studiot

You can certainly have fun with the definition and basic theory of a set.

Hello 0340, thank you for replying to my post. I see you are a new member so be aware that you can only post 5 times in your first 24 hours, for security reasons. Actually I disagree, unless you are a follower of Richmael Crompton's William books, you should not consider Mathematics a language. Yes this is much closer to my view but since I make this claim the onus is on me to explain it. Mathematics is no more a language than is golf or gardening. This is not to say that each of these (along with all other disciplines) has not got a structure and symbolism, including specialist terminology. The point is that language does not deal directly with ideas that we wish to express and communicate. It provides the means of expression and communication. There is nothing that can be expressed in Mathematics that cannot be said in English, a remarkable achievement in the evolution of language. But remember that all Mathematics, without except require 'assistance' from Language to get going at all. Two great strengths of Emglish are Firstly the idea of classifying nouns as abstract or concrete. Ideas are abstract, golf clubs are concrete. This allows it to make a fair pass at describing and communicating itself. No mean feat. Secondly English uses the structure of additional qualifying/quantifying words to build up complicated/complex ideas. This enables it to be put to use in the diverse disciplines already noted. One further question, following swansont's comment about holes. Is a shadow real ?

Again and again I have to point out to folks that not all scientific thinking requires calculation in particular or even mathematics more generally. I do however, live in the hope that all scientific thinking requires rational thought,

Thank you both, but it is not as simple as that since the oceanic and atmouspheric mechanisms are different. The carbon dioxide molecule has a molecular weight well above the atmouspheric average so the concentration will be greater at lower levels. Oceanic carbon dioxide on the other hand is not part of a gaseous mixture and subject to those laws, it is a dissolved ion, subject to oceanic mixing processes and removal processes. But the fact remains that the question how much seawater (preferably weight) v how much air (weight again) would you have to process to remove x amount of carbon dioxide ? The comparisons of how difficult/costly each would be can be fairly made.

You are right, but what a cumbersom rigmarole! Why hide the light under a bushel? Many thanks anyway, +1.

I'm glad you used the words 'can be' allowing for the possibility of other ways to define and measure time, although some negative resistance and other non linear oscillators may also present an issue. The problem with this is that this is just where mathematics and physics diverge. Physicists relax condition 2, the positive definiteness requirement, This is the same misconception you showed in the parent thread. Sets do not require a metric. That is optional additional structure.

Immediately after the site migration I'm pretty sure I found some inverted commas (as with other forums using this platform/format) which gave me a quote box to insert into. But I can't find it anymore so as noted in the screenshot I have had to create my own . As can be seen there are no inverted commas in the input editor toolbar at the top. Can we have it back please ?

I was disappointed with the smart arse responses to my topic as few seem to have read the article properly. In my summary I indicated some of my own reservations about the idea, as the article clearly sufferd journalistic mangling. An important unclear point was the statement QUOTE "Seawater has got loads of carbon in it compared to the air, about 150 times more," says Dr Halloran. ENDQUOTE What does this mean ? how was the figure of 150 arrived at ? It is crucial to the idea, even if other (im) practicalities mitigate against it.

Interesting project although the journalists seem to have moved Weymouth some 300 miles west. Also someone seems to have moved the quote function in the input editor as I can't find it anymore I also wonder if there are enough coconut trees in the world to make this a viable large scale project. Sorry I can't post a longer summary , without the quotes. BBC NewsCould taking carbon out of the sea cool down the planet?A pilot project will test whether it is a useful way of fighting climate change.

I'm sorry but you haven't clarified anything. You have merely repeated what you have already said before; equating clarification to repetition is not good enough in science and mathematics. For instance you have still not defined your field variable althogh I assume it is unfortunately called tau. I say unfortunate because tau has special meanings in conventional science, none of which accord with what you are trying to say. You talk of differentiating with respect to x but have yet to offer a single example. I take it that you mean xn , where the superscript conventionally refers to the number of axes employed. You talk of fluid flowing and organising and compressing and so on, but do not seem to be offering any differentiation to model these processes. I am not a great follower of trite popsci ditties but here is an apt one to consider. Space is what prevents everything all happening in the same place and time is what prevents everything happening all at once. Without both of these you have a derived function that is exactly zero everywhere and everywhen. As to advocateing divorcing space and time, I have carefully avoided doing this for the above reasons. Finally you introduced the misuse of the term field early in this thread and seem to like taking conventional terms with special meanings and trying to change them to suit yourself. All that serves is to confuse your readers. A new case in point is 'emergent'. Space is no more an emergent ' property of how the fluid organises itself' (as a matter of interest how can a fluid organis itself without space ?) than 7 is emergent from the sum of 3 and 4. My own favourite example explaining emergence works like this Emergence is a happens when the constituents of something interact in a way to produce some new property that none of the constituents by themselves couldmanage. So take a pile of bricks, thrown together at random. Even if some bricks lie on top of one another the resulting pile with not be strong or stable. Yet if these same bricks are stacked in a certain way the stack gains the ability to span large distances of empty space perhaps bearing large loads, and enduring for long perios of time. I am talking about an arch here and 'arching action'. I class arching action as an emergent property of not only the bricks but also their configuration. I note that another member also has a thread trying to establish a variable time axis to work on to explain physics and is running into the same difficulties you will. Perhaps you two ought to get together and talk ?

[math]r = \sqrt {\frac{{78.5}}{\pi }} \simeq \sqrt {\frac{{78.5}}{{\sqrt {10} }}} = \sqrt {\frac{{7.85*10}}{{\sqrt {10} }}} = \sqrt {7.85*\sqrt {10} } = 4.98[/math] Yeah, we're getting there +1

Your memory is more complete than mine. +1

Here is what is worrying me. And you don't seem to have answered my question, about fields. I can't agree with this. Spacetime (due to Minkowski, not Einstein) is not a field by either definition. In Physicists generally take a Field to mean a region (usually of space) to which a value (that may be positive, negative or zero) may be assigned to every point in that region. For example a temperature field is a scalar field that has the structure you want to describe at every point in say a bar of metal or the atmousphere or whatever. Temperature is the (scalar) field variable to which you can assign divergence, gradients and so on. BUT You cannot 'leave out space' as you have put it. Until this point is clarified I don't see how you hypothesis can proceed.

Cytosine has keto and enol forms that rapidly exchange by polytropic tautomerisation. The keto form is the only form shown in the Wiki article.

+1

No I did not mean Avogadro's constant, since that is directly related to the definition of mass and its associated units. The most fundamental quantity I was referring to is exact. I mean of course, count or number. It takes exactly one oxygen atom and exactly two hydrogen atoms to form one water molecule. Neither a penny more nor a penny less. And this is true whether you are measuring in our solar system, or in the Sirius or Alpha Centauri systems or in a spaceship travelling at some relativistic speed between them. Likewise if you count charges in say an electrolysis reaction. But note counts are not constants, they are just unaffected by electrodynamical considerations. Actually most folks would agree that , despite its flaws and it has some, SI is the most self consistent system of units so far devised. In similar vein you have not understood my comments about the construction of the coordinate system so have answered (when you bothered) inappropriately.

I don't misunderstand anything., but thank you for the kindergarten picture. Instead of preaching at me I recommend you ask what I mean if you really don't know. But I suppose as you are not a Chemist you might not.

Although this is true of most measurements, it is just not true of all measurements. In particular it is not true of one of the most important SI measurements.

Thank you. So waht is the field variable and what are its units ? Note the EM 'field ' is not one field but two, with two field variables. Out of interest what do you think a field is ? You seem to be using some form of the physics definition, which is quite different from the Mathematics def. I can't agree with this. Spacetime (due to Minkowski, not Einstein) is not a field by either definition. I should be careful of using the word smooth. Smooth has a particular meaning indifferential geometry and function theory, that is very important to this subject, as it is what permits the use of calculus.

Agreed, but note that Tex failure has yet to be fixed.

Hello and welcome as I see you are new here. A couple of words before I address your idea. This forum (SF) has just migrated fro its former host and at the moment many things are topsy-turvey. Some things are working properly some are not and the admins are working hard to correct this. Theoretically a new member is limited to 5 posts in their first 24 hours as an anti spam measure, but I don't know if that is operational. So use your replies wisely. Secondly rule 2.7 requires enough summary for discussion to take place within SF so if you want folks to bite then don't try to send them off site to a link. So I suggest you post a summary of what exactly you mean by a temporal field since you have included space in this definition.

OK so I have thought, (sorry my thought processes are so slow at the moment) To do this without a ruler ie with only a pair of compasses you can follow the inscribing a regular hexagon inside a circle, but only mark the hexagon points, not the sides. So 1 ) Centre B draw circle radius BA 2) Leaving compasses set to BA, step off 3 intersection marks round circle from A , and 3 intersection marks going the other way for a check. 3) Find point C on third intersection both ways round.

One thing you can do to find out who is being quoted is to click on the shadow arrow on the right hand side of the quoted passage. Sorry my screenshot looses my cursor when I take it.

Yes of course it is possible to reach a conclusion in the way you subsequently defined. That is a particularly useless, possibly misleading situation since that conclusion may still be flawed. I have already given an example of this, which you have not replied to.

My brother in law is allergic to cats so that he won't enter a house with cat(s), but fine with dogs and has two of his own. His mother was allergic to dogs, but not cats and had one of her own. So which is better ? Stupid unanswerable question if you ask me.