 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/08/2010 4:04 PM, Invisible wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>
>> Yeah, sure. I recite that daily from memory before I go to sleep...
>
> Now there's a question: How do you unambiguously recite complex
> mathematical expressions out loud?
With panache :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Yeah, sure. I recite that daily from memory before I go to sleep...
This would be a better use of your time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_point
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> (And yet, the *definition* of an algebraic
> number is one expressible by radicals...)
You might try looking up the definition of an algebraic number.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> (And yet, the *definition* of an algebraic number is one expressible
>> by radicals...)
>
> You might try looking up the definition of an algebraic number.
Heh, like I haven't already done *that*...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 10.08.2010 17:31, schrieb Darren New:
> clipka wrote:
>> Yeah, sure. I recite that daily from memory before I go to sleep...
>
> This would be a better use of your time:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_point
Ah - but that's not a serious challenge; that's as easy as memorizing
E.A.Poe's "The Raven" (sort of), plus a few words...
<http://www.cadaeic.net/cadenza.htm>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Ah - but that's not a serious challenge; that's as easy as memorizing
> E.A.Poe's "The Raven" (sort of), plus a few words...
Clearly you have never had The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner inflicted
upon you...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-8-2010 17:31, Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Yeah, sure. I recite that daily from memory before I go to sleep...
>
> This would be a better use of your time:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_point
>
Kate does 116 if I have counted correctly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZSHr5E7fZY
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> writes:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> (And yet, the *definition* of an algebraic number is one expressible
>>> by radicals...)
>>
>> You might try looking up the definition of an algebraic number.
>
> Heh, like I haven't already done *that*...
To be explicit, that's *not* the definition of an algebraic number.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> (And yet, the *definition* of an algebraic number is one expressible
>>>> by radicals...)
>>> You might try looking up the definition of an algebraic number.
>> Heh, like I haven't already done *that*...
>
> To be explicit, that's *not* the definition of an algebraic number.
Really? I was sure an algebraic number is any number computable using
only addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and extraction of
roots.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hmm, interesting. I thought the theorum states that there is no single
> formula that covers all possible polynomials of a given degree. However,
> Wikipedia asserts something far stronger: It seems to claim that you can
> construct a single, fixed polynomial who's solutions (which are also
> fixed) cannot be expressed by radicals.
It's an interesting fact. However, at one point, it occured to me that
we take radicals for granted as computable. Consider sqrt(2). Somehow,
we're OK with expressing a number as "the number which, when squared,
equals two." Yet, we have no way of expressing it otherwise. We've all
seen approximations to this number, we would recognize it if we saw the
first few digits, yet we can't actually communicate it without
describing it in terms of the solution to x*x = 2. (There may be other
properties it has that we could use to describe it, but we still can't
just write it down and point to it, like we can with, say, an integer.
We can never find its precise value, we can only approximate it.)
So, it's kind of interesting that when we can't come up with a way to
describe a number besides "one of the roots of this degree-5
polynomial," we typically consider that less descriptive than the value
of an expression with radicals.
- Slime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
