## #math - Fri 11 May 2007 between 02:39 and 02:50

### NY Lost Funds

 sloof3 thermoplyae: Who's this? TRWBW Capso: i listened to the first and it wasn't math, he had no idea about the gap between vague english words and axiomatic formalism. i've heard enough pseudo-math to not have much taste for it. Capso TRWBW: Ah. :) thermoplyae sloof3: Eclipsor obv. mk what's pseudo-math? sloof3 I didn't know what I was getting myself into. Capso TRWBW: I like to think of it as a good practice. :)sloof3: You do now. :) Hopefully you got something from it, at least I tried that you would, and now you can experiment with it. If not, oh well. :) sumpt mk: knowing a bit of formal math and mixing it with your own concoctions to explain things, probably Capso mk: Informal descriptions trying to pass of as 'mathematics'. Normally subject to vaguity of a general language itself.sumpt: Definitely not. Not what we're talking about anyways. :)sumpt: More around the ball-park of 'knowing no formal maths' (seeing from what the questioner proposed). mk mm Eclipsor mk: don't use 1 and 2 then :P and do it with different setsand no zeros either >.> Capso mk: "Manhood is a measurement of the amount of states of a system." :P mk haha sloof3 Capso: What do classify as formal maths? hydan i'm out. see you guys tomorrow ^_^ mk later Capso sloof3: I'll let you know next time. This was enough for today. :)sloof3: And probably you'll lose interest half the way anyhow. sloof3 I can't wait.Now that I've been throughly distracted from Mr. Linear Algegra Test Capso It has to do with a certain defined system, the concept of axioms, and working with (or 'within') it. mk math is when the semantic categories are perfectly strict Capso sloof3: You brought the distraction upon yourself. It's normally polite to not leave a helper hanging, but suit yourself. sloof3 I wish the choices in math courses here didn't blow. mk there's no hazyness in "one", though there is in say "dog" etc. Capso sloof3: Perhaps ask at a better time.mk: Let's try and define 'baby' mathematically.mk: I think it would revolve around a meta-function that could define sub-functions indefinitely. But I may be way off. :P sumpt would this be valid for establishing the identity: csc x * sin x = sec x cos x => 1/sinx * sin x = 1/cosx * cosx => 1 = 1 ? mk you can't. And because you can't, any relationships aren't rigid, and are open to debate Capso mk: Of course I can *propose a definition with proper reasoning*. TRWBW sumpt: sure, i'll bite. "yes". what's the punchline? sumpt TRWBW: nothing. Just making sure that I wasn't missing anything/ mk what do you mean by with proper reasoning? TRWBW sumpt: oh. then yeah, sure. Capso mk: Where "proper reasoning" happens to relate, in some sense, to some system(s) of function(s) of the physical entity which is a 'baby'.