DrKrettin

That's true, but the farm animal doesn't know that.

From your point of view, maybe. But a free-range farm animal is well cared for, well fed, protected from predators, and even has vetinary treatment. They live a glorious existence, albeit a shorter one than nature would determine. During that time, their freedom from cares is greater than that of an animal in the wild. The life of a breeding ewe, for example, must be (relatively) wonderful.

Yes, I got that. I meant whether a good starting point might be taking a = 2^n - 1 and b = 2^n + 1 where n is a positive integer. Then a^2 - b^2 = (a + b)(a - b) = 2^(n+2) which is a cube for n= 1,4,7..

By far the most effective way is to find a native English speaking girlfriend/boyfriend. You learn to speak by needing to express yourself.

Was that an attempt at a correction? *scratches head*

I stand corrected. It was long ago.

My guess is that generally venison is healthier than meats which are farmed specifically for meat production. Ignoring the bigger issue of the ridiculous amounts of meat eaten generally, meat such as beef, pork and lamb/mutton have a significant amount of antibiotic residue. I can't claim to know what, if any, danger that represents to the consumer, but I don't see how it can be anything other than harmful. I used to own a sheep farm, and I knew what neighbours did with sick animals. The obvious first move is to pump it full of broad spectrum antibiotics. If that doesn't work, the next option is to take it to the slaughterhouse while it was still alive, where you get a much better price than waiting until its dead and taking it to the knackers yard. So significant numbers of animals (especially older dairy cattle) are slaughtered when pumped full of antibiotics, and they finish up in meat pies or humburgers. That's not good. As an aside: another tactic used, which I have seen for myself, is utterly sickening. This was in the UK where full compensation was paid to farmers when a cow was found to have CJD. That means that having a cow with CJD was not a financial loss, but a sick one was. One farmer I knew took a sick dairy cow and beat it mercilessly with a stick until it was a trembling nervous wreck. Then he called the vet who instantly diagnosed the symptoms of CJD. At least this cow did not enter the food chain, but some farmers are a lower form of life than the animals they keep.

Am I on the right track if I take the two numbers to be 2^n plus and minus 1? If n is a multiple of 3, then at least I get the first condition.

Never say never: queen of hearts

Well, it's random enough to demonstrate that what appears to be an unlikely sequence of numbers will turn up now and again just like any other sequence.

As an aside, you might be interested in the six nines of pi at position 762

Another pedantry alert: I think the verb "equals" is a copula, and as such does not have a direct object. So it's not transitive. Anyway, I read the OP as A = B and is also = C, so that is just 2 equations. A third equation adds nothing to it.

That's what I was trying to say, but your statement is clearer. It might help (or it might confuse) to consider another well-known issue of probabilities, the dealing of cards from a pack. Bridge players each get 13 cards from a pack of 52, and one of the most important features of their hand is the distribution of cards between the 4 different suits. The most likely is a 4-4-3-2 distribution, 21%, (not 4-3-3-3, 10%) but sometimes you get unusual distributions like 8-3-2-0. Occasionally there are reports of a 13-0-0-0 distribution, but always unsubstantiated. The point is that every one of the 635,013,559,600 possible hands of cards is equally likely, but you remember the unusual ones more clearly than the mundane ones, so you can convince yourself that there is some kind of pattern (e.g. the opponents always get better cards), even when there is none. I'm not sure that helps.

The odds are exactly the same. You must see that for independent sequential actions, no one pattern is more likely than any other. What I mean is that if you toss a coin, each toss has a 50% probability of happening. If you keep tossing it, the outcome of any throw is totally independent of the result of the previous one, so there is no reason to think that there would be a alternate heads-tails sequence.

If you really want to force yourself to leave (but I would prefer that you don't) the best method is to change your password to some complicated string which you can't remember, then log out. I've known people do that.

Let's say each shot is 50%. You keep shooting until you get a miss. That miss is the first of a possible series of 100 misses, so the probability after that first missed shot is 0.5^99 = 1.5777218e-30

How much better we have become? That is both hilarious and depressing. I'm reminded of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where there is a discussion about the superiority of species: humans consider themselves superior because they invented things like New York and the atom bomb, whereas dolphins just mess about in water all the time. Oddly, dolphins consider themselves superior for exactly the same reasons.

Of course, I don't. I suppose it was quite easy for him to find some 100-year-old parchment lying around in large quantities in mint condition. It must have been dead easy to keep it stretched and dry for a century without anybody writing on it. He probably used 100-year-old ink as well, just to be really awkward in case somebody could date that. Yep, I'm convinced.

1. 0.5^100 = 7.8886091e-31 2. Yes 3. Yes

Ok, if you are insisting, I still say that the answer to the above question is yes.

Yes, but the probability of missing 100 times is always non-zero, even when ridiculously small, which is what the dispute was about.

That's a pretty immature response, to be honest. I've never seen a post by Strange which I could attack (although I'm always on the lookout).

Let's say that the basketball player has a 1 in 3 success rate of throwing (the argument is the still the same even if its not exactly that) So the probability of a hit for each throw is 1/3. What you need to do is consider the probability of a miss = 2/3. Suppose he takes 100 throws. The probability of missing the 1st is 2/3 The probability of missing the 2nd is 2/3 and so on, so the probability of missing 100 throws is 2^100/3^100 = 2.4596544e-18 So as said above, in theory it is possible. This is true for any repitition of any event which has a probability of less than 1 (i.e. not certain)

How do account for the carbon dating to about a century before John Dee?

Can you really say that one causes the other? What is incorrect with the statement that greed unleashes capitalism?