Bignose

Did you guys all forget that this is a discussion forum? The OP starts a thread on a forum, by definition, because they want to discuss something. Then OP in a matter of a very short time says (paraphrasing) "well, actually I can't discuss it". 

So... if there isn't anything to discuss, why are we surprised that the thread was closed? There is little need to document everyone asking questions and providing critiques that OP has stated they cannot or will not answer. Thread closure is the logical next step; if there is to be no discussion, then there is no point on a discussion forum.

If all 11 variables and all experiments are independent and identically distributed, then you can use the binomial distribution to calculate what you need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution

On 10/27/2018 at 11:49 AM, M2theK said:

I am aware that the equation is incorrect, hence my question: what is the correct equation to calculate the probabilities?

And what I'm saying is that no equation can ever give you something correct if you ask the impossible... There is no correct equation to tell you what the odds are to do something impossible, in your case it is impossible to draw more cards than what are left in the deck. If you are programming this in a system somewhere, you need to check the inputs to limit the calculation only to actually feasible scenarios. If someone asks the impossible, you return an error, or 0, or a message explaining the impossibility, or whatever is appropriate to your system.

You're fundamentally asking of the math an question it cannot answer. It is like asking 'how heavy is the color blue?' or 'how many candle lumens in a hogshead?' or 'how do I pay a $100 electricity bill when I only have $15 in my account?' Math is not the solution to impossibilities.

On 10/24/2018 at 7:13 AM, M2theK said:

However, the original equation seems to be notationally incorrect, since the term

((D-T-H)!) can become negative in case of: D = 30, T = 30, H > 0, but  factorials are only defined for non-negative integer numbers.

 

Well, sure. The math says something is wrong when you attempt the impossible: to draw more cards from the remaining deck than are in the deck, H > (D - T). Its no different than asking what happens when you try to lift a boulder with infinite mass or try to divide by zero. The fact that the math can't be done indicates that you're asking for something impossible and you need to check that what you've set up the problem to do is correct.

4 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Is there any mathematical formula (software notwithstanding) into which you could plug the latitude/longitude differences, from said position of direct sunlight, to get the solar angle, not unlike how you can use the pythagorean theorem to find a vector's magnitude from the magnitudes of its components?

I think your investigation should begin with studying the spherical coordinate system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_coordinate_system

Understanding that will go a long way toward answering your questions.

On 9/1/2018 at 11:11 PM, Bean_Spiller said:

 

That's not what I said. I said "dragging the vectors through THEIR centers" you ass 

 

1) I am specifically asking WHERE the 'center' of a vector is? Because you need to know where that is before you drag anything through it. I have never heard the term 'center of a vector' before, and just wanted to understand. As near as I can tell, this is term you made up and didn't bother to define.

2) no need for name calling. Just asking a question. If you are going to name call when someone asks a question, then expect your time here to be short. 

On 8/31/2018 at 6:20 PM, Bean_Spiller said:

Yeah that was the dark matter obviously baryonic matter doesn't experience sub-planck transformations (sphere inversions) you're not inverting the spheres so much as dragging the 12 vectors through their centers to mathematically emulate a charge under uft

Was this supposed to address wtf's comments? Because not only have you failed to define what is meant by 'inverting a sphere' you introduced another meaningless mathematical term -- the center of a vector. Please define both of these terms explicitly.

3 hours ago, mathspassion said:

For your namesake bignose do not try to tell me know algebra my dear I know very well first you read all the quotes then write dear after reading few quotes u are not suppose to write anytning anywhere ok

no. not ok. Firstly, this is a forum. Everyone who follows the rules is allowed to post.

Secondly, it is just advice. It is worth exactly what you paid for it. Feel free to take it or not. I am simply trying to help you by showing you the tools that, well, every other person who does math uses. Again, if you have ideas on a certain subject, it usually helps to learn the terminology and language of that subject. One would think that being able to better describe an idea would be a good thing.

But hey, you do you. Do whatever you want. 

On 6/1/2018 at 5:21 AM, mathspassion said:

For kind information i never manipulate formulas .... for every formula i have the basic concept from wher and how this formula i got. ok.

then, mathspassion, you need to go and learn some algebra. Because the 'proof' is simply variable manipulation.

If your namesake is true, and you have a passion for maths, you should be trying to learn as much of it as you can. And algebra is a very fundamental building block of math. 

Not only that, but if you learn algebra, you'll be able to express ideas -- like the one that started this thread -- into a more succinct and generally understandable format. Strange was not the only one who struggled to understand what you were trying to say. Learning the terminology and nomenclature that you will learn in algebra will help you convey your messages much, much easier. It is worth the effort.

14 hours ago, mathspassion said:

can you prove this formula 

N^2 = (N-1)(4) + (N-2)(N-2).

 

Dude. Just multiply it out. This is like basic algebra. Post here if you need help, but if you just expand each term on the right hand side, you'll see the terms cancel and prove the identity.

So... you've converted 1 number lookup (the N) and 1 multiplication (N*N) into 4 number lookups (have to find the numbers on the square snake thing), 2 multiplications, and 1 addition. I guess I fail to see any practical reason for it, tho that has been said about a lot of math. 

I didn't think that there was much mystery about Buffon's needle, except the fact that so many so-called 'real world' experiments of the problem ended up just a little too perfectly in line with predictions many, many times throughout the years.  

In my opinion, if you want something that is a bit more mysterious, check out Bertrand's paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability) It is my favorite example of 'probability requires you to be extremely careful in your definitions'

On 2/18/2018 at 5:02 PM, Sensei said:

 

It generated 272 results, check results.txt in Release folder.

272 integer results... do x, y, and z have to be integers? The original problem statement did not state that.

Um, 1200-980 = savings of 220?

If it cost more to get two quotes, then that comes off the savings.

How do you handle the fact that there are mathematical proofs that there is only one unique zero that obeys the axiomatic rules for how a zero operates?

So, the forum is usually happy to help, but will not just give you answers -- just getting answers will not help you learn. What have you tried to do to solve these yourself first? Post the work you've done and the forum will help correct or guide when you get stuck.

On 11/15/2017 at 1:14 PM, Liddz said:

Golden Pi = 3.144605511029693 is the correct value of Pi ...

Do you have any concept of how many times in any given day, the value of pi is used? This 0.1% difference would result in so many things going wrong. We're talking about: satellites falling out of orbit, GPS not working correctly, every single Fast Fourier Transform algorithm returning wrong results,  every single calculation of the trig functions returning wrong results. 

How can all these be wrong and yet seem to be working so well?

5 hours ago, amplitude said:

BN, I don't think you've understood the original question and you appear to be unfamiliar with its context in the axioms and definitions of arithmetic.  In the number line of the natural integers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...n), 9 < 10, but there is no number between them.  This is a part of the paradox which provoked my original question. There can be no number between 0.999... and 1, for the same reason that there is no natural integer between 9 and 10, because 10 is the immediate successor of 9.

The first 'paradox' you have to get over then is trying to understand 0.99999... and the natural numbers. The naturals are just just the positive integers. Once you write that decimal point, you've already gone outside the bounds.

Secondly, the concept of an inequality is axiomatic. And what I wrote above comes directly as a consequence of using that axiom on the set of reals, not natural numbers. On the reals, and the limitless amount of numbers that can be found between any given two numbers that aren't equal (which comes directly from the definition of the reals) you can always find a number between them. The c in the a > c > b I wrote above. 

So, if 0.9999... (just to be clear, the ... means infinite 9s) does not equal 1, what is the c that lies between them? 0.999....1 is meaningless because you've already stated INFINITE 9s. It is as meaningless of a number as 'dog leg' or 'flooblie' or 'sasquach'. Sure, you can write something down there, but it has no meaning. Or, use your own phrasing here, 0.9999....1 isn't axiomaic because none of the accepted axioms give any meaning to something written in such a way.  In much the same way that starting with the natural numbers, 2.3 has no meaning. The natural numbers do not know what a decimal point is; it is against the rules you started with. There is  no rule for the reals giving any meaning to 0.999...1

In short, you need some clarity on defining your problem and your terminology. Because we're trying to answer it as best we can, but you're not playing along with the rules you've tried to set out.

7 minutes ago, Outrider said:

If 1 and 0.999... are the same thing what would you need 0.999... for?

I like to think of it simply as another way to write the same number. Like 6/3 and 2 both represent the same number, just written in different ways. 

On 10/17/2017 at 8:02 AM, amplitude said:

So my question is:  is there any way by which we can mount an argument that 0.999...=1 by arguing "upwards" from the axioms and definitions of arithmetic, rather than "downwards" from mid-level mathematics? 

If we know that some a does not equal b (let a > b), then there always exists some number c such that a > c > b. 

If 0.99999... is not equal to 1, what is that number that comes between them?

I have never seen someone who 'doesn't believe' 0.99999... = 1 give any kind of meaningful answer to this.

Hi Eren, welcome to the forum.

It is NOT two rational numbers being divided. That's actually the definition of an irrational number, there are no two numbers that we can use in a ratio or division to make that irrational number.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number

However, a good example of two rational and measurable numbers 'making' an irrational one is a right triangle with the two sides next to the right angle having length one. The hypotenuse of that triangle will have length [math]\sqrt{2}[/math] which is also an irrational number.

give me a mathematical or logical reason why not

Imagine a school classroom of boys and girls.

If 50% of the boys won medals at the annual sports day and 75% of the girls won medals at the annual sports day, do you really think that 125% of the entire class won medals?

I disproved Einstein on a fundamental, logical level. If you believe my error is so obvious, then point out at what stage of the video I have made an error. For example, if you disagree with one of my sims, tell me what equation did I need to put in the sim and why. If you disagree with one of my paradoxes, then point out what part of the paradox you disagreed with.

But don't expect me to debate you using chains of complex equations I have never heard, that's no fair.

What's really not fair is you showing up and 'hereby challeng[ing] relativity' when you admittedly don't understand it and are ignorant of the literature around it.

This would be like saying 'I don't understand the equations of fluid mechanics, therefore I hereby challenge airplanes' and bitching when someone talks about Navier-Stokes (the most famous equation in fluid mechanics). The onus is on you to understand and know a subject before you shoot your mouth off and challenge it.

The obviousness of the error is that you can't make predictions that agree with experiments. Again, this would be like saying airplanes can't fly. While watching them take off behind you.

There is excellent agreement between relativity and experiment. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's wrong. Appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy.

Look, I agree it is some complex math. But the truth is it works. You cannot deny that. In science, you may not always like an idea, but dammit if that idea produces good results, you don't get to just hand waive that away. You have to accept that if your idea cannot make more accurate predictions, that your idea is inferior. Period. Full Stop. No More. Once you get that, then the onus is on you to go back and remedy the error, if you choose to do it. You don't get to just claim that your results are better. It is an objective measure: predictions that agree more closely with experiment is better.

My experiments are not possible with the current technology. But I may think of some which may be more feasible. And yes I don't think GPS is a hoax, but there obviously must be a rational explanation of why satellites seem to age slightly less. Time-travel, the least rational explanation in my humble opinion, or at least used to be before Einstein.

You don't have to do any experiments. They are done for you. See the paper. See the references therein. The experimental data is already out there.

At the very least, if these experiments can't discriminate between your idea and relativity, your idea should make predictions at least as good as relativity's predictions, right? If not, then your objections don't mean squat as best predictions win in science.

So show us that. Or maybe anything other than a vidya and stories. This is a science forum, after all. How about actually doing some science?

My theory is too incomplete to make any thermodynamic conclusions. Einstein spent more time on it and was probably more savant than me, so he had more time to refine and make his theory match the data. Sort of like how Plato did with his theory of 5 shapes...impressive to the greeks but doesn't mean it is actually a model of reality.

Reality, yes, let's get back to that. Again, when are we going to see a comparison between whatever predictions you make and reality? E.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377 Stories and YouTube videos and words are all meaningless. Show us that your predictions are better than relativity's. Full stop.