sci.math Google Group

Re: JSH: Simple proof, but social response

2009-01-09T20:32:19Z

So you're saying my statement implies f(u)? ;>)
M

Re: Help residue tan(z)

2009-01-09T20:23:02Z

In article <3a5eb39a-5f0b-4e5f-a13f-5da97 4f82...@d42g2000prb.googlegrou ps.com>,
Hint: tan(z + pi) = tan(z)
Rob Johnson <r...@trash.whim.org>
take out the trash before replying
to view any ASCII art, display article in a monospaced font

Re: Elegant 17th-Century Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem

2009-01-09T20:25:52Z

Mariano hasn't mentioned any kind of behaviour that demonstrates
intelligence to him, as far as I know ... ;)
David Bernier

Re: Rational points of tangent

2009-01-09T20:19:56Z

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:37:57 -0800 (PST), alvarez.torr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Sure, but since the usual assumption, unless specified otherwise, is
that the inputs to tan are in radians, if you want a variable input
(such as x) to be in degrees, you have to make that clear.
I think you missed the point I made in my previous reply regarding

Re: Intelligent Design or "It's Only a Theory"

2009-01-09T20:16:10Z

In article
<811a2a04-f093-4bb9-b755-39c72 0c19...@y1g2000pra.googlegroup s.com>,
Evidence of human activity.

Re: Elegant 17th-Century Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem

2009-01-09T20:16:02Z

I got into an argument with a defender of that stupid Titan Test.
He claimed to be an AI researcher and was lamenting over
how little progress has been made in the AI field due to
the fact that so little is actually known about intelligence.
Yet he still claims that intelligence can be measured!
Obviously, his IQ should be revoked.

Re: Is the sky still falling?

2009-01-09T20:01:44Z

Historical curiosity: Pascal's assignment statement:
x := 3

is alleged to have been meant to suggest an arrow,
and thus make the difference between assignment
and equality:
x = 3

more obvious.
-- cary

Re: Intelligent Design or "It's Only a Theory"

2009-01-09T20:08:24Z

In article
<ab6a5da5-a641-48c6-b8a1-65752 5d5e...@w1g2000prm.googlegroup s.com>,
Balls. Anyone posting such nonsensical anti-science in both sci.math and
sci.physics.relativity is grinding his peculiar personal axe full time.

Re: Elegant 17th-Century Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem

2009-01-09T20:07:51Z

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:02:55 -0800 (PST),
Oh, go on! :-)
Spoiler ...
... space ...
... some more ...
... not enough ...
Weir'd.

Re: Elegant 17th-Century Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem

2009-01-09T20:04:41Z

... whereas I'm so stupid I can't even remember his name! 8-P
Sorry, Mariano!

Re: Elegant 17th-Century Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem

2009-01-09T20:03:01Z

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:53:05 +0000, Gareth Erskine-Jones
I'm sure Mario is clever enough to do that standing on his head,
and with both arms tied behind his back! ;-)

Re: Elegant 17th-Century Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem

2009-01-09T20:02:55Z

In article <7L-dnWaf1KZfmfrUnZ2dneKdnZydn ...@bt.com>,
The only thing I can come up with is Cliff (which certainly matches
"Richard" and "face of rock"), but I'm not sure what "acceptable" is
doing there.
I don't want to turn this into an "awesome crossword clues" thread, but
this one is good:
Damm'd odd (5)

Re: Intelligent Design or "It's Only a Theory" (was: Epistemology: debunking v. open-mindedness)

2009-01-09T20:01:52Z

In article
<2a20805f-5eb3-473a-9eda-5fded af01...@o40g2000prn.googlegrou ps.com>,
Your "principle of design" equally forbids those marbles from producing
any predetermined finite set of designs. That only means that it is
incompatible with ID, not that it is incompatible with reality.

Re: Does x^2+y^2=z^50 have integer solutions?

2009-01-09T20:01:08Z

On 09 Jan 2009 14:17:24 -0500, Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu>
wrote:
I'll take credit for most of the "false theorems" in this thread. I
jumped a little too quickly (many times) -- sorry.
The positivity requirement does introduce some subtleties which are
not immediately obvious, so I agree, the known result identifying

Help residue tan(z)

2009-01-09T19:58:42Z

Hi,
I want to find the residue at all singularities of the function f(z) =
tan(z).
Now the poles of tan(z) are z= pi/2 + pi*k where k is an integer.
I can find the residue at z=pi/2 as follows:
lim( z-> pi/2) (z - pi/2) tan(z) = lim (z-> pi/2) (z - pi/2) sin(z) /
cos(z).
Then observe that sin(z) = cos(z - pi/2) and cos(z) = - sin(z - pi/2)