### OHIDA ISLAM

Discussion -Mathematics is the only metaphysics...............

#mathematics

#mathematics

7

2

All sciences are a branch of philosophy when you think about it.

Add a comment...

Start a hangout

All communitiesRecommended for you

Join this community to post or comment

Join community

Mathematics is the only metaphysics...............

#mathematics

#mathematics

7

2

All sciences are a branch of philosophy when you think about it.

Add a comment...

Find the value of x

3

2

4 comments

90 + 36. And formed by diameter any point on circle 90 + equal angles formed by same chord on any point of the circle 36

Add a comment...

Most people imagine maths is something like a slow cooker: very useful, but pretty limited in what it can do. Maths, though, isn't just a tool for solving a specific problem - and it's definitely not something to be afraid of.

Most people imagine maths is something like a slow cooker: very useful, but pretty limited in what it can do.

6

1

3 comments

Now suppose all of your ingredients are infinite dimensional.

Add a comment...

That would make a decent title for a SciFi novel. ;)

Sometimes, this is what it's all about. Attempts to reach out and right circumstances just add to the complexity. Look within to reduce the turmoil. Though it may not be in your nature, your best chance at balance is finding your center.

This animation was created with Processing:

https://processing.org/

ImageMagick:

http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php

Eclipse for Java:

http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/packages/eclipse-ide-java-developers/keplersr1

Apache Math Commons:

http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-math/

26

11

Zlatko Raguz

+

1

2

1

2

1

looks like gyro

Add a comment...

A gif animation of the Binomial Cube

3 photos

35

12

joel mendez

+

1

2

1

2

1

Nice visual!

Add a comment...

Assuming that it takes 1 second to recite any number, calculate how long (in years) it would take you to count to 1,000,000,000,000. [disregard leap years]

1

12 comments

+Vincent Iannone Qué malo!

· Translate

Add a comment...

Spot On - To say an object and its representation are not the same thing would seem like a tautology, but as was so very well stated in the video, as a rule, we do NOT make this distinction. And further, you are stuck when you plead that you just have not yet found the 'proper' representation of the the object to remove this objection that it and its representation are not the same thing.

And it is a very good argument when applied to the idea that 'Strong-AI' is very far away.

And it is a very good argument when applied to the idea that 'Strong-AI' is very far away.

9

6

9 comments

+Zach Cox Yes you are right it seems like you did say that. Sorry, I misread there. However I don't understand what you mean by "less conservative" so perhaps you can clarify what you mean by that?

Add a comment...

Logisches Denken gefragt: Begründe jede Zahl logisch!

Logical thinking questioned: Justify each number logically

Each character is a number 0 to 9.

Logical thinking questioned: Justify each number logically

Each character is a number 0 to 9.

2

1

22315130

Add a comment...

This is a bit of an odd question for the community, but I'm struggling to find a solid answer, so here goes.

Unless specified to the contrary, does the set of natural numbers contain non-terminating numbers? Whatever the answer, has this always been the case?

Unless specified to the contrary, does the set of natural numbers contain non-terminating numbers? Whatever the answer, has this always been the case?

1

16 comments

The successor function doesn't create any numbers of infinite length. It doesn't create any infinite strings.

What we get is a sequence of numbers, each of whom are finite, while the sequence is infinite in length. But the sequence itself is not a natural number, nor is the limit of the sequence a natural number.

As for S being pairwise: nope. Addition takes two natural numbers and produces a third natural number. S is not provably the sum of two natural numbers, or at least your construction does not construct it as the sum of two natural numbers; it constructs it as a sum of an infinite sequence of natural numbers, and unless I'm sorely mistaken, two is not infinite.

What we get is a sequence of numbers, each of whom are finite, while the sequence is infinite in length. But the sequence itself is not a natural number, nor is the limit of the sequence a natural number.

As for S being pairwise: nope. Addition takes two natural numbers and produces a third natural number. S is not provably the sum of two natural numbers, or at least your construction does not construct it as the sum of two natural numbers; it constructs it as a sum of an infinite sequence of natural numbers, and unless I'm sorely mistaken, two is not infinite.

Add a comment...

A single point in space can spin continuously without becoming tangled. It returns to its original configuration after spinning 720 degrees.

197

74

17 comments

The red one goes through the blue one while it comes down. Or is it a trick of my eyes?

Add a comment...

Welcome to the Mathematics Community! Please read the community guidelines before posting: http://goo.gl/SjFp4. Here are the most import things you need to know:
*Please check the Dr. Math FAQ if you've got a question that might be common. You might be posting about something that we've already seen numerous times. http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/
*Don't link-litter.* If you've found an interesting article that you think the Mathematics community needs to see, please share it! But we want to know why you think it's share-worthy.
*No unrelated ads or spam.*
*Don’t cheat on homework, classwork, or other exercises.* This community is not well-suited for homework help (see homework policy below), but it has zero tolerance for cheaters. Cheaters will be banned.
*Categorize correctly.*
*Keep posts relevant to mathematics in some way.* Wondering why your post was removed? Read the complete community guidelines.

Solve it please

3

2 comments

You know how, take all the variables, we olf., I see you see me, I'm nothing but an observer, don't hate.

Add a comment...

mathematische Kunst Apollonian Fractal Sauermann 2015

15

4

Zoom in :)

Add a comment...

My young son was asked to derive the surface area of a sphere using pure algebra. He could not get to the right formula but it seems that his reasoning is right. Please tell me what's wrong with his logic.

He reasons as follows:

1. Slice a sphere into thin circles (or rings if you hollow them out)

2. The sum of the circumferences of all the circles forms the surface area of the sphere.

3. SInce the formula of circumference is 2(Pi)R, the sum of the circumferences would be 2(Pi)(R1+R2+R3..Rn)

4. My son draws the radii beside each other and concludes that their sum would be equivalent to one-half of the area of the largest circle or (Pi*R^2)/2. He appears to be right from his drawing.

5. Substituting the sum of the radii, he comes up with a formula for the surface area of the sphere as R^2*Pi^2.

6. He asks me what's wrong with his procedure that he cannot derive the correct formula of 4PiR^2.

He reasons as follows:

1. Slice a sphere into thin circles (or rings if you hollow them out)

2. The sum of the circumferences of all the circles forms the surface area of the sphere.

3. SInce the formula of circumference is 2(Pi)R, the sum of the circumferences would be 2(Pi)(R1+R2+R3..Rn)

4. My son draws the radii beside each other and concludes that their sum would be equivalent to one-half of the area of the largest circle or (Pi*R^2)/2. He appears to be right from his drawing.

5. Substituting the sum of the radii, he comes up with a formula for the surface area of the sphere as R^2*Pi^2.

6. He asks me what's wrong with his procedure that he cannot derive the correct formula of 4PiR^2.

4

1

32 comments

If you make the shells thin enough, you can ignore the fact that the sphere is curved, and just assume that the cross section of each shell is a straight line. However, you cannot ignore the angle of this straight line, no matter how thin you make the shells.

Add a comment...

5

if anybody wants to extend the table, here is the key (going from right to left):

...249764371295716500836135134846344163506159929966088384389877319335937

...249764371295716500836135134846344163506159929966088384389877319335937

Add a comment...

http://pballew.blogspot.com/2011/02/origin-of-foil-for-binomial.html Still searching for information about FOIL for binom multiplication. Where was it used/not used; is it in journals or books before 1929? HELP

Recently alerted by Dave Renfro to a discussion on the Math Forum about the first use of the acronym FOIL for the multiplication of binomials. Robert Hansen wrote , "While reviewing Shute's Elementary Algebra book I came acro...

6

1

4 comments

Realize I didn't say that well, Kilpatrick wanted almost no math for anyone... D E Smith wanted a purer math, H E Moore wanted more applied mix. As usual in these cases, testing companies and text book companies won, students and teachers lost.

Add a comment...