11 minutes ago, joigus said:

Michelle Pfeiffer is not a cat. But she has intersections with the category 'cat' that go beyond the costume.

haha    it seems like a joke or something relevant to the content of a specific joke. 

if you mention something in biology (i.e. classifications/taxonomia) then ..I do not think that that idea would refute the exact idea. 

vaşak is a cat , tiger is also a cat but they have intersections to be accepted as a cat each even if their family and vary names are different. 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Academic ≠ scientist

Not all academics are scientists and not all scientists are academics

but these two descriptions have intersections.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Quote

what does "scientist" mean,exactly?

This whole question is self contradictory.

There is no exact meaning.

Any further the meaning is changing over time.

Bacon was different sort of scientist from Newton, who was a different sort of scientist from Thomson who was....

 

You might just as well ask

What does "plumber" mean ?

Modern plumbers do very different things and work in a very different way, from plumbers of even just 50 years ago.

no,I asked it because there are differences between the definition's itself depending on one country to another country.

For instance, a "scientist" or more properly an "academcian/academics"  needs to be approved by any university. I mean she/he needs to work at any university with suitable academic position. (Turkey)

On the other hand we know that (at least in the past) any scientist should not have to be approved by any university.

yet, obviously there are some stupid applications.

(for instance I read some requirements from  registration  of some academic journals or over their webpage (directly) and they require that the author who would submit his/her paper should have suitable academic title. This is stupid. Sometimes, we can see the extension of such dogmatic beliefs. surely, this is a fallacy.)

having a degree does not mean that you would be qualified one. While we have had this information in the left hand, we can also say that having no official education would not mean that you would not be a qualified or prospective fellow in the right hand.

all in all , I can clearly say that here, the desire and request is effective on some actions to be happened on the issue.

School is in fact,everywhere ,not just a classroom+ labs (etc) surrounding by a classic building (named university) 

ahmet

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Isn't that the same definition as a priest?

 surely, NO.

in fact the succint expression both for this comment and for the swansont's paragraph is that "scientist is anyone who does science"

I would add: "this is a reality"

12 minutes ago, joigus said:

Why wouldn't rational and irrational numbers be summable?

not sure but because (for first check), irrational numbers are in fact, the consistence of their existence (they exist,ok no problem with this part. But not applicable)

in general,you cannot write any irrational number in the form of rational. Otherwsie, if you try to do so,then  you will not be able to conclude the operation. 

the operation will extend to infinity,which causes not to make conclusion for the operation. 

Thus ,those two kinds of numbers,to me, are not summable.

however, there might be more contexts which could be reference for this.

13 hours ago, studiot said:

pdf files are documents for reading , they are not videos for watching.

12 hours ago, joigus said:

 

Counterexample: π is irrational; 1−π is irrational too. but π+1−π=1 .

I remember one  expert (associate professor) in algebra (now he is professor) was using a sentence like this

"Ahmet do you know, I sometimes think whether a couple of  rational and irrational numbers are summable, do you think that these are summable?"

now my answer is that "I doubt".

as far as I remember , chinese remainder theorem and euler theorem (also fermat) are relevant to congruences. (to calculate residues)

4 hours ago, Tinacity said:

Have I said something too stupid? Is the answer too simple?

 

Just a simple division?

I recommend that you write something mathematically meaningful.

you may apply or appeal to some general theorems or propositions or you can refer to some axioms. 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I'm glad to see you came through today's R scale 7 earthquake, hopefully you were not too badly affected

thank you really I heard / learnt it from the news.  

Meanwhile, Do you know, I was teaching in istanbul but passed to antalya just because of the potentiality of earthquake , ahaha I escaped

mmm although written documents seems better (I mean I enjoy them) ,I shall again try to deal/watch the video.

thanks. 

On 10/14/2020 at 1:43 AM, HallsofIvy said:

You appear to be confusing "mathemtatics" with "applictions of mathematics".  In mathematics, we have abstract functions, such as "y= bsin(ax)", "y= be^(ax)", etc. There are NO "units" associated with x or y.  IF we want to apply those to specific problems, then you need to choose units for x and y that correspond to those applications.  For example, if you have a problem in which you need need to calulate  an ocean wave you might well choose a sine or cosine function, the "ideal" periodic functions, then "x" might be measured in "meters".  In order to be able  to use bsin(ax) or be^(ax) we must have "a" having units of "1/meter" as swansont and others said.  And if the function is to return "meters" then "b" must have units of "meters".   (Of course, it might occure that a and/or b have numerical value of "1" so they are obscured but units are still there.)

to be honest,I am feeling myself both badly and well. because ..while I understand that the units just depend on us (for instance I could draw y=sin(x) functions graph both in cm and mm , I think I have badly told the case or could not ensure the listener / reader understand  well in the project..

so, freedom is already always good , but I have not expressed the case well in my project,this is not good,it is bad. 

thanks to everyone for participation to this thread.

@Sensei it might be either correct or not. I think I have not sufficient knowledge in order to make a meaningful recommendation 

but I sometimes visit software forums and in turkey ,whenever I come across with such queries,it is directly being said that that question was not a meaningful query

also, they do reommend not to think so much complex. like this: First do simple things and then great things. 

however, I think 500 line a program might even be not easy too (even in html+js page) because its organize might also be complex

but of course ...this depends on you and your capacity (to whom you say). 

of course we have to respect every ideas. 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Yes they are from Real Analysis, except the ceiling and floor functions which are from Discrete or Concrete Analysis.

well, I have a small amount of knowledge in real analysis ,but not too much. 

generally many mathematicians tend to do pure mathematics in such context. 

and 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Sensei is talking about Numerical Analysis, which is indeed a very important point.

yes, this indeed was just the thing I was anticipating. But I think I have forgotten some of them, maybe it would be very good if you suggest/provide some numerical analysis sources (but examples are too much important for me (always))

but..

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Complex Analysis

could not be sure how to correlate with complex analysis. Because we were mostly studied basically 

laurent series,

calculating complex integrals and 

properties of complex functions 

and others (like conform transforms etc)

and I could not make a well constructed connection between these and our issue. 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Sensei and I are both trying to guess what you want to talk about.

oh very good. Keep it,

eventually, as long as we are thinking, we are capable to do something well/better. 

thanks 

meanwhile, have you tried to mention or refer to a specific paper that you were author of its by,

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I'm glad you have seen most of my functions before. That makes it easier to talk about.

this?

I might recommend not to think so much complex.

because as far as I know or even can predict,that was not a thing just one person could do. 

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Odd.

What if there are no couples wishing to get married that week?

What if it's sunny, but also very cold?

It is currently sunny in my garden but I don't see any weddings.

 

Translating human language is difficult- partly because people are enormously clever and can cope with this level of ambiguity.

mmm ,well.

probably this is being caused by this:

""logic " is a subject or branch of  mathematics, which does not deal with propositions, it tries to prove or make proofs for propositions instead(generally) with global truths and scientific truths. ) " 

hiiiiiii   

I have to understand or interpret what sensei says. 

(As far as I know that should be relevant to approach methods (i.e. e.g. via integral , polynomial or curvatures methods. )

all the types of functions you wrote are known from my high school level knowledge  

but not sure whether we understand the same thing with "control"  point ,keyword. 

and are you mentioning about monotone functions or something in "Real Analysis" with ceiling or ground functions? 

or maybe some forms of sande-wich theorem ...not sure about the scope of those keywords. 

16 hours ago, studiot said:

 

I'm sorry I can't make head nor tail of what you want to say here.

Google doesn't produce anything relevent for specifically defined functions.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=Y3CYX5qXH8ubjLsPnfG3yAI&q=+"specifically+defined+functions"+&oq=+"specifically+defined+functions"+&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQA1DaDljaDmDkGGgAcAB4AIAB7gGIAe4BkgEDMi0xmAEAoAECoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwja1KnHvNXsAhXLDWMBHZ34DSkQ4dUDCAg&uact=5

You seem to be talking about restricting the domain  a function.

 

Please re-organise your thoughts in your own language and have another go at saying what you mean in English.

 

Do you realise that there are functions that cannot be written in terms of 'elementary' functions?

Functions such as elliptic integrals.

 

 

hi,  by specifically defined ,I mean that those functions were generally partial (partially defined with their critic points )

such functions generally contain one of these or the mixture:

1) sgn(f(x))

2) [|f(x)|]

3) |f(x)|

sorry for being unfamiliar with the mathematical terms in english language. 

But here,we can specify any function or a group of functions 

e.g.: continuous functions (broad), regular continuous functions , derivatable functions , integrable functions, etc.

mmm, unfortunately the thing I was thinking seems like "impossible"

I was thinking something like this (maybe,more clearly)

---->>whether we could allege it would define specific/unique function or a function which is a member of defined group of functions (E.g. regular functions) under the condition we give  a bunch of points or more than several points on the xy plane or xyz space. 

But that is ,I think clear that not. Because I think we can randomly cut off some parts of that implied /alleged function and compound a new part to it.

such types of function also known as "specifically defined functions"

for instance [math]y=x^{2}[/math] is a specific function but we can cut off the part of this function where x<0 and redefine it as

[math] y=x^{3}+5+sgn(x^{2}-4)[/math] where [math]x<0 [/math],and [math] y= x^{2}[/math] where [math] x>0 [/math]

this is also usual...

1 hour ago, swansont said:

A scientist is someone who does science. You can make a distinction between professional and amateur, but those are modifiers/distinctions within the category — both are scientists. A scientist who becomes unemployed doesn't suddenly forget how to science.

You can also make a distinction about the level of training. But someone without a degree who is doing science is a scientist. These days it's unusual, but go back a while, and training wasn't quite as formal. There have been largely self-taught scientists, and others who were informally taught, for at least part of their background.

Einstein had defended his thesis, IIRC, when he was employed as a patent clerk  and wrote his papers in 1905; he did this while looking for a professorship (much like actors and actresses wait tables between gigs if they haven't made the big time). He was a scientist.

 

 

 

This paragraph ,I think,almost the most perfectly outlines what i have intented to express!

Thank you very much!

On 10/1/2020 at 10:07 PM, Phi for All said:

I think the difference in people's minds is one of profession. I'm a writer and a barista and a scientist and chef and a builder, but I don't get paid to do those things. 

meanwhile, I respect your status in regard to every direction. 

But I am sure that if you were at somewhere else ,(where I do not want to specify) ,while some people would respect your academic title, they would definitely laugh to you if you were expresing your other positions you mentioned in this paragraph. Though, this is not a generalisation and should not be ,too. Luckily, healthy minded people also exist at almost everywhere even though the amount of such people is dense or few. 

7 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Does anyone know of important science that came from non-professional scientists?

I think or I was thinking that doing science or dealing with it as a hobby could not mean that you were not doing that job professionally?"

could you define what profession means?

@Phi for AllI was thinking that this was NOT relevant to examples ...but was more relevant to defnition itself and what people think about it.

but of course I can examplify: I have come across with strange people more than several times. 

But maybe,this type of strangeness might be classified,not sure. For instance the first one was in my childhood. I had several times come across with some people (each were different personalities) who were called "insane".they were not being called more correctly a "patient" ,folks were directly mention those people with "insane" .

Honestly,I can clearly express that I had felt myself too strange! (I also feared too much)

the second time was in my adolescent term/period of time. One man was wearing very strange clothes. I say "strange" ,because those clothes he was wearing were really dirty and wrinkled. I probably saw the same people or very similar two people in istanbul and somewhere out of istanbul far away. 

one of my cousin said "do you know this one" ,I replied, "Yes I presume I saw someone like this or the same one at somewhere else,too"

he said "ahmet, this person is very strange. He will shoot you also will beat you if he wants something from you and you do not follow it."

...

These examples ,I think, were just relevant to external appearances ,because  some acts or some ideas could be defined or reminiscented as "strange" when they be disclosed,although this may have potentiality to be ordinary or natural. I mean or ask here whether a strange thing or strangeness might be "relative." 

This last one is generally being to be relevant to the people who are neither patient nor insane. Maybe in the folk or the member of any of our family. 

For instance, you could find something strange, in very well known people's biography.

1. I think I might help you via clarifying or specifying some instructions which given by @timo , or try to understand or follow these advices independehtly.

---->> you may use regression analysis. 

---->> try to find out whether there is a correlation between the variables you mention.

However, the first one might be easier than the second one. Because for the second one you will need numerical results.

You can also try to analyze curves. For instance you could try to find to which curve the new result (graph) fits (e.g: normal distribution, t- chi-square, etc.)

I think you can do this last one by approach,too (i.e. approximate curve) and this might ensure you analyze and comment more easily. 

I hope these helps. (As studiot states or implies  that he was dealing with applied mathematics ,I invite him to make external /additional advices.)

what does MathML mean? is this libreoffice's one pocket usage (i.e. program like libre office writer)

hi,

my lovely hodja replied today. But probably..

as I understand she implies that if except unitary element (of first operation) any ring contains just two elements ,then this will not satisfy group criteria according to second operation.

To be honest her e-mail is a bit mixed. I am not sure whether I should recontact her. But I see "loves"  conclusional word instead something more formal (e.g. regards, best regards also sincerely etc. Generally I had seen "sincerely" if someone would act across me rather formal ,especially when they do not know me, but loves is a bit intimate (not like warmly "kind regards" (I mean this last one seems like both positive and negative or at the centre of these approaches  )

she also accepts that just {1} set is a group according to multiplication operation and it is obvious.

mmm,yes I reread the taken e-mail and decided that she would express that if except the unitary element of first operation(I mean the ring's  zero) ,if we have just two element,then this (according to the second operation) will not meet/satisfy group criteria. Z₂ satisfies group criteria , because this ring has just one element except ring's zero.

22 minutes ago, wtf said:

1 x 1 = 1. That's the multiplication table for the nonzero elements. What's the problem?

I need to contact my hodja for help.

Could you wait for a while for the clarification. There should be some unclarified details. (And are we confident/sure that Z₂ contains just two elements. Because this ring is defined by congruence or equivalence (I could not find the correct word to explain very well)

but there are such details in our hand

....

23≡1 

22≡0

....

(infinity)

so, is this group (or claimed so) finite?

as I said,I shall contact my hodja and make suitable clarification.