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 sets and 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'. |