<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math</id>
  <title type="text">sci.math Google Group</title>
  <subtitle type="text">
  Mathematical discussions and pursuits.
  </subtitle>
  <link href="/group/sci.math/feed/atom_v1_0_msgs.xml" rel="self" title="sci.math feed"/>
  <updated>2009-11-24T22:09:47Z</updated>
  <generator uri="http://groups.google.com.au." version="1.99">Google Groups</generator>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Aatu Koskensilta</name>
  <email>aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-24T22:09:47Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/3e92b5c2185a1450/fbd77c1b252d979e?show_docid=fbd77c1b252d979e</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/3e92b5c2185a1450/fbd77c1b252d979e?show_docid=fbd77c1b252d979e"/>
  <title type="text">Re: A new definition of Cardinality.</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  As you note, this is not where AC comes into play, since in the &lt;br&gt; inductive definition we don&#39;t need a (von Neumann) cardinal the size of &lt;br&gt; x because we can just include sets &amp;lt; |x| directly. The problem is, again &lt;br&gt; as you note, proving the existence of a closure ordinal for the &lt;br&gt; inductive definition; or, to put it slightly differently, showing that
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Alan Ford</name>
  <email>zzz....@qqq.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-24T22:05:05Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c4f6b72f5d786207/2d722653a1d421f2?show_docid=2d722653a1d421f2</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c4f6b72f5d786207/2d722653a1d421f2?show_docid=2d722653a1d421f2"/>
  <title type="text">Re: MAIL BOMB!</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Herc, you old loon, you! How ya doin&#39;? Has your Thorazine prescription &lt;br&gt; expired again?
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>marty.musatov@gmail.com</name>
  <email>me...@vzw.blackberry.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-24T21:52:05Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/30d3ec9fa4e9aa18/540fb6219aedd83f?show_docid=540fb6219aedd83f</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/30d3ec9fa4e9aa18/540fb6219aedd83f?show_docid=540fb6219aedd83f"/>
  <title type="text">Motivated by the challenges of languages and their beautiful elaboration.</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  iuuq:// (TM) script: draft - sci.logic | Google Groups &lt;br&gt; Discovery services. BSD sockets. TCP/IP BPEL JINI Web services. XML RPC Group communication DHTs. &lt;br&gt; Multicast .... &lt;br&gt; The design of Http://MeAmI.org.org has been motivated by the challenges as we face languages and their beautiful elaboration. ... &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/edcea6be81b182f8&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt;
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>marty.musatov@gmail.com</name>
  <email>me...@vzw.blackberry.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-24T21:35:31Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d10693f25957dca7/f318fb532554b201?show_docid=f318fb532554b201</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d10693f25957dca7/f318fb532554b201?show_docid=f318fb532554b201"/>
  <title type="text">Re: musatov &#39;s Back.</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Hi, who are you? &lt;br&gt; &amp;lt;.ip..&amp;gt; &amp;lt;script type=&amp;quot;text/javascript&amp;quot;&amp;gt; &lt;br&gt; //Roundtrip &lt;br&gt; rtTop = Number(new Date()); &lt;br&gt; document.documentElement.class Name += &#39; jsenabled&#39;; &lt;br&gt; (function () { &lt;br&gt; //refresh check &lt;br&gt; var d=document,c=&amp;quot;;\ &amp;quot;+d.cookie + &amp;quot;;&amp;quot;,msc=c.indexOf(&amp;quot;; MSC=&amp;quot;),re=false,s,r,l=&amp;quot;&amp;quot;,m,n=&#39; 0&#39;,b,lck=&#39;&#39;,fps=c.indexOf(&amp;quot;FPS =&amp;quot;),fpsVal,sw=screen.availWidt h,loc=location,qs=loc.search;
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>glird</name>
  <email>gl...@aol.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-24T21:39:07Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/ec90bbeab457ade1/9d7c620b96f22dae?show_docid=9d7c620b96f22dae</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/ec90bbeab457ade1/9d7c620b96f22dae?show_docid=9d7c620b96f22dae"/>
  <title type="text">Re: $10,000 at 20:1</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Taking that definition as too vague, I looked up the 2nd law on &lt;br&gt; yahoo and found this: &lt;br&gt; From Wikipedia: &lt;br&gt; The formulation of the second law that refers to entropy directly is &lt;br&gt; as follows: &lt;br&gt; Note that from the mathematical definition of entropy [see next &lt;br&gt; sentence], a process in which heat flows from cold to hot has
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>rabid_fan</name>
  <email>r...@righthere.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-24T21:00:06Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c85c9b2e3ff0eaca/32704d1be578c367?show_docid=32704d1be578c367</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c85c9b2e3ff0eaca/32704d1be578c367?show_docid=32704d1be578c367"/>
  <title type="text">Re: The accuracy of the Calculus</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  I am speaking of concepts versus blind calculation within &lt;br&gt; an educational context. The conventional educator regards &lt;br&gt; the ability to perform rote calculations to be more important &lt;br&gt; than a deep conceptual understanding. This is true because &lt;br&gt; the fundamental structure of our schools does not readily permit
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Joseki</name>
  <email>jabriol2...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-24T20:50:40Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/8e21cd84fe4efc3c/9e6629d578340379?show_docid=9e6629d578340379</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/8e21cd84fe4efc3c/9e6629d578340379?show_docid=9e6629d578340379"/>
  <title type="text">Re: The Bible And Evolution..compatible?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  I really have to ask.. what in tarnation are you talking about?
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Joseki</name>
  <email>jabriol2...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-24T20:49:41Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/8e21cd84fe4efc3c/afdccddc677d3d94?show_docid=afdccddc677d3d94</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/8e21cd84fe4efc3c/afdccddc677d3d94?show_docid=afdccddc677d3d94"/>
  <title type="text">Re: The Bible And Evolution..compatible?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  uh no. please understand what &amp;quot;probability&amp;quot; in math refer to and then &lt;br&gt; you can grasp it better.
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>A</name>
  <email>anonymous.rubbert...@yahoo.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-24T20:47:57Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/08560cb6785d5ca1/81e52c678adb9ff8?show_docid=81e52c678adb9ff8</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/08560cb6785d5ca1/81e52c678adb9ff8?show_docid=81e52c678adb9ff8"/>
  <title type="text">Re: The Mathematical Substructure Underlying Quantum Field Theory, and Why I Like Anthony Zee&#39;s Book so Much</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  What are some examples of paradoxes in ZFC?
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>master1729</name>
  <email>tommy1...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-24T20:29:45Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/08560cb6785d5ca1/1cac67db2475f982?show_docid=1cac67db2475f982</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/08560cb6785d5ca1/1cac67db2475f982?show_docid=1cac67db2475f982"/>
  <title type="text">Re: The Mathematical Substructure Underlying Quantum Field Theory, and Why I Like Anthony Zee&#39;s Book so Much</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Kobee Wublee wrote : &lt;br&gt; i love that :) &lt;br&gt; reminds me of ZFC and the alike &lt;br&gt; faith (in axioms) = theory &lt;br&gt; lying (axioms are true and the best) = teaching &lt;br&gt; ZFC teacher = genius &lt;br&gt; occult beliefs = science &lt;br&gt; ZFC paradoxes ( many examples ) = kosher &lt;br&gt; bullshit = truth &lt;br&gt; believing ( axioms ) = learning &lt;br&gt; etc &lt;br&gt; regards &lt;br&gt; tommy1729
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>mohangupta13</name>
  <email>mohangupt...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-24T20:39:02Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/a1cffd71c99a2dd0/324fe5a9f2fede0d?show_docid=324fe5a9f2fede0d</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/a1cffd71c99a2dd0/324fe5a9f2fede0d?show_docid=324fe5a9f2fede0d"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Math/CompSci Interview Question - Thoughts?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  sorry for giving much thought before writing. &lt;br&gt; Mohan
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Jesse F. Hughes</name>
  <email>je...@phiwumbda.org</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-24T20:27:44Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/0eb87ce519b6149b/e351cd6b7b5e0051?show_docid=e351cd6b7b5e0051</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/0eb87ce519b6149b/e351cd6b7b5e0051?show_docid=e351cd6b7b5e0051"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Another AC anomaly?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  You know what makes a good joke a great joke? &lt;br&gt; When someone takes the time to explain it.
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Robert Israel</name>
  <email>isr...@math.myuniversitysinitials.ca</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-24T20:30:32Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/24e3f5616c84dfd4/a833a4ae99a66acc?show_docid=a833a4ae99a66acc</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/24e3f5616c84dfd4/a833a4ae99a66acc?show_docid=a833a4ae99a66acc"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Mathematics of Global warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  No. For all we know (given the model assumptions), all you ever have are &lt;br&gt; gentle breezes. &lt;br&gt; I found the following statement confusing: &lt;br&gt; (Like the swirled hairs on the tennis ball, the wind will spiral around this &lt;br&gt; zero-wind point - under our assumptions it cannot flow into or out of the point.) &lt;br&gt; There was no assumption that I could see that ruled out a situation where
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>master1729</name>
  <email>tommy1...@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-24T20:20:19Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/24e3f5616c84dfd4/c03fe783d51c0d29?show_docid=c03fe783d51c0d29</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/24e3f5616c84dfd4/c03fe783d51c0d29?show_docid=c03fe783d51c0d29"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Mathematics of Global warming</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  they are globalists.
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>David Libert</name>
  <email>ah...@freenet.carleton.ca</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2009-11-24T20:24:12Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/3e92b5c2185a1450/23d5368fc03e61ca?show_docid=23d5368fc03e61ca</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au./group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/3e92b5c2185a1450/23d5368fc03e61ca?show_docid=23d5368fc03e61ca"/>
  <title type="text">Re: A new definition of Cardinality.</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  [Deletions] &lt;br&gt; In my Nov 23 article in this thread &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/721cb8170033cf84&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; I wrote (quoting Rupert and indirectly Zuhair): &lt;br&gt; I was being careless in that writing. I was thinking of the same proof Rupert &lt;br&gt; wrote as quoted earlier above. In general I knew this as a ZFC theorem, but
  </summary>
  </entry>
</feed>
