Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates
Math: Fleeting Thoughts
If coding gets one, we should too.
I'm really picky about notation... It bothers me to no end when someone uses notation I dislike (for example,  instead of \ for set difference). Recently, I spent a while trying to decide if I should use [imath](a)[/imath] for the ideal generated by a, and [imath]\langle a \rangle[/imath] for the subgroup generated by a, or if I should use [imath]\langle a \rangle[/imath] for both. I eventually opted to distinguish the two.
Also, how the deuce do you pronounce "noetherian"?
I'm really picky about notation... It bothers me to no end when someone uses notation I dislike (for example,  instead of \ for set difference). Recently, I spent a while trying to decide if I should use [imath](a)[/imath] for the ideal generated by a, and [imath]\langle a \rangle[/imath] for the subgroup generated by a, or if I should use [imath]\langle a \rangle[/imath] for both. I eventually opted to distinguish the two.
Also, how the deuce do you pronounce "noetherian"?
Code: Select all
_=0,w=1,(*t)(int,int);a()??<char*p="[gd\
~/d~/\\b\x7F\177l*~/~djal{x}h!\005h";(++w
<033)?(putchar((*t)(w??(p:>,w?_:0XD)),a()
):0;%>O(x,l)??<_='['/7;{return!(x%(_11))
?x??'l:x^(1+ ++l);}??>main(){t=&O;w=a();}
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Qoppa wrote:If coding gets one, we should too.
I'm really picky about notation... It bothers me to no end when someone uses notation I dislike (for example,  instead of \ for set difference). Recently, I spent a while trying to decide if I should use [imath](a)[/imath] for the ideal generated by a, and [imath]\langle a \rangle[/imath] for the subgroup generated by a, or if I should use [imath]\langle a \rangle[/imath] for both. I eventually opted to distinguish the two.
One of our teachers mangles notation doing induction. Say we're proving a general formula for a summation, he'll use P(n) to mean the value of the sum of the first n terms, and the statement we're trying to prove.
Also, how the deuce do you pronounce "noetherian"?
Can't help you there.
Is there a theorem like Cantor–Bernstein–Schroeder for surjections?
 Indigo is a lie.
Which idiot decided that websites can't go within 4cm of the edge of the screen?
There should be a null word, for the question "Is anybody there?" and to see if microphones are on.
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Qoppa wrote:Also, how the deuce do you pronounce "noetherian"?
My professor just says nohthearian.
Macbi wrote:Is there a theorem like Cantor–Bernstein–Schroeder for surjections?
Yep. It's essentially the same.
 skeptical scientist
 closedminded spiritualist
 Posts: 6142
 Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
 Location: San Francisco
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Qoppa wrote:Also, how the deuce do you pronounce "noetherian"?
I've heard "nēʹthîrēən," "nōʹthîrēən," and "nəthîrʹēən," but I'm not sure which (if any) is correct. It's named after Emmy Noether, which Wikipedia says to pronounce "nøːtɐ." For comparison, that "øː" is the same vowel sound as the 'ö'/'oe' in "Gödel" and "Goethe," so the 'oe' in "Emmy Noether" is pronounced the same way. However, I don't think that carries over to the pronunciation of "noetherian," since the pronunciation has probably been anglicized. I think I'd go with "nəthîrʹēən" as the closest English approximation.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Let's talk about mathematical eponymous adjectives! Pretty much all the ones I can think of are of the form name+ian. What exceptions do you know? My favorite I just learned yesterday: the eponymous adjective for MacMahon is Mahonian! Beats platonic any day, if you ask me.
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
The adjectival form of Riemann is.... Riemann. He's so badass his name doesn't need to be adjectified. Actually, Lebesgue too. And Fourier. It seems that there are a good number of mathematicians who's name as an adjective is the same.
Code: Select all
_=0,w=1,(*t)(int,int);a()??<char*p="[gd\
~/d~/\\b\x7F\177l*~/~djal{x}h!\005h";(++w
<033)?(putchar((*t)(w??(p:>,w?_:0XD)),a()
):0;%>O(x,l)??<_='['/7;{return!(x%(_11))
?x??'l:x^(1+ ++l);}??>main(){t=&O;w=a();}

 Posts: 778
 Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:58 pm UTC
 Location: Palo Alto, CA
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Qoppa wrote:The adjectival form of Riemann is.... Riemann.
Like a Riemannian Manifold? Oh wait...
GENERATION 16 + 31i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.
 skeptical scientist
 closedminded spiritualist
 Posts: 6142
 Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
 Location: San Francisco
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
stephentyrone wrote:Qoppa wrote:The adjectival form of Riemann is.... Riemann.
Like a Riemannian Manifold? Oh wait...
I'm reminded of the episode of Star Trek: TNG when Westley Crusher mentioned that he'd been studying "Rieanaman tensor fields." That quote made my soul hurt.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
But we have Riemann integral, and Riemann sum!
Code: Select all
_=0,w=1,(*t)(int,int);a()??<char*p="[gd\
~/d~/\\b\x7F\177l*~/~djal{x}h!\005h";(++w
<033)?(putchar((*t)(w??(p:>,w?_:0XD)),a()
):0;%>O(x,l)??<_='['/7;{return!(x%(_11))
?x??'l:x^(1+ ++l);}??>main(){t=&O;w=a();}
 jestingrabbit
 Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
 Posts: 5963
 Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
 Location: Sydney
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
skeptical scientist wrote:stephentyrone wrote:Qoppa wrote:The adjectival form of Riemann is.... Riemann.
Like a Riemannian Manifold? Oh wait...
I'm reminded of the episode of Star Trek: TNG when Westley Crusher mentioned that he'd been studying "Rieanaman tensor fields." That quote made my soul hurt.
The last thing I saw him in was a really crappy movie called book of days. It sucked. In huge sucking bouts of suckiness. A real suck fest. Suckerpalusa. It's a bad, bad movie.
Qoppa wrote:But we have Riemann integral, and Riemann sum!
I'll give you the second but not the first.
FT: Means on amenable groups  largely ignored, kinda useless.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Qoppa wrote:But we have Riemann integral, and Riemann sum!
It's pretty common for multiple forms of a name to be used as adjectives. Just like Gaussian distribution vs Gauss sum or Jacobian vs Jacobi sum, etc.
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
We have Riemann numbers, too! I, II, III... yeah I'm not so hip on math, but I enjoy puns.
My fleeting thought is this: I am mortally offended that my physics teacher taught me to mispronounce Euler's name (as yooler) for so long that I can't change the way I say it (I've heard it's supposed to be oyler. Even though I know it's wrong.
wahhh!
My fleeting thought is this: I am mortally offended that my physics teacher taught me to mispronounce Euler's name (as yooler) for so long that I can't change the way I say it (I've heard it's supposed to be oyler. Even though I know it's wrong.
wahhh!
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
This is perfect!
Alright, maths helpn'z por favor?
So I am trying to find volume of the M&Ms in this baby bottle:
I think it's about 8" tall and the diameter is about 2".
This is what I've been trying to far:
For volume of the cylinder part I used: V=1^2x4Pi; V=4Pi; I'm not quite sure what 4pi is without a calculator.
Then I thought of taking the sort of cone shape by doing:
V= 1/3Pir^2h, about
So... V= 1/3pi x 1^2 x 4; (1/3)4pi about equal to 1.33333..pi?
Then add the two..I must win these M&Ms with the power of math..I must! Anyone want to conquer with me? Muhahaha..
Edit: I ended up getting this:
11.6165186405129211.6165186405129211.6165186405129211.6165186405129211.61651864051292. I fail...
Alright, maths helpn'z por favor?
So I am trying to find volume of the M&Ms in this baby bottle:
Spoiler:
I think it's about 8" tall and the diameter is about 2".
This is what I've been trying to far:
For volume of the cylinder part I used: V=1^2x4Pi; V=4Pi; I'm not quite sure what 4pi is without a calculator.
Then I thought of taking the sort of cone shape by doing:
V= 1/3Pir^2h, about
So... V= 1/3pi x 1^2 x 4; (1/3)4pi about equal to 1.33333..pi?
Then add the two..I must win these M&Ms with the power of math..I must! Anyone want to conquer with me? Muhahaha..
Edit: I ended up getting this:
11.6165186405129211.6165186405129211.6165186405129211.6165186405129211.61651864051292. I fail...
¡No tengo miedo a fantasmas!
Spoiler:

 Posts: 149
 Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:23 am UTC
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Did you divide by the volume of an M&M?\
You might want to find the height and diameter and assume it's a box shape instead because they don't fit together perfectly
You might want to find the height and diameter and assume it's a box shape instead because they don't fit together perfectly
Physics question: I'm sitting at my desk doing homework, when I get up to make myself dinner. I sit back down again. Where the hell did my pen go?!? Objects at rest tend to stay at rest my ass
 Sir_Elderberry
 Posts: 4206
 Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
 Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
 Contact:
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
skeptical scientist wrote:I'm reminded of the episode of Star Trek: TNG when Westley Crusher mentioned that he'd been studying "Rieanaman tensor fields." That quote made my soul hurt.
"The Outrageous Okona." Just, uh, so you know.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com  Science and the Concerned Voter
Well. You heard him.
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.
I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.
Well. You heard him.
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
If you are really a bamf, they put your name in lower case, e.g. abelian groups.
Exception to the ian rule: Galois. Galois theory, connections, etc. use just his name, and I've never seen anyone try (and likely fail) to use the term "Galoisian."
Exception to the ian rule: Galois. Galois theory, connections, etc. use just his name, and I've never seen anyone try (and likely fail) to use the term "Galoisian."
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
btgreat wrote:If you are really a bamf, they put your name in lower case, e.g. abelian groups.
Exception to the ian rule: Galois. Galois theory, connections, etc. use just his name, and I've never seen anyone try (and likely fail) to use the term "Galoisian."
It's pretty hard to do that with any name that ends in a vowel (sound). That rules out most French names.
I've always heard that "you're most respected if your name is no longer capitalized", e.g., abelian, noetherian, but I haven't seen that many more cases than that. Just because we capitalize Galois, Riemann, Gauss, Cauchy, etc. does not mean we respect them any less...
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Yeah, I've always been skeptical of that rule. Just going quickly through the lowercase eponymous adjectives on Wikipedia, we've got chauvinistic, daedal, draconian, epicurian, gargantuan, herculean, hermaphroditic, hermetic, macadamized, manueline, martial, masochistic, maudlin, narcissistic, ohmic, onanistic, parkinsonian, plutonic, protean, quixotic, ritzy, sadistic, satanic, stentorian, terpsichorean, thespian, and thrasonical.
The data are... unconvincing.
The data are... unconvincing.
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Despite studying CS and achieving decent results, I've always shunned away from mathematics. Frankly, I have never been very adept at it. Of late, I've started to look into functional programming... That triggered me to get out the old notes on lambda calculus and look at them in a new light. Subsequently, I've started my foray into all things mathy and I feel a whole new world opening up to me. I feel my mind expanding and I don't want it to stop.
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray wrote:I choose my friends for their good looks, my acquaintances for their good characters, and my enemies for their good intellects. A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies.
 Something Awesome
 Posts: 47
 Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
 Location: NY
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Regarding adjective forms of names: It's always amused me to call a set "Zornable" if it satisfies the hypothesis of Zorn's Lemma. I'm also sometimes overly dramatic/graphic when I write proofs: "Since we have shown [imath]A[/imath] to be Zornable, we smack it with Zorn's Lemma and out pops a maximal element [imath]\hat{a} \in A[/imath]!"
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
auteur52 wrote:noetherian
Do people really not capitalize noetherian? I guess I never noticed that. What about artinian?
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
t0rajir0u wrote:Do people really not capitalize noetherian? I guess I never noticed that. What about artinian?
Well, Noetherian is capitalized in most of the literature I've seen, but I've seen it not capitalized elsewhere (often in online sources). Artinian is also capitalized in some of the major literature (e.g., Atiyah/MacDonald, Dummit/Foote) but not capitalized in Lang. Apparently the noncapitalization thing is a lot more common in French, but I don't know from firsthand experience.
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
I wonder how many iterations I should use to calculate sine and arcsine to 28 digits precision...
EvanED wrote:be aware that when most people say "regular expression" they really mean "something that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a regular expression"

 Posts: 778
 Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:58 pm UTC
 Location: Palo Alto, CA
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
MHD wrote:I wonder how many iterations I should use to calculate sine and arcsine to 28 digits precision...
Depends. How many iterations of what algorithm?
Although, if you only need 28 digits, you really shouldn't be using an iterative algorithm at all, and there are plenty of free libraries that can do this for you.
GENERATION 16 + 31i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Random brain block or something...
Can we combine a proof by (strong) induction with a proof by contradiction? That is, can we prove a base case, make an inductive hypothesis, and then contradict the inductive hypothesis? Ah hell, a sketch of my proof might help. I'm proving that successive Fibonacci numbers have no common divisor. I assume that this is true for all [imath]n < k[/imath]. Then I assume that [imath]F_k[/imath] and[imath]F_{k1}[/imath] have a common divisor [imath]d[/imath] and show that this means [imath]dF_{k2}[/imath], a contradiction. Does that work? I'm pretty sure it does, but for whatever reason I reread my proof after finishing it and decided that didn't quite look right.
Can we combine a proof by (strong) induction with a proof by contradiction? That is, can we prove a base case, make an inductive hypothesis, and then contradict the inductive hypothesis? Ah hell, a sketch of my proof might help. I'm proving that successive Fibonacci numbers have no common divisor. I assume that this is true for all [imath]n < k[/imath]. Then I assume that [imath]F_k[/imath] and[imath]F_{k1}[/imath] have a common divisor [imath]d[/imath] and show that this means [imath]dF_{k2}[/imath], a contradiction. Does that work? I'm pretty sure it does, but for whatever reason I reread my proof after finishing it and decided that didn't quite look right.
Last edited by Qoppa on Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Code: Select all
_=0,w=1,(*t)(int,int);a()??<char*p="[gd\
~/d~/\\b\x7F\177l*~/~djal{x}h!\005h";(++w
<033)?(putchar((*t)(w??(p:>,w?_:0XD)),a()
):0;%>O(x,l)??<_='['/7;{return!(x%(_11))
?x??'l:x^(1+ ++l);}??>main(){t=&O;w=a();}
 jestingrabbit
 Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
 Posts: 5963
 Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
 Location: Sydney
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Qoppa wrote:Does that work?
Yes.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

 Posts: 2
 Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:42 pm UTC
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Back to the original posts topic of what annoys us in math, this is one of my biggest pet peeves ever (yeah, I know, pretty lame).
Math books that number sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. . . . .1.10, 1.11 . . .
It's a MATH book. . . they should know that 1.1 and 1.10 are the same number.
I'd be perfectly happy if it was 11, 12, 13. . . 110. . .
or 1.01, 1.02, 1.03. . . . 1.10 . . .
or lots of other things, just not the one thing that happens the most often.
Math books that number sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. . . . .1.10, 1.11 . . .
It's a MATH book. . . they should know that 1.1 and 1.10 are the same number.
I'd be perfectly happy if it was 11, 12, 13. . . 110. . .
or 1.01, 1.02, 1.03. . . . 1.10 . . .
or lots of other things, just not the one thing that happens the most often.
 Talith
 Proved the Goldbach Conjecture
 Posts: 848
 Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:28 am UTC
 Location: Manchester  UK
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
wolfemancs wrote:Back to the original posts topic of what annoys us in math, this is one of my biggest pet peeves ever (yeah, I know, pretty lame).
Math books that number sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. . . . .1.10, 1.11 . . .
It's a MATH book. . . they should know that 1.1 and 1.10 are the same number.
I'd be perfectly happy if it was 11, 12, 13. . . 110. . .
or 1.01, 1.02, 1.03. . . . 1.10 . . .
or lots of other things, just not the one thing that happens the most often.
I used to think that way, but that I realised the decimal was actually being used as an index tool rather than a partitioning one. It probably would have been more logical to use a colon or semi colon, but then that might be seen as too biblical .
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
I forgot which thing is a Laplace transform and which thing is a Fourier transform, so I went to check and now I'm more confused. I swear I used to be quite comfortable with both of these.

 Posts: 35
 Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:01 am UTC
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Fleeting thought I had yesterday:
Is [imath]\chi_\mathbb{Q}[/imath] (i.e., the characteristic function of the rationals) periodic? If so, what is its period?
Is [imath]\chi_\mathbb{Q}[/imath] (i.e., the characteristic function of the rationals) periodic? If so, what is its period?

 Posts: 778
 Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:58 pm UTC
 Location: Palo Alto, CA
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
AllSaintsDay wrote:Is [imath]\chi_\mathbb{Q}[/imath] (i.e., the characteristic function of the rationals) periodic? If so, what is its period?
Yes. Every rational number is a period of [imath]\chi_\mathbb{Q}[/imath].
GENERATION 16 + 31i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.

 Posts: 35
 Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:01 am UTC
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
stephentyrone wrote:AllSaintsDay wrote:Is [imath]\chi_\mathbb{Q}[/imath] (i.e., the characteristic function of the rationals) periodic? If so, what is its period?
Yes. Every rational number is a period of [imath]\chi_\mathbb{Q}[/imath].
I meant the more common definition of period, also called fundamental period.

 Posts: 1459
 Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:27 pm UTC
 Location: The Tower of Flints. (Also known as: England.)
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Since all rational numbers are periods, there is no smallest period and therefore no fundamental period.AllSaintsDay wrote:I meant the more common definition of period, also called fundamental period.stephentyrone wrote:Yes. Every rational number is a period of [imath]\chi_\mathbb{Q}[/imath].AllSaintsDay wrote:Is [imath]\chi_\mathbb{Q}[/imath] (i.e., the characteristic function of the rationals) periodic? If so, what is its period?
Generally I try to make myself do things I instinctively avoid, in case they are awesome.
dubsola
dubsola
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Just use whatever notation is best for getting the job done.
If that job is to teach students, consistency is a good thing. If not, then whatever works.
If that job is to teach students, consistency is a good thing. If not, then whatever works.

 Posts: 35
 Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:01 am UTC
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
TacTics wrote:Just use whatever notation is best for getting the job done.
If that job is to teach students, consistency is a good thing. If not, then whatever works.
Eh, there isn't really a job to get done. Just something that made me go "Huh." I won't bring this up while teaching periodic functions. Heck, I wouldn't even bring up the idea of whether constant functions are periodic, which has the same basic pathology as this, but less of a feel of weirdness.
Although, it does seems to me that calling this a period 0 function (by extending fundamental period from "smallest positive period" to "inf of positive periods") is at least as justified as saying that R has characteristic 0. (In the sense of justifying the definitions.)
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
We say R has characteristic 0 for a pretty good reason. The characteristic of a field k is really just the kernel of the unique ring homomorphism Z>k, which is a prime ideal. When k is, say, R, it's the ideal generated by 0. When k is, say, Z_{p}, it's the ideal generated by p.
The same idea applies to periodic functions. I'd say a function f is periodic with period p if f(x) = f(x+p) for all x. Then the set of periods of a function is an additive subgroup of R. In the case of nice functions like sin and cos, this subgroup is generated by one element (2pi, in this case), so it's easily described.
In some cases, you can't describe it with just one number, and in that case we shouldn't try to assign a number to it. Saying that the period is zero would be trying to push the notation of "the period of a function" to do something it simply can't. Indeed, if you interpret things reasonably, "the fundamental period of f is 0" should just mean that the subgroup is the group generated by 0, i.e. f is not periodic at all.
By the way, for continuous functions into T_{1} spaces the corresponding subgroup or R is closed. (It's the intersection over all x of { yx  y in R; f(y)=f(x) }, each of which is closed.) So either the group is all of R, 0, or it's generated by one element (the inf of the positive ones). So for nonconstant continuous functions into nice spaces, it is good enough to talk about "the period" of a function to describe its symmetries.
The same idea applies to periodic functions. I'd say a function f is periodic with period p if f(x) = f(x+p) for all x. Then the set of periods of a function is an additive subgroup of R. In the case of nice functions like sin and cos, this subgroup is generated by one element (2pi, in this case), so it's easily described.
In some cases, you can't describe it with just one number, and in that case we shouldn't try to assign a number to it. Saying that the period is zero would be trying to push the notation of "the period of a function" to do something it simply can't. Indeed, if you interpret things reasonably, "the fundamental period of f is 0" should just mean that the subgroup is the group generated by 0, i.e. f is not periodic at all.
By the way, for continuous functions into T_{1} spaces the corresponding subgroup or R is closed. (It's the intersection over all x of { yx  y in R; f(y)=f(x) }, each of which is closed.) So either the group is all of R, 0, or it's generated by one element (the inf of the positive ones). So for nonconstant continuous functions into nice spaces, it is good enough to talk about "the period" of a function to describe its symmetries.
Jerry Bona wrote:The Axiom of Choice is obviously true; the Well Ordering Principle is obviously false; and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?
 You, sir, name?
 Posts: 6981
 Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:07 am UTC
 Location: Chako Paul City
 Contact:
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
Because I had nothing better to do, I derived a really awkward variant of calculus. Boils down to the formulation [math]F(x+dx) = F(x)Q_F^{dx}(x)[/math] which gives [math]\ln Q_F(x) = F^{1}\frac{dF(x)}{dx}[/math]
You can create a really disturbing analog to integration based on a product instead of a sum with it. But as I said, it's awkward formulation. It's [imath]Q_F[/imath] generally undefined wherever [imath]F(x) = 0[/imath], which is sort of a nuisance.
That is all.
You can create a really disturbing analog to integration based on a product instead of a sum with it. But as I said, it's awkward formulation. It's [imath]Q_F[/imath] generally undefined wherever [imath]F(x) = 0[/imath], which is sort of a nuisance.
That is all.
I edit my posts a lot and sometimes the words wrong order words appear in sentences get messed up.
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
I was playing around the other day and I needed to remember the formula for [imath]\sum_{i=1}^k i^3[/imath] and I couldn't recall it off the top of my head. But I remembered working out a general method for figuring out [imath]\sum_{i=1}^k i^n[/imath] with a professor during my undergrad years but I could not for the life of me recall how we did it. I recall we inferred a general form where the sum would end up being a polynomial of order one greater than what we're summing and I think we used induction from there but I can't recall the details. Anybody know what I'm talking about and have any hints?
Note: I figured I'd revive this dead thread instead of creating an entirely new one just because I like the coding: fleeting thoughts and the general subforum's fleeting thoughts boards and wish this particular thread was a little more active.
Note: I figured I'd revive this dead thread instead of creating an entirely new one just because I like the coding: fleeting thoughts and the general subforum's fleeting thoughts boards and wish this particular thread was a little more active.
double epsilon = .0000001;
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
My copy of Conway's The Book of Numbers seems to have wandered off my shelf, but he derived some sort of polynomial with the Bernoulli numbers worked in. His point was to oneup the legend of Euler's youth and show how you could sum up the first hundred tenth powers in under a minute by hand.
 Talith
 Proved the Goldbach Conjecture
 Posts: 848
 Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:28 am UTC
 Location: Manchester  UK
Re: Math: Fleeting Thoughts
I think that was Gauss, not Euler .
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Sabrar and 13 guests