Trurl

Here are 2 equations that are not algebraically useful, but the graph is gold dust. http://www.constructorscorner.net/Files/GraphicCalcSimple.pdf GraphicCalcSimple.pdf

And that reduces to x^4= 0. Can you solve THAT polynomial equation? That is exactly what I am saying: the traditional simplification rules do not solve the equations accurately. I’m saying there must be new rules needing discovered that would solve solutions that were once impossible. Like calculus was discovered as a need to solve physics. Graph Y1graph and Y2graph and see the solution of pnp. We have more options with a plot. We can see where they intersect. I know the equations don’t seem to be of any value, but a graph opens up new approaches. Is a computer plot in polynomial time? I don’t know if it is simpler then recursion, but it seems fast. When I was in college we drew a shear diagram and graph it using graphical calculus to find the moment diagram. Pretty cool finding the area does what is computational hard. I do have graphs and code I’d like to share.

N = x*y Let N = 85 (N^2 + x^3) / N = N + (x^2 / (N^2/ x + x) * N Y1graph = (N^2 + x3) / N Y2graph = N + (x^2 / (N^2/ x + x) * N Y1graph - Y2graph < 1 I can graph them where it intersects. I can also equate the inequality,but I want to solve for x knowing only N. Not plugging in N and x. I was thinking I could use the derivative of each side. Until x^3 = 6x in the first equation I gave you in my first post. This would not work with the ygraph because their graphs are only equal when N = 85. I don’t have any clue how to solve for x. The rules of simplification I know have failed me.

I want to solve for x. Yes I know that I did not isolate x, but I know the equation has a solution. I cannot get Mathematica to solve it. I was wondering if there is anyway to solve such equations. It is a recurring theme. It is not like a text book problem that is designed to be solved. I keep making complex equations I can’t solve. I don’t know of any way. The rules I have learned aren’t sufficient to solve. The equation is simple enough,, but I thought it would have an easy solution. Does this equation mean anything to you?

How do we solve polynomial equations? I only know how to simplify them. If you could solve this polynomial say N = 85 it would earn a million dollars. Remember who gave it to you. x^3 = N^2 * (x^2/(N^2/x + x)) Solve for x

To me we could debate this forever without one convincing the other. But you are a scientist, isn’t what isn’t proven, not understood, the unknown the unexplainable what drives the scientist. He wants to cure illness, understand the physical world, and improve his knowledge. i don’t see where religion would hinder those things. It may actually augment it. i just think into the future when someone scientist walks on water, he will say look I am the first to walk on water. And peers will say, Uh Oh. My question to you is why does your science rely only what we know presently. Man relying only on his own knowledge is foolish.I don’t mean not making informed or best decisions. I mean to you it makes sense but you have incomplete knowledge. This is everybody. If the science is limited by us it will never give answers. Technology does not always improve the world. Science still needs righteousness.

What if the science existed to control the displacement of water? The shape of Jesus sole to a depth of water to support his weight. If you could control how a force is displaced you need less force to move. A rocket ship wastes so much energy to release pressure to lift. I’m not saying such technology exists. It would probably involve controlling atoms. I’m just saying: Jesus does it it’s a fairy tale; Luke Skywalker does it it’s the force.

What if religion and science did not contradict each other but supported each other. Say: Jesus walked on water. Not possible he would sink. But scientifically the area of his sandals displaced the water below him straight down until the water displaced below his feet equals his weight? From your perspective you see religion as wrong, but you forget you are believing that science explains everything. You forget you are believing as much in science as someone is in Jesus. Michio Kanu says both sides are wrong in that they can’t prove anything. So so we argue this instead of working on meaningful science.

I agree with curious layman. If you are a believer or not, it has nothing to do with rather you a scientist or not. It could be that more Nobel winners are believers because they are trying to change the world. It is the Nobel Peace prize, after all.

Obviously Tomlin is a great coach and the other 48 are knowledgeable professionals. I'm not saying that I know the game more or could outcoach them. I'm saying apply science and math. There is something simple everyone is overlooking. Well Game Theory explained the Cold War and I saw an example where a goalie uses it to block left instead of right. But even though this is also strategy, Game Theory still applies. If Game Theory couldn't help make sense of complex decisions it wouldn't be useful. I have many other ideas to measure but I do not have access to game footage. So if anyone has access to any such game footage

Thanks for the input, but I'm not far in left field here. But you are right I have to put it into something calculable. How bout this. I just heard you have to put pressure on Brady (the Patriot's quarterback), but he releases the ball too fast. So the game theory "decision" is to determine when Brady is throwing fast and when he needs more time for his receivers to get down field. The decision to make is stopping the small gains. The Steelers usually take away the deep allowing the short, but this doesn't work. The Pats march up the field with short passes. But the only way to stop such an offense is to solve when the Pats are short or long plays. My solution (recommendation (not mathematically proven)) is to make the receivers go deep. I say this because Brady is relying on his receivers to get open. The receiver goes short when the defender goes deep and will go deep if the defender tries to stop the short pass. So rush Brady if receivers go deep and don't rush Brady when you give up the short. This strategy correlates with Brady decision and time to release, and how he is allowing his receivers to dictate the march down the field. I know this sounds simplistic but I think we could test it scientifically. From my understanding game theory is simply decision making. I know not all football is logic, but the strategy is game theory even if it is too complex for math. But you guys insisted on a concrete example. Let me know if this is a more fundamental approach. I chose this example for a clear choice of when to rush Brady. Obviously the offense has the advantage. A few recivers going different routes and going deep or should would complicate the math. But I include this example if the Pats go undefeated this season this forum may be interested in how they are doing it once again.

Yes the science of game theory. And how to design a football game scheme that will stop the Patriots offense. About 15 years ago there was an online Star Wars game. The Imperial forces strength far outweighed the Rebels. One Rebel-based player planned an attack the devestated the Imperial forces. It ruined the game but it should what an underdog can do. There is a branch of science called network science where the general public has access to the data. I'm saying if several thousand people were analyzing the game tape they would discover why the Pats always have better play calling. I know they have won the Super Bowl 6 of 8 times, but they have done it with different teams, often not the more talented teams. So I am asking is there a way to use science to insure the integrity of the game? Something that can be measured by the fans? Probality is out. I have read about people using computer football simulators. I don't know what they use. I have a $20 game I bought off Steam. But I end with this, with drafts and salary caps how is it possible for one team to dominate the game 20 years?

Ok to show I don't just waste my time looking for patterns in factoring. I have also studied game theory. Not so much the rigorous math, but the protocols. With a little knowledge and possible outcomes you can make some good predictions. I don't know if my reference will be lost on those who don't follow American football but here it is. I predicted on January 10th 2019 that Antonio Brown would become a New England Patriot. I have proof in the YouTube video link following. But my simple approach to game theory does not end there. Simply put the Patriots are ruining football. What if we the fans could devise a game plan that would defeat the Patriots. We could use game theory and math. It would be a great challenge. youtu.be/SX1QAXp53f4 http://youtu.be/SX1QAXp53f4

The book does not contain religion. I post here to see if anyone has or wants to read the book. Something of the sort "I'm a scientist but scientific evidence points to a creator as much as it doesn't." "God doesn't play dice" I want to see if anyone is familiar with the book and follow scientific evidence that supports a creator may exist. I haven't read the book, but it might be an intersting read.

I checked at reviews for this book. A science explanation for intelligent design. No religion. But I thought it would be a good read for the scientist looking at science for answers. Darwin's books are now public license. I don't care to study them but I have read excerpts that I consider bad science. I think that is what the author of the book while argue that the is much more that needs to be explained. The reviews also mention how DNA and evolution relate.