shah_nosrat

I have watched many Movies about alien.In all the movies I have seen the alien comes with round UFO why not like Jet planes,rockets, etc.Why they all make the alien UFO round.There are many photos about round UFo's. Any reason.

Hi,

One wouldn't really know why, because we don't have a UFO to reverse engineer and examine it, and if we do it hasn't been revealed to the general public. My best guess would be that our 'Flying' machines let it be aeroplanes have been engineering to fly in our atmosphere, like for example any Airfoil (wing) of an aeroplane is designed to produce lift relative to the wind, as for rockets I wouldn't know of.

Now the UFO's one would assume is capable of space travel, although they are also capable of flying in our atmosphere, one should question its mode of propulsion that it uses. Although there might be a reason for it's shape and design, but we yet don't know and it's mainly speculation.

Hi,

I was thinking about this for quite a while now. Practically everything we buy is packaged in some form or another, like for example: food, electronics, shoes, accessories, games......etc.

Is there a way to be minimalist about how we go about packaging our 'stuff' and try to reduce waste. Or employ biodegradable materials in our packaging?

My knowledge of mathematics is very basic, and I'm looking to start from the bottom up. I've looked at some videos online and most seem to focus exclusively on procedural proficiency.

 

Are there any sources online which place particular stress on conceptual understanding that I could use or is it just on me to look at the procedures and think about what they mean?

 

I've looked at the course videos offered by universities on their youtube channels but they don't seem to offer a full progression of courses, it seems very random patchwork.

 

I'm looking for online sources.

If you want to get a good understanding of the thinking processes involved in Mathematics, and going about proving statements, try reading books on 'Transition to Advanced Mathematics'. There are many books out there.

I'm using the following book: Mathematical Thinking and Writing - A Transition to Advanced Mathematics by Randall B. Maddox. It gives good guidance.

Hope this helps

Thank you!

Here the question I need to prove followed by my attempt at the solution; [math] \bigcup_{\beta \in \mathcal{B}} A_{\beta} \subseteq \bigcup_{\alpha \in \mathcal{A}} A_{\alpha} [/math] and suppose

[math] \mathcal{B} \subseteq \mathcal{A} [/math]

My attempt at the solution, as follows:

Let [math] x \in \bigcup_{\beta \in \mathcal{B}} A_{\beta} [/math] such that for some [math] (\beta \in \mathcal{B}) [/math] we have [math] x \in A_{\beta} [/math].

Now, Pick [math] \beta \in \mathcal{B} [/math] , since [math] \mathcal{B} \subseteq \mathcal{A} [/math] we have [math] \beta \in \mathcal{A} [/math].

Hence we have [math] x \in A_{\alpha} [/math] for some [math] \alpha [/math].

Which follows: [math] x \in \bigcup_{\alpha \in \mathcal{A}} A_{\alpha} [/math]

Is the above proof correct?

I stumbled upon the equation lim n -> infinity (1+(1/n))^n= e. My textbook says that the larger n is, the closer it gets to e. In calculating interest rates, n is replaced by amount of times compounded in one year. Anyone know why the irrational number e is so special? In that (1 + (1 divided by any large number)) an all to the power of the same very large number brings you close to e? This is utterly nonsensical to me.

 

When this is applied to continuous compounding, where the compound amount A for a deposit of P dollars at an interest rate r per year compounded continuously for t years is given by A = Pe^rt. Does anyone know how did they derive the formula A = Pe^rt given the detail above?

 

Also, do you think using the calculator too much can affect your thinking? In that you think less, so you are not as smart? Is it worth the trade off for a faster calculation? Also what do you think about teaching math where the you plug in numbers and teaching math where the teacher teaches how an equation is formulated?

What you mentioned above concerning [math] lim_{n \to \infty} (1 + \frac{1}{n})^{n} = e[/math] is the definition of [math] e[/math] . But if you'd like to know how, you should consider the sequence [math](1 + \frac{1}{n})^{n}[/math] and see if it converges, and which it does. Now, as to why [math] e[/math] is so special is because it is built in the definition of compounding.

[math]A = P(1 + \frac{j_{m}}{m})^{tm}[/math] where [math] j_{m}[/math] is nominal annual rate, let t = 1.

As [math] lim_{m \to \infty} (1 + \frac{j_{m}}{m})^{m} = e^{j_{m}}[/math].

[math] A = Pe^{rt}[/math] where [math] r[/math] is the continuous compounding that occurs.

Which can be related [math]e^r = (1 + \frac{j_{m}}{m})^{m} [/math].

Hope this helps.

I'm a CS student and the only classes (or class) I had on Calculus was one that only involves getting derivatives and integration with very (very) trivial applications.

 

I seriously doubt that Calculus is JUST that. Anything I should be learning about? Rather can someone point me to more materials?

Calculus has many applications! But if I understand your question properly, you'd like to know what Calculus is? If you take up a course in Real Analysis, this sets the stage for the rigorous study of Calculus.

Hi,

 

[math]3x/(x^2+4)[/math]

 

 

[math]= 3x(x^2 +4)^-1[/math]

[math]=-3x(2x(x^2+4)^-2[/math]

 

That's the chain rule I think.

Do I go on to use the product rule?

Hi,

You can use the product and chain rule together. Remember the product rule says to differentiate [math]3x[/math] and keep [math](x^2 + 4)^-1[/math] and continue the procedure (which can be found in any Calculus Textbook) and also remembering the chain rule when differentiating [math](x^2 + 4)^-1[/math]

Now, [math]=-3x(2x(x^2+4)^-2[/math] this is one of the terms but you're missing one more term to get the answer

NB: Using the quotient rule is more direct!

Hope this helps!

That's what I had in mind.

Thanks for the guidance!

Really appreciate it!

Knowing that Father and You are One gives you immortality, this is some kind of experiential knowledge, you cannot know it through a rational or an empirical way.

Isn't this closeness to God! This works with faith.

What do you mean, that's all they are mystics?

 

St . Teresa of Avila has reported that she was transported to hell.

 

http://www.mountainr...esaofavila.html

Mystics by definition is: Someone who believes in realities beyond human comprehension.

Now a mystical experience is purely subjective.

What is mysticism? Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as “instinct,” “intuition,” “revelation,” or any form of “just knowing.”

 

Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity.

 

Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality—other than the one in which we live—whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means.¹

 

But when you say that we experience heaven and hell here on earth it inidrectly implies that heaven and hell don't exist apart from earth.

That was merely an example I used, not to be taken literally.

There are humans who don't desire anything and surrender themselves to Gods, they neither care if their God takes them to heaven nor they care if he takes them to hell, God hates pride, give up pride you'll cheat sinning.

That is true that is being submissive to the will of God.

References:

¹ Philosophy: Who Needs It by Ayn Rand

2a < a+b < 2b is easier to prove.

I'll go about doing this, here is my attempt at the solution:

Let a; b > 0 then a + b > 0.

Now, 2 > 0 and a > 0, then 2a > 0.

write 2a = a + a, hence 2a = a + a > 0, since a < b

we find that a + a < a + b.

Also, 2b = b + b > 0, where a < b.

we have a + b < b + b.

And so 2a < a + b < 2b.

That was for the case a, b > 0. Now if you want to consider for any real number, I will use the following result (Which I have proven earlier.)

Result: If a < b, then a + c < b + c.

to show that 2a < a + b, using the above result, set c = a.

And, similarly to show that a + b < b + b = 2b, using the above result, set c = b.

Is this correct?

Also what does the author mean by:

What exactly is 2 anyway?

Once again your help is appreciated .

Kind Regards.

How can you say where we won't go or where we will go after we die when all that we can see is the life and death of a body? Many Christian mystics have had a trip to hell and they have seen hell, so the reality is open for the existence of heaven or hell.

I didn't mean to say that where our destination is, I just wanted to point out that heaven or hell is not a physical place. As to the point you made about the Christian mystics; that's all they are mystics, much like Sufism.

I never denied the existence of heaven or hell, I merely pointed out that it is not a geographical place where we can transport ourselves there physically.

Sure, we can find it, come out of your finite senses and see the world.

Well my finite senses is all I have to go on to make sense of my world and reality.

This doesn't imply that heaven or hell do not exist as such.

Once again this was my reiteration of the point I made above, Heaven or Hell is not a Physical reality.

Closeness to God is not Heaven, Heaven is a place where people desire to go for pleasure and power, God doesn't embrace pleasure and pain.

Well this is what we humans 'desire' and is our interpretation of what Heaven is.

As an atheist I have a question, if I lead a "perfect" life according to the bible but refuse to believe in God would I go to heaven or hell?

 

 

Hi,

It's a very interesting question you have . First of all one has to make the observation that this physical reality is the only reality that is physical. What I mean is that if we die there is no physical place known as hell or heaven that we go to.

If there were, wouldn't we be able to find it!

Secondly the concept of heaven or hell as mentioned in many holy books is simply a state of reality: for example 2 people in the same room, can be in two different states, one can be in a joyous, peaceful and blissful state, whereas the other being in his own 'Hell' state. Which in itself can be an informal proof, as to you don't have to be in different places to experience different states.

Now to expand this would be to understand that: "Physical pain is left behind with the death of the physical body. The hell-fire that the soul can feel is the fire of separation, the dreadful pain of being kept away from the nearness and beauty of God. This pain is real hell and worse. So Heaven and Hell are not a matter of geography. Closeness to God is Heaven, remoteness from Him is Hell¹."

This simply means that as human beings, we are not creatures of the physical form, although we inhabit a physical form (This may seem contradictory). We are simply a state of consciousness and our experiences are afforded through the interplay of the mind - body - spirit.

Now one may ask to define what it means by the mind - body - spirit but that's a different discussion.

If you require proof of the existence of God an interesting read would be the book called: Love, Power, and Justice: Dynamics of Authentic Morality by William S. Hatcher, who is a Mathematician, Philosopher, and Educator. There a section in the Appendix that is: Sketch of Formalized Version of the Proof of the Existence of God.

Hope This helps.

References

¹ The Baha'i Faith: A Portrait by Sarah Zarqani - Rene.

I've come across this fantastic book recommended by a friend, it's written by Professor William S. Hatcher who is a Mathematician, Philosopher (Platonic philosopher), and Educator.

The Book is called: Love, Power, and Justice: The Dynamics of Authentic Morality, which explores issues of authentic morality. The author does it in a very interesting manner by introducing definitions and axioms, and going on to producing proofs based on the assumptions made.

It also has in the appendix II: "Sketch of Formalized Version of the Proof of the Existence of God."

Very interesting read.

So much heat coming from multiple devices. My pc and xbox are pumping the heat in my room to 80+ degrees. As well as the fans which can keep a person up at night. I'm looking into a new case for my pc as well as installing a custom water cooling system. This got me to thinking about cooling my xbox as well.

 

 

Is there such a case out there that can fit all of my xbox 360 components as well as my pc components? I was really interested in the CM HAF X, but I don't believe I can mount 2 motherboards into that case.

 

Or perhaps is there any way to partition parts of my pc to running my xbox and trashing xbox components?

 

I saw the Origin big O which is EXACTLY what I'm looking for, but I'm not spending 14+ grand on the setup when I can build it myself to my budget if only I can find a case to fit all this hardware in.

HI,

I would suggest that you build your own case, as it's much easier to compartmentalize the case according to your needs, and it's much more economic. Also I would discourage incorporating your Xbox in the same case as your system units components, simply because your Xbox has different cooling needs, but if you decide to do so make sure that you place your Xbox in a separate closed off compartment above your system units components to reduce any problems with your gaming unit suffering from heat.

As for cooling, using a water cooling system is quite pricey and installation a hassle. My suggestion for your cooling needs which will rid your PC of producing excess heat and noise, would be to do 2 things, as follows:

1. Get an effective heatsink
2. Get an effective fan

Now, the following are some suggestions and ideas how to go about it:

1. Get the Arctic HC01 - TC hard drive cooler and silencer: $25 - 35 : It kills the noise your hard drive makes and keeps it cool.
2. Tuniq Tower 120 Extreme CPU Cooler: $65-75
3. Sunbeamtech Rheosmart 6 Fan: $40-50.
4. or the Aerocool FP - 01: $50-60: The above two are fan regulators and allows you to adjust the speed at which your many fans run at, and can reduce noise.

Hopefully this helps.

Kind Regards.

Some of the Scientists (not necessarily the above mentioned ) were from an aristocratic family, so they may have been in a better position to pursue academic endeavors, however, regardless of what money the above mentioned Philosophers and Scientists made, I think they were more interested in making contributions to human knowledge and the advancement of that knowledge.

Kind Regards.

The statement as you put it is not true and should therefore resist being proven. Take for example a=-3 and b=-2. You'd get -3 < -3 + -2/2 = -4, which is obviously not true. Did you possibly mean

prove that if a < b are real numbers then a < (a + b)/2 < b ?

Hi,

Thank you very much for your quick reply. I see your point, but I took the question directly out of the textbook. Maybe the author forgot to put in the parentheses.

How would one go about proving the above statement, as you stated. I will start working on it as well, before looking at your reply.

Much appreciated .

Hi Guys,

I'm Shah_Nosrat, Hoping to LEARN and exchange ideas on SFN!

Regards.

Hi Guys,

I've been stuck with the proof of this particular statement, specifically the comments at the end of the statement. As follows:

Prove that If a < b are real numbers then a < a + b/2 < b. (How do you know that 2 > 0^#? What exactly is 2?)

My attempt, as follows:

since a < b, then 0 < b - a (by definition.)

*assuming that we know what b/2 is, and that b/2 < 0 such that -(b/2) > 0

then, we know that: b - a - b/2 = b - (a + b/2) > 0 ----> b > a + b/2. NB:[-a - b/2 = -(a + b/2) can be justified]

the a< a + b/2 ---> don't know how to go about proving this part!

*Can this assumption be justified.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

^#I know that 1 > 0 (I've proven this in an exercise. Using the Trichotomy Law and that for any a in R, we have a² > 0.)

Using that fact, we have 1 + 1 = 2 > 0.

is this correct ?

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Your help is most appreciated .