sci.math Google Group

Re: A consideration concerning the diagonal argument of G. Cantor

2008-11-22T11:19:54Z

[...]
A universal law would apply in all situations. For example "A == A"
is a universal truth. "A natural number has a successor" is also
universally true. "For every natural number x: x + s(0) = s(x)" is
also universtally true.

Re: Fiber product topologies

2008-11-22T11:07:17Z

As I'm composing off line, I can only reply to the context I remember.
IIRC, f:X -> Z and g:Y -> Z are continuous functions.
X,Y are compact. Are f,g suppose to be surjections?
What you write is a diagonal D = D_f,g. D is closed if Z is Hausdorff.
The projections of D are the projections of XxY restricted to D

Re: Minimize the optimization function

2008-11-22T10:46:57Z

Both the xi's and yi's are variables .
That was a mistake. It should be positive because the number of towers
is fixed .
Thanks for the links.

Re: Mina is beautiful.

2008-11-22T10:41:40Z

In fact, my question is the title.

The Constitution of the Kingdom of God, Earth (www.grishenkoff.com)

2008-11-22T10:40:14Z

The Constitution of the Kingdom of God, Earth ([link])

Re: Relationship between polynomial of Galois group "[2^4]E(4)" and a polynomial of degree 16.

2008-11-22T10:31:47Z

Maybe an example helps :
Consider the polynomial of degree 24 which i generated using f1 and
f2 for b=1 and c=1:
H(x)=x^24 + 12*x^23 + 66*x^22 + 220*x^21 + 495*x^20 + 792*x^19 +
924*x^18 + 792*x^17 + 495*x^16 + 220*x^15 + 66*x^14 + 12*x^13 + x^12 +
1
H*x) factors into f1, an irreducible polynomial of degree 8 of galois

Re: A common speculation

2008-11-22T10:30:06Z

****************************** ****************************** *
Uh?
****************************** ****************************** *
****************************** ******************************
Who assumes this? What for? Is it mathematics?
****************************** ******************************
****************************** ******************************

Re: A consideration concerning the diagonal argument of G. Cantor

2008-11-22T10:12:17Z

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:09:18 -0800, Ross A. Finlayson
[...]
Russell's set isn't a set. Any system that permits Russell's set and
has no way to resolve its paradox is broken.

Re: A consideration concerning the diagonal argument of G. Cantor

2008-11-22T09:51:17Z

[...]
Can you point me to resources explaining reasonable uses of this term.

Re: 1963 imo question

2008-11-22T09:41:57Z

2x^2 - 4 + p
4x^4 - 16x^2 + 4px^2 + 16 - 8p + p^2 = 4x^2 (x^2 - p)
-16x^2 + 4px^2 + 16 - 8p + p^2 = -4px^2
Bye bye x^4. BTW, did you see x^3 ?
Naw, after all that algebra, the easy part is what follows.
x^2 = -(p + 2)/8, p /= 2
Oh oh. That dag nab checking.

A common speculation

2008-11-22T09:15:37Z

In economy, speculation bubbles are frequently getting obvious.
What about speculations affecting the basics of mathematics and physics?
I refer to a most common but unseen speculation: Apriority alias given by
god.
Spacetime is assumed to a priori exist in advance.
In present mainstreram mathematics, all numbers are also assumed

Re: Mina is beautiful.

2008-11-22T09:09:05Z

droll
drollier
droller
"Hello teacher, is this a proposition?"
is not a proposition. It's a question.
Any body who reads English and knows a little bit of grammar.
That's a question with an inadequate partial answer.
Statements are true or false.
Proofs are not true or false, They are correct or incorrect.

Re: Absolute beginning

2008-11-22T08:58:14Z

Morning, David!
Maybe the forces existing at that time could have caused a sort of
"inversion" of space, so that the beings "living" in that era might well
have perceived the Planck distance much as we perceive the visible
universe. Perhaps they even called it the "max Planck distance". Who
knows?

Re: Borel inverse of a continuous function

2008-11-22T08:46:42Z

In article
<14032659.1227232065658.JavaMa il.jaka...@nitrogen.mathforum. org>,
Yes. The idea is to show g^(-1)((a, oo)) is open for any real a (i.e.,
g is "lower semicontinuous"), which implies g is Borel measurable. So
suppose y is in B and g(y) > a. And suppose, to reach a contradiction,
that y_n -> y in B and g(y_n) <= a for all n. A is compact, so we can

Re: Why "meta diagonals" are irrelevant

2008-11-22T08:37:09Z

Even if you were right, then every partial sum is defined as 1/2 + ...
+ 1/2^n. If the sum was not defined, then it could be defined by by
means of the definition of all natural numbers. Exceeding 1 is
impossible by the countability of all natural numbers.
But you are wrong. Without having this sum we could not prove that Q