GENIUS FORUMS

David Quinn wrote:It was worldly, shallow-minded, mainstream people who hijacked the word and turned it into "being clever with what is trivial".

LOL.

The trivial math that made possible the computers every one of us is playing on. The fact that some people were "clever" with math and fascinated by numbers, those little squiggles so far beneath your mighty intellect, is one of the primary reasons none of us have to farm or hunt to survive. If it weren't for people who obsessed about math (and those other trivialities like the workings of the physical world, including the human body), there's a good chance many of us wouldn't have lived past the age of five.

It's one thing to say you aren't interested. I'm not interested in math, either. And the guy was stupid to expect the forum to do his homework.

But calling mathematics as a whole "trivial" is something else.

All true. Nonetheless, interest or ability in math has nothing to do with intellect in general. In my view, the original post was by a heckler who was attempting to show that people here are pseudo-intellectuals by posing a math problem he figured no one could or would solve. My post called that whole premise into question.

I know you were addressing something else, though.

Unidian wrote:Nonetheless, interest or ability in math has nothing to do with intellect in general.

I agree.

In my view, the original post was by a heckler who was attempting to show that people here are pseudo-intellectuals by posing a math problem he figured no one could or would solve.

Could be.

Kind of like saying an Olympic track star is a pseudo-athlete because he can't bench four hundred pounds. :-P

Or it could have simply been someone looking for easy homework help and nothing more. Doesn't matter, though.

Because you don't get something, its ignoble and in contradistinction to the concepts above ( truth, courage, bla, bla...) to which so many herein theoretically espouse, to belittle the intentions of the writer and the subject matter. There are several branches of 'philosophy' that are based in and on mathematical symbolism and concepts. The drift of what is discussed here (archaic metaphysics) constitutes only a small aspect of what is generally called philosophical thinking.

Hi Trev,
Checked your maths...wrong. Good try mate

z

[quote="zarathustra"]Find the inverse of g: g(x)= x^2 + 2x + 3, when x is greater than or equal to -1. This is what I have:
y=x^2 + 2x + 3

x=y^2 + 2y + 3 (which can also be written as x-3=y(y+2)

This is what I've done so far...

x - 3 = y^2 + 2y

x - 3 + 1 = y^2 + 2y + 1

x - 2 = (y + 1)^2

so y + 1 = +/- sqrt(x - 2)

y = -1 +/- sqrt(x-2)




-za ra ra-
Can anyone advance this further? z

-tomas-
I reckon it's 11.5



Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971





.

Hi chaps,
Just a few historical texts that serve to demonstrate the interconnectedness between maths, philosophy and the 'divine...'


* 18 Unconventional Essays on the Nature of Mathematics, ed. by Reuben Hersh. Reviewed by William J. Satzer
* The Advent of the Algorithm, by David Berlinski. Reviewed by Allen B. Downey
* Angles of Reflection: Logic and Mother's Love, by Joan Richards. Reviewed by Libby Krussel
* Conversations with a Mathematician, by Gregory J. Chaitin. Reviewed by Mark Johnson
* The Divine Challenge, by John Byl. Reviewed by Russell W. Howell
* Doing Mathematics, by Martin H. Krieger. Reviewed by David P. Roberts
* Drawbridge Up: Mathematics — A Cultural Anathema, by Hans Magnus Enzensberger. Reviewed by Agnes Tuska
* Emblems of Mind, by Edward Rothstein. Reviewed by Shai Simonson
* Essays in Constructive Mathematics, by Harold M. Edwards. Reviewed by Bonnie Shulman
* The Essential Turing, ed. by B. Jack Copeland. Briefly noted
* Experimentation in Mathematics: Computational Paths to Discovery, by Jonathan Borwein, David Bailey, and Roland Girgensohn. Reviewed by David P. Roberts
* An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic, by Ian Hacking. Reviewed by Ramachandran Bharath
* From Kant to Hilbert: a Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics, ed by William Ewald. Briefly noted.
* Gnomes in the Fog, by Dennis E. Hesseling. Reviewed by Bonnie Shulman
* Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to its Use and Abuse, by Torkel Franzén. Reviewed by Don Vestal
* Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel, by Rebecca Goldstein. Reviewed by John Martin
* The Little Book of Time, by Klaus Mainzer. Briefly noted
* The Math Gene: How Mathematical Thinking Evolved and Why Numbers Are Like Gossip, by Keith Devlin. Reviewed by Carl D. Mueller
* Mathematics and the Divine, ed. by T. Koetsier and L. Bergmans. Reviewed by Calvin Jongsma
* Mathematics by Experiment: Plausible Reasoning in the 21st Century, by Jonathan Borwein and David Bailey. Reviewed by David P. Roberts
* Mathematics in a Postmodern Age: A Christian Perspective, ed. by Russell W. Howell and W. James Bradley. Reviewed by Bonnie Gold
* Meta Math! The Search for Omega, by Gregory Chaitin. Reviewed by Marion Cohen
* Musings of the Masters: An Anthology of Mathematical Reflections, ed. by Raymond G. Ayoub. Reviewed by Annalisa Crannell
* On Numbers and Games, by John Conway. Second Edition. Briefly noted.
* The One True Platonic Heaven: a Scientific Fiction of the Limits of Knowledge, by John L. Casti. Reviewed by Jeremy Case
* Philosophies of Mathematics, by Alexander George and Daniel J. Velleman. Reviewed by Bonnie Gold
* Proofs and Confirmations: The Story of the Alternating Sign Matrix Conjecture, by David M. Bressoud. Reviewed by Michele Intermont
* The Provenance of Pure Reason: Essays in the Philosophy of Mathematics and Its History, by William Tait. Reviewed by Bonnie Gold
* The Quest for Unity, by Éttienne Klein and Marc Lachièze-Rey. Briefly noted.
* Science in Translation: Movements of Knowledge Through Cultures and Time, by Scott L. Montgomery. Reviewed by William R. Everdell
* The Search for Mathematical Roots, 1870-1940: Logics, Set Theories and the Foundations of Mathematics from Cantor through Russell to Gödel, by I. Grattan-Guinness. Reviewed by Marvin Schaefer
* Squaring the Circle: The War Between Hobbes and Wallis, by Douglas M. Jesseph. Reviewed by David Graves
* The Structural Theory of Probability: New Ideas from Computer Science on the Ancient Problem of Probability Interpretation, by Paolo Rocchi. Briefly noted
* Towards a Philosophy of Real Mathematics, by David Corfield. Reviewed by Dennis Lomas
* What is Mathematics, Really?, by Reuben Hersh. Reviewed by Fernando Q. Gouvêa
* Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being, by George Lakoff and Rafael E. Núñez. Reviewed by Bonnie Gold...

z

z: If you gave the "real" answer, I'd be able to show you how the answer you took out of the textbook is exactly equal to the answer I gave you.

But, you know what? Unidian was right when he said I was making a fool out of myself. I'm not making the same mistake twice: heckle away.

Enjoy reading that long list of books. I'm sure there's a few interesting facts somewhere in there.

zarthusta: Mathematic is tool of logic. Logic is tool of Philosophy.

Good point.

Let's leave it at that, unless there is important/profound question answered by solving that equation, then let us know what it is? I might spend some time on it then. You have to have cheese at the end of the labyrinth for this mice to run.:)

If you want a proper puzzle.. I have good one for you.

Mayan Calendar:

1)How did a civilization 6000+ years ago managed to create calendar that is off only by 33 seconds as of today, predicting cosmic events such as solar eclipse etc?

2)Why does it end on 21-23 of December of 2012? Did they just got bored calculating the dates? Is it the end/start of the earth cycle so the calendar starts from the beginning? OR will that particular calendar system be out of sync with the new celestial order and hence useless? Or is there significant cosmic event = a goal/destination where they just thought : Yep!That is long enough for a calendar.

3) What do the solar flares predicted by astronomers for December of 2012 have to do with Mayans?

4) How did the ancient cultures all over the world came to such advanced knowledge about solar system and other cosmological facts?

5)What do priests and religion have to do with secret societies and elite of the world?

6)Why do priests have such a proclivity for hiding knowledge from people, by destroying written word and people with unorthodox ideas while "teaching" that all you need is un-inquisitive and obediant mind to be happy?

7) Why has NASA developed similar penchant?

8) Who are the "chickens of the Cock-lane brood". according to Charles Dickens? :)


What is the link there?

Those are the questions I want to know answers to, not what is 1+1+2+4+489+4875+4389723+3874928742+3847298719+83478<- random numbers.

Here is the cheese = Who are we? Why are we here? How we came to be here? Where are we going?

There are some questions that have no answers and thats a good thing. If we found out the 'why' about all the great mysteries today, then tomorrow we 'd have just as many unanswered questions, there is no end to it, and that is what makes it so porfound and beautiful. The old cliche holds true: its not the destination, but the journey that matters...

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... id=7598717

on with the show

z

zarathustra wrote:There are some questions that have no answers and thats a good thing. If we found out the 'why' about all the great mysteries today, then tomorrow we 'd have just as many unanswered questions, there is no end to it, and that is what makes it so porfound and beautiful. The old cliche holds true: its not the destination, but the journey that matters...

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... id=7598717

on with the show

z

Questions should be at least attempted to be answered = that is a good thing. For tomorrow questions, we will try to find answers tommorow, but...
Right on! The show must go on! :D

z: rather than watch the video, I'm going to assume that the video says something about negative square roots? The answer I gave, the square root of -432, is not possible to compute (just type it into a calculator), although it is the answer to the problem. Since you are doing pre-cal, and have thus likely not dealt with derivatives and anti-derivatives, it would seem impossible for anyone to get the answer.

It would also be impossible for you to work back from the answer to double-check without yourself knowing how derivation works with some intimacy -- ie. you'd have to ask someone else, or look in the back of the book for the answer.

Myself, I was not able to get the answer without integration, which made it seem kinda weird that you were asking people to solve it. I wondered to myself: "is zarathustra really in pre-cal, if he's doing problems like this?"

Negative square root(-432) = - 20.7846097 i

But, lets begin at the BEGINNING::: with the square root of 1 (masturbation)

Trev, The place where you will most likely see imaginary numbers pop up in
your day to day life is when you are solving equations, for instance the
equation:

x^2 + 1 = 0

This equation holds for x = i or x = -i.

Since i is defined to be the square root of -1, can you figure out what i^2,
i^3, i^4, I^5, etc. is, in terms of 1 and i? Do you see a pattern Trev? I think you do.

Another question to consider: What do all imaginary numbers have in common
(think i!!)

Oh yeah, I never asked people to 'solve it' but 'advance it further'...big difference...

zzzzzz

z, so you have difficulty thinking that the answer of a math problem can have the square root of -1 in it? Get used to it. This stuff happens all the time. There was an answer to the problem, and it used i.

I guess I'm the only person here who knew how to solve that problem... which is ironic, because it was you, the one who presented it, that was trying to be a show-off heckler by pointing out an unsolvable problem!

Anyway, as Unidian pointed out, I shouldn't behave like a $1.99 calculator for you.

Trev,
chill out mate...You need a new calculator. Try the more expensive models. They have more features...

z

zarathustra:

What does this mean? Euler's Identity

Good call, brad.

Euler's id: From memory, this has been called the ``most beautiful formula in mathematics'' due to the extremely simple form of fundamental constants, it means $ e, j, \pi, 1$, and 0, together with the elementary operations of addition, multiplication, exponentiation, and equality, all appear exactly once.

z

Tomas, how did you arrive at 11.5?
z