Mathematics

To me, axiom-systems seem to basically be ownships (properties). For instance, the group-axiom-system is basically the ownship of being an ordered pair \((G, *)\) such that \(G\) is a set and \(*\) is a function from \(G\times G\) to \(G\) such that \(*\) is associative and has an identity element and each member of \(G\) has an inverse element with regard to \(*\). Just as the axiom-system itself is an ownship, so are what are called “propositions in the language/speech of the system” actually properties. For instance, when we say: “The proposition that the sum of the inner angles of a triangle is always 180° follows from the Euclidean axioms“, we actually mean tha…

INPG

hello dear scientists; as I mentioned before times ,I have some interdisciplinary studies and some of them are article and as I understood; because of it might take longer time (taking patent) for scientific pojects ,I think it might be better to prepare the article ones. I am sure ,some of my article schemes should be unique and newest , but again some of them might be the articles that had been created and published in the past by other scientists. (how may we be confident that it had not been published in the past) ? this was the first question, secondly I would ask something about citing ; -->> do we have to cite from the articles whic…

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?

I realized something the other day. Almost every three-dimensional shape we know of - cube, cone, cylinder, prisms, etc - can be formed simply by extending their two-dimensional equivalents - square, circle, trapezoid, etc. - into the third dimension; in other words by being given depth. There are several that this doesn't really apply for such as the square based pyramid, but that is a combination of the square and triangular-faced cone. The sphere however is different; because technically it has no two dimensional equivalent, most would say that the circle is the 2d sphere, but in reality the circle is a 2d cylinder, since if you give a circle depth, it becomes a cy…

Happy pi day everyone...yep its 22/7 meaning its national pi day...so celebrate by using pi

Is it at all possible to have the number 0.0(reoccuring)1? or for that matter any other number at the end? my idea is that the number is 0.0 with an uneding string of 0s on the end, but if it did have an end, it would end in 1. Is this possible?

is the world a graphic function in 3 dimensional cordinate system or a infinite convergent series ?

When we try to write Pi in decimal notation, we get an endless stream of digits. 3.141592653589723.....and so on forever. This seems counter-intuitive. You'd think that a simple thing, like the ratio between the radius and circumference of a circle, ought to be a simple, precise number. After all, isn't the Universe made almost entirely of circular and round things. Could the seeming lack of precision in Pi, be due to our human custom of using decimal notation. For example, if we divide something into 3 parts, each part is then, in decimal notation, an imprecise 0.333333333.... of the original. But suppose instead, we use Fractional notation. Then w…

If you theoretically had negative lengths, what are some ways they would differ from positive lengths?

I have learned that Dave plays trombone - I play flute. My mother was a very accomplished organist and could play 2 manuals, pedals, and change stops simultaneously. Where am I going with this? How much does mathmatical abilitity enhance musical ability and vice-versa? Think about it. You're sightreading - it's syncopated, you have to mentally compute the measure in advance to know how it will come out. If you're sight reading, and you're good at it, you're reading at least 4 measures ahead of what you're playing. Throw into the mix that the key signature and the time signature may be changing. It's challenging when you're dealing with one line of music. …

Hi, i'm new, and i wanted to share a very simple algebra problem i like. [math]x^{2x}=2x[/math] It's very simple, but not as easy as it looks, if you know the answer right away, give others a chance.

Suppose i have the following function of the variable z: [math] f(z) = \frac{z^2-1}{z-1} [/math] Is it true or false that f(1) = 2 ?

Can somebody please explain to me why zero violates common sense? Every other number including infinity, divided by itself equals one, so why doesn't the same apply to zero as well? After all, since there are numbers which are less than zero, zero itself is logically a number too, and zero does go into itself once. It just seems totally counter-intuitive that 0/0 doesn't equal one. And while we're talking about counter-intuitive math, can someone also explain why a negative times a negative equals a positive, even though a positive times a positive doesn't equal a negative. Please don't use fancy terms that none but a math major could understand.

i know this is a reall general and broad question{and stupid/new to this world sounding}, im just wondering what kind of answers ill get. i love math, but when i ask myself this question, i seem to lack the answer.

Hi, I have discovered a good solution to find a polynomial formula that goes through the specific points. Please first visit my page and give me your feedback http://wahamira.net/math/find-polynomial.htm Regards,

According to the law of infinite probability, if you were to take a good basketball player and have them shoot 100 free throws an infinite number of times (ignoring fatigue) is it possible for him to eventually miss all 100. I am an assistant coach and had an argument with the head coach over this. Thank you.

The rays of the sun that hit the planet Earth are parallel, we know that. Even ancient Greek Eratosthenes knew that because he used this particularity for measuring the Earth's radius. Then the question arises: why at the sunset do we see the sun rays converging towards the sun? (it is a sequel of an old thread I cannot find back)

What is the largest number value in base-10 you can write with just 3 digits? No symbols and characters allowed. Hints: it's not 999 Ask someone to write the largest 3-digit number and they'll respond with 999. Logical answer, but we can go bigger. Some may get the "power" brainwave and think of 999 (99 to the power of 9), which calculates out as 99×99×99×99×99×99×99× 99×99. Even better is 999 (9 to the power of 99) which calculates out as 9×9×9×9×9×9×9 ... and so on 99 times. The correct answer, however, if you extend the idea even further ends up as... 99^9 (9 to the 9th power of 9). Work out the second and third powers first (9×9×9×9×9×9×9×9×9 = …

Any Positive Natural Number N can be written as a positive sum of the Powers of 2 ! N = 2a + 2b ..... with as many terms as require where a , b , c etc are all Natural positive Numbers from [ 0,1,2,3 .....] These powers a, b, etc in the sequence will be PRESENT or ABSENT in the Equation only once. No repetition is required. This is nothing but a Binary Number representing the powers of 2 which add up to be equal to N. Similarly any N can be written as N = an additions or subtractions of Powers of 3 OCCURRING only once. N = 3a ± 3b ± 3c etc again a,b,c etc needing to appear only once ! Any number higher than 3 will not be able to produce such …

Stupid question, would a constant composed of all the primes 23571113... be an irrational number? I've been thinking it would be, but wanted to double check.

Title says it all. I've been challenged by my teacher to do this. I am currently doing it out by hand, it it is extremely tedious and annoying. Are there other more efficient ways to do this? Thanks in advance. (P.S. I know I can put it into wolfram, I do have the answer. I just need to figure it out by hand)

Square Through Squares Copyrighted©PiyushGoel

Can anyone explain in one paragraph or equation how the Riemann hypothesis implies a pattern in Prime numbers? The hypothesis an easy enough to follow the problem, but the pattern in Primes is not clear to me. I’m sure a Google search may be helpful, but I wanted to work it through on my own. I find it helpful to take one small part if the problem and see what it does. Take the book Practical Cryptography. It explains all the ciphers. They are all open source. Doesn’t mean you can solve them but it lets you see the inner workings. That is what I need an explanation of the patterns in Primes in the Riemann hypothesis. I hope you understand why I just don’t g…

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.