Genady

No, it does not. The story in Hebrew does not say "each kind of animal". It says, "every living", "וּמִכָּל הָחַי". Evidently, this phrase became "animal" somewhere during translations (to Greek? to Latin? to English?)

Do they have zoning rules?

It is ridiculous to refute this story using laws of nature. This event was by definition not natural. P.S. I am an atheist.

When I lived in Israel in the mid-eighties and inflation was above 400%, there was a joke that it is cheaper to ride a taxi then a bus, because in the bus you pay before the ride while in the taxi you pay after.

As the Earth was considered a flat disk, it was obvious where the water went after flooding. Moreover, it is possible to estimate the size of the disk based on the time it took the water to subside.

My starting equation is \(\frac b 2 - \frac {\sin b \sin c} {2 \sin d} = \frac e 2 - \frac {\sin e} 2\) where \(b=2a\) \(2c=\pi - (\frac {\pi} 2 + a)\) \(d = \pi - b - c\) \(e = \frac {\pi} 2 - a\) I don't know if it's the same as yours.

I don't think your equation is correct.

.

Bonaire has Carnival, too. The nursing home has its own parade.

Please, stop. These were not my questions. I want to continue using my Skype number the way it used to be under Skype, but not under Skype now. That's all. I think I know the answer now. Consider this thread closed.

My request was not about the procedure, but about recommended or not recommended providers.

Thank you.

Do UK members have knowledge / opinion about UK provider Phonely?

Microsoft will kill Skype in a couple of months. I have a Skype number, which is a normal US phone number for people calling me, and I don't want to lose it. So, I need to port it to somebody else. One candidate is RingCentral. I've checked with them, and they confirmed that my number can be ported to their system. Google Voice, OTOH, accepts only cell numbers. Any recommendations before I make a move? Thank you.

I am not missing it. I am telling you that your metaphor / analogy is wrong.

No, it does not "act upon masses". Firstly, its effect does not depend on masses of whatever it "acts" upon, it is the same for massless particles as for massive particles and regardless of their masses. Moreover, it does not "act". Particles just stay on spacetime geodesics.

Don't you know that gravity is not a force?

Special relativity applies with acceleration as well. Albeit the application is more involved.

The text I'm reading proves uncountability of the Cantor's set by showing that the Cantor's function is a surjective map from the Cantor's set onto [0, 1]. I think that it can be shown by direct use of the Cantor's diagonal argument for the Cantor's set, i.e., without use of the Cantor's function. Am I right or am I missing something?

How do you know this? I asked you to show how they apply specifically to mathematics. I still await this demonstration.

I guess then that I'm just lucky to be helped by the other 1%.

Yes, but it did not help to start using an article in Hebrew and two articles in English. P.S. Papiamentu doesn't bother with articles either.

So, the solution is not to extend 'length' to ALL subsets of real numbers, but rather to ignore "weird" subsets like the one used in the proof above and to extend 'length' to as broad as possible set of subsets which might appear "naturally" in the analysis (Lebesgue measurable sets.)

Something like it is actually often done in books, e.g., OTOH, if it were by some king's decree, it would. So, the lack of a clear answer is a partial answer.