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

NY Lost Funds



sloof3thermoplyae: Who's this?
TRWBWCapso: 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.
CapsoTRWBW: Ah. :)
thermoplyaesloof3: Eclipsor obv.
mkwhat's pseudo-math?
sloof3I didn't know what I was getting myself into.
CapsoTRWBW: 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. :)
sumptmk: knowing a bit of formal math and mixing it with your own concoctions to explain things, probably
Capsomk: 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).
mkmm
Eclipsormk: don't use 1 and 2 then :P and do it with different sets
and no zeros either >.>
Capsomk: "Manhood is a measurement of the amount of states of a system." :P
mkhaha
sloof3Capso: What do classify as formal maths?
hydani'm out. see you guys tomorrow ^_^
mklater
Capsosloof3: I'll let you know next time. This was enough for today. :)
sloof3: And probably you'll lose interest half the way anyhow.
sloof3I can't wait.
Now that I've been throughly distracted from Mr. Linear Algegra Test
CapsoIt has to do with a certain defined system, the concept of axioms, and working with (or 'within') it.
mkmath is when the semantic categories are perfectly strict
Capsosloof3: You brought the distraction upon yourself. It's normally polite to not leave a helper hanging, but suit yourself.
sloof3I wish the choices in math courses here didn't blow.
mkthere's no hazyness in "one", though there is in say "dog" etc.
Capsosloof3: 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
sumptwould this be valid for establishing the identity: csc x * sin x = sec x cos x => 1/sinx * sin x = 1/cosx * cosx => 1 = 1 ?
mkyou can't. And because you can't, any relationships aren't rigid, and are open to debate
Capsomk: Of course I can *propose a definition with proper reasoning*.
TRWBWsumpt: sure, i'll bite. "yes". what's the punchline?
sumptTRWBW: nothing. Just making sure that I wasn't missing anything/
mkwhat do you mean by with proper reasoning?
TRWBWsumpt: oh. then yeah, sure.
Capsomk: Where "proper reasoning" happens to relate, in some sense, to some system(s) of function(s) of the physical entity which is a 'baby'.

Page: 2 9 16 23 30 37 44 51 58 

IrcArchive

NY Lost Funds