sci.math Google Group

Re: Does concavity imply this inequality?

2008-10-07T06:46:55Z

My mistake there is a really bad typo there. The inequality should be switched. i.e.
P(x'+y')*x' - P(x+y')*x <= P(x'+y)*x' - P(x+y)*x
Sorry, and thank you very much for pointing that out!

Re: partition function

2008-10-07T06:32:29Z

On Oct 6, 10:54 pm, Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
I have 2 questions,first is to related to the postings, 2nd is a new
one.
For eqn a + 2b + 3c + 4d =n , we are actually dividing into 10 parts
ie a,b,b,c,c,c,d,d,d, with some parts being equal and 0<=a<=n ,
0<=b<=n/2 , etc
how does the eqn transform into "counting partitions of n with parts

#43 compensating the Dirac Equation so that it predicts the proton and neutron magnetic moment ; new book; Revised Maxwell Equations as the heart of Quantum Mechanics

2008-10-07T06:27:58Z

Well, Dirac did not have the Atom Totality theory, and he must have
been working
under the basis of a Big Bang.
Now if we accept the Atom Totality theory as basis and the Dirac
Equation
as the full truth for the elementary particles, all we have to do is
compensate
for the last 6 electrons of 231Pu. This is the 5f6 of plutonium.

Re: (a_n,b_n) nested open intervals for all n > n_0 show either a_n=A or b_n=A

2008-10-07T06:27:51Z

What do you mean by "eventually"? The intersection of all intervals
either is empty (not "null") or it is not.
Yes, but why is it not empty?
Best regards,
Jose Carlos Santos

Re: -- rational distances

2008-10-07T06:27:22Z

Let C = bd B((0,0),2); S = bd B((0,1),1)
C and S are tangent at p = (0,2).
Now if I'm off the y axis and ... ok, I get it.

Re: -- boundary of an open set

2008-10-07T06:13:08Z

No. Any open half plane.
No, even if the open set is bounded.
The set inclosed by the topologist's sin curve nipping it's tail.

Re: SAT and NP-Completeness

2008-10-07T06:00:44Z

That makes sense, thanks.

Re: Yet another disproof of the diagonal argument

2008-10-07T06:07:11Z

I've given it already, with an inductive definition, and the position
of "(01)", or "0101010101...." as you might prefer, is the couple
<1,3>, or, simplier, the ratio 1/3.
-LV

Re: Prove Sup a_n=Inf b_n for (a_n,b_n) sequence of nested intervals

2008-10-07T05:58:50Z

In this senctece you are speaking English, not math.
Thus a blank space is required to be between 'sorry' and '(".
So don't be confused about punctuation.
Yes, you got it; the easy way.
----

Re: Infinite UFD, finite many units => infinitely many pairwise nonassociated primes

2008-10-07T05:58:11Z

Look at it this way. (My rings are commutative with 1 =! 0.) Let D be
a UFD, that is not a field, with only finitely many non-associated
prime elements, say p_1, p_2, ..., p_n. Then D has only finitely many
nonzero distinct principal prime ideals. But a UFD that satisfies that
condition is a PID with maximal ideals (p_1)D, (p_2)D, ..., (p_n)D.

Re: Godels incompleteness theorem proven invalid

2008-10-07T05:56:57Z

On Sep 29, 9:55 am, Denis Feldmann <denis.feldmann.sanss...@neuf. fr>
wrote:
Because if you want to do something useful with your life actually
accomplishing things you take a cybernetic view of infinity, ie, that
there is just the potential infinity and the actual infinity.
Cantor's cardinalities of infinity are fine if you like infinite

Re: field generated by the set of roots of unity

2008-10-07T05:56:39Z

let me try to give a little better motivation
these polynomials can actually be solved in C
(the complex numbers)
and these solutions behave a lot like polynomial solutions
there is a sense in which these generalised polynomials
have "zeroes" in number
(on a given branch)
corresponding to a "depth" or "level"

Re: Elementary Theory of Numbers

2008-10-07T05:52:27Z

<blah, blah la de da snipped>
Yes.
LOL

Re: Q[t]/ has square roots of -1

2008-10-07T05:52:30Z

Ooops, I meant "is there a quicker/easier way to go to (**) directly
from definition of R?"
But I guess you guys knew what I meant.

Re: Q[t]/ has square roots of -1

2008-10-07T05:51:20Z

Thank you people.