, e is awesome.

What is 33+ 17? ???

ooo. I have a question actually... so I have been trying to come up with a "nice" equation that describes the electric field inside the plane of a ring... my integrals keep getting reaaaaally ugly and I was wondering if you can come up with a nice integral for it...
http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/curloo.html#c1

ooo. I have a question actually... so I have been trying to come up with a "nice" equation that describes the electric field inside the plane of a ring... my integrals keep getting reaaaaally ugly and I was wondering if you can come up with a nice integral for it...
http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/curloo.html#c1
'thanks but that is the magnetic field at the center of a current loop. I was looking for the electric field as a function as how far we are from the center of the loop while still being in the plane.

Someone tell me how thick the ice wall would have to be to hold in the world's oceans. I did it myself, but there's a lot of room for error and I want to be double checked. I came up with about 5/8 of a mile.

What is 33+ 17? ???
I'm still waiting. I thought this was just a troll thread. >:(

Is the real part of any nontrivial zero in the Riemann zeta function 1/2?
Yes. All of them, in fact. I would write down the proof, but it is too large to fit in the margins.
That's the quote from Fermat's Small Theorem and not the Poincare and not suitable for the Riemann hypothesis.

It's funny because nobody writes equations that way. Math is a language, and writing 4+4/4 is just poor wording on the writer's part because it is ambiguous.
lrn2linear notation
dx[ln(x)] = 1/x
Hold your horses. ln(x)dx = 1/x is a direct result of e^xdx = e^x. You can't prove the rule with itself.
Also, (for some obscure reason) you've used the chain rule without proving its validity. That's no proof at all. It's just restating what you were supposed to prove.

Hold your horses. ln(x)dx = 1/x is a direct result of e^xdx = e^x. You can't prove the rule with itself.
Also, (for some obscure reason) you've used the chain rule without proving its validity. That's no proof at all. It's just restating what you were supposed to prove.
I'll prove ln(x)dx = 1/x, too then. And what do you mean 'without proving its validity'? The chain rule has already been proven to work with any function, hasn't it?
e = lim (x>Math.huge) [(1 + 1/x)^x], by definition
dx[ln(x)] = lim (Δx>0) [(ln(x + Δx)  ln(x)) / Δx], by definition
ln(x)  ln(y) = ln(x/y)
dx[ln(x)] = lim (Δx>0) [(ln((x + Δx) / x)) / Δx]
dx[ln(x)] = lim (Δx>0) [(1 / Δx)(ln(1 + Δx/x)]
Let u = x / Δx
As Δx approaches infinite, u approaches 0.
1 / Δx = u / x
Δx / x = 1 / u
dx[ln(x)] = lim (u>infinite) [(u / x)(ln(1 + 1/u)], by substitution
dx[ln(x)] = lim (u>infinite) [(1 / x)ln(1 + 1/u)^u]
1/x is a constant, so
dx[ln(x)] = (1 / x)lim (u>infinite) [ln(1 + 1/u)^u]
From the limit of the composition of functions,...
dx[ln(x)] = (1 / x)ln(lim (u>infinite) [(1 + 1/u)^u])
lim (u>infinite) [(1 + 1/u)^u] = e, by definition
dx[ln(x)] = (1 / x)ln(e)
dx[ln(x)] = 1 / x
:\

when, where, and how were diagonal matrices first stacked and integrated into the same math model creating a math model capable of combining an infinite number of variables into a single math platform, or the beginning of emperical matrix ?

when, where, and how were diagonal matrices first stacked and integrated into the same math model creating a math model capable of combining an infinite number of variables into a single math platform, or the beginning of emperical matrix ?
wut

e = lim (x>Math.huge) [(1 + 1/x)^x], by definition
This is not the definition of e. It's a derived equation. Derive it if you want to use it.

when, where, and how were diagonal matrices first stacked and integrated into the same math model creating a math model capable of combining an infinite number of variables into a single math platform, or the beginning of emperical matrix ?
This is a history question. Go and create a history questions thread if you want to post things like this.

diagonalize my avatar