Mathematics

I was just curious to know whether people think there is a definite dividing line between the two, because it would seem somewhat intuitive for a mathematician to be numerologists by default. One such line ive heard drawn is when you look for a specific number or pattern everywhere, because doing so is a somewhat self-fulfilling prophecy. Also certain patterns and numbers of significance i believe do repeat in nature everywhere so where is line the drawn? Primarily PI, Fib and the golden ratio seem to be recurring everywhere. However you also get people finding abstract relations in patters of stairs or such which is nonsensical in my mind. So where do…

This is a question about the nature of Mathematics as a language. The question is very simple, as the thread name suggests, but I’ll expand my own perception of it here and so it would be helpful if someone can leave a few comments. Is mathematics relative or absolute? My insight developed as follows…; If Mathematics as language was invented by us it was definitely invented based on the observations of the physical space and laws on our planet. To simplify; we can find one thing in common between 2 yellow stones on one location and then 2 blue stones on another – the fact that there are 2 stones in each group. So number 2 is the commonality. If we add these 2 groups …

A mathematical proof is counted as valid if it is consistently verifiable using accepted axioms. But how about these axioms? Let us take the most fundamental and universally accepted axiom (in fact, it's so universally accepted that it hasn't even been officially listed as one). Let's take the axiom 1 = 1, or x = x. In first grade books, integers are depicted as fruit. An apple plus an apple equals two apples. This is a useful concretisation. If mathematics is correct, then this kind of concretised example must be correct, since "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" - the proof of the theory is in its applicability to the real world. There are serious probl…

I remember hearing someone say "almost infinite" in this video. As someone who hasn't studied very much math, "almost infinite" sounds like nonsense. Either something ends or it doesn't, there really isn't a spectrum of unending-ness. In this video he says that ''almost infinite'' pieces of verticle lines are placed along X length. Why not infinit?

In another thread on this subject it was stated that “we can establish a one-to-one mapping between any Rm and any Rn.” There is a relationship that occurs in R3 that I believe cannot be mapped to R2. The relationship exists between the sphere center and the surface curvature. I believe that because R2 has no third orthogonal plane or axis that this relationship does not exist in R2. This is best described as a relationship that exists between the tangent to a small circle on the surface of a ball and the gross position of the ball in 3-space. The illustrations show how this relationship can be seen. Mathematically, it is expressed as an identity…

Hello to All You Great Mathematicians Out There! I am in desperate need to try and validate what would seem to be a simple mathematical procedure to determine the angle with which a Police Officer acquired a lock on my vehicle during a speed trap. I have already been to court and convicted and am now in my 11th hour of writing my appeal brief. The Laser Technologies (LTI) 20-20 UltraLyte users manual indicates that based on the feet with which the Police Officer locked my vehicle (573 feet) and the fact that he was 72 feet off the direct line of site of my vehicle (6 lanes at 12 feet per lane) that the reading would be considered "Unacceptable" by LTI. This is …

hi, beginning to self study mathematics and was wondering if you could recommend some favourite books, ones that you found helpful or progressed your interest in maths. Would like books that are accessible to the average reader and provide a basis to build on. David

I would just like to state that the concept of Infinity does not actually exist, it is merely a device fabricated by the mind's inability to grasp the size of the universe. Everything is finite even Pi and the Universe. We havent found the end yet because our computers are made to think in terms of infinity. Time is a similar device, simply another device made by man to aid in the understanding of the 4 dimensions respectively.... Furthermore , the human race is one of pompous beings, how could anyone of us have the gall to truly believe that we are infact at the top of the genetic roster?! Please respond with any words that you would like, we are having trouble..

Hi I was just wondering if you can help me out on this. Note: this isn't a homework question ok! How you convert the wavenumber in cm^-1 into nm. I know if it said that you had to convert that wavenumber into nm^-1 it would be X 10^10. You people think that I might have to multiply it by 10^-10? Any help appreciated.

Hello Folks, [1] Can someone please explain that bold text in a bit more detail ? When is it convenient (under what contexts) ? [2] If we define a sphere in spherical coordinates, with the centre at the origin, and a positive radius R If we then change the sign of the radius to -R what are the implications Where does this "new sphere" exist in relation to the old sphere ? (a) in mathematical terms (b) in practical reality Cheers Rich

Myself and a few friends have been wondering what exactly infinity is, and does it really exist? i, personally, do not believe in infinity. what are your views?

What would you say is the validity of statistics? Also, if you're going to support your argument with definitions please don't, as I think you must ask yourself why you have so much confidence in the definitions in the 1st place I believe the uncertainty just encourages people to not search for the *real* relationship or variables / constants, and it also encourages pointless studies that emphasizes on correlation when the true relationship (if existent at all) is *not* proven. This also goes for probability, however, I heard that probability is quite applicable in quantum physics.

If I have some function like y = kx/(1+x) How do I take the derivative of dln(y)/dln(x) ln is natural log... Can someone do like a step by step kind of a thing...

I put this challenging puzzle in the “Brain Teaser and Puzzles” forum but nobody tried to solve it so far, so I decided to post it in this forum as well. I hope it does not amount to a “spam”.

e^(i*pi)+1=0. What is it used for? Why is it special? Ok, it relates pi,e, i, 1, and 0, but does it have a practical application?

Are there other triangles like Pascal's triangle? His triangle amazes me, and have inspired me to make my own, and I'm just convinced about that numbers are more than just numbers. But are there other triangles or "models" except those who are listed under "See also" in wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_triangle#See_also I enjoy comparing my own triangles with other triangles and see how it all just fits together. Yeah, I'm a total nerd... But ofcourse, I'm not going to hide that I want to see if my triangles already have been "presented", or whatever the correct wording would be.

Epsilon = Invariant Proportion About 3.14... = circumference/diameter: Let us say that Epsilon is equivalent to the invariant proportion that can be found in the triangles below. (VERY IMPORTANT: When Epsilon = Invariant Proportion, then there is no connection to words like 'smaller' or 'bigger' or 'size' or 'magnitude' or 'Quantity', and the reason is clearly explained) , |\ | \ | \ | \ | | | |\ | | \ | | \ | | \ | | | | | |\ | | | \ | | | \ | | | | | | | |\ | | | | \ | | | | | | | | | |\ |____|____|___|__|_\ Each arbitrary right triangle's area is smalle…

Is the equation: (T/T)a^x=T(a/T)^((xln(a)/(ln(T))-1)/(ln(a)/(ln(T))-1)) true or false? If true, then can we "cross out" the T's and make them "disappear" the way we were taught in school? Don.

I need to present rounded numbers in my software. For example, after calculating "sqrt(2)", the software could display the result as: "1.414" (it only shows the result to a 'reasonable' precision). How to mark this number as a round-off number? Is there a standard notation in mathematics? From the displayed value it should be immediately visible if the result is rounded or exact. For example, consider the following two cases: 1/8 = 0.125 (the exact value) sqrt(2) = 1.414 (rounded value) If there is no standard way to somehow mark numbers that are rounded, I was thinking to put a dash under (or over) the last digit. Or maybe printing out the last digi…

http://www.authspot.com/Thoughts/Is-Luck-Real.255107 This is something i found and i was wondering if someone could explain the math in the third paragraph.

Is there someway that I can work out mod values without a this button?

I have asked this question before but have never really had a satisfactory answer to it, so I will throw it out here and see what happens. the problem is based on a faulty lightbulb that flashs. However it's flashing is based on the infamous infinite sequence 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ..... i.e. the light is on for 1 minute and off for 1/2 a minute, goes on for 1/4 of a minute and off for 1/8th of a minute. Now it is well known that this sequence never reaches 2. Therefore at two minutes is the bulb on or off???? Now I'm well aware that this could not physically happen due to the nature of a light bulb, but I want a theoretical answer! i.e. the ideal light bulb, …

0 / 2 = Half of 0 Half of 0 / 2 = Quarter of 0 .5----------5----------5 ...4--------4--------4. .....3------3------3.... .......2----2----2....... ...........1-1-1........... 5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5 ...........1-1-1........... .......2----2----2........ .....3------3------3..... ...4--------4--------4.. .5----------5----------5 I don't understand why '0' is the end. 0 is open to each way, it shouldn't only move forwards "0 1 2 3 4" in this fashion. We created that system, it's not the natural system.

If 50÷1 is 50 so 1 fits 50 times so I need to ask you how many times does 0 fit in 0 0 times right? So 0÷0=0?

As we all know, there exist many arguments that 0.999...=1. All of the proofs I have seen are based upon arguments drawn from mid-level mathematics. As a philosopher, this bothers me because, when proofs of a basic-level proposition depend upon mid-level arguments, there is the obvious danger that these arguments, if analysed and deconstructed in sufficient detail, will be found to be question-begging; that's to say, at some point, we may find that they have assumed the conclusion as a premise. So my question is: is there any way by which we can mount an argument that 0.999...=1 by arguing "upwards" from the axioms and definitions of arithmetic, rather than "…