pavelrub

32 ms·

241.
by pavelrub 13y ago
I don't understand what people are admiring here. This "letter" is nothing more than a meaningless rant by a person whose field of expertise has nothing to do with politics, economy, international relations or terrorism. Dona
242.
by pavelrub 13y ago
Wow. This is a collection of disgusting and unfounded claims. >real masters don't advertise Really? Interesting that you say that, because the Buddha spent most of his life spreading and teaching Buddhism in any place he could find.
243.
by pavelrub 13y ago
I don't see how this is true. If the question is "what are the real world applications of X in mathematics?", most people would be satisfied by any absurd answer as long as it's "in the real world", regardless
244.
by pavelrub 13y ago
The Klein bottle is sort of like that, only it's supposed to be in 4 dimensions, but the 3d version is still pretty cool and quite famous! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_bottle Never heard about the gomboc bef
245.
by pavelrub 13y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "real world problems". Most mathematicians do mathematics because they find it beautiful, rewarding, fun, and for various other reasons that have little to do with creating things in the physical
246.
by pavelrub 13y ago
How effective have they been? So far China has found absolutely nothing. If anything, they have been overly enthusiastic to quickly report partial results based on incomplete or bad analysis, which then turned out to be nothing at all.
247.
by pavelrub 13y ago
The computer has a table in memory that tells it S^6(0) = 6 (or equivalently O O O O O O = 6 apples). When it sees a symbol - for example S^6(0) - it searches this table for the same symbol, and then outputs the corresponding number. In no
248.
by pavelrub 13y ago
See the edit in my reply to tomp. In the Peano axioms, 2 is defined as S(S(0)), not as S(0)+1. The correct way to think about this is to ignore any inclination to give those symbols any "real world" meaning. From the point of view
249.
by pavelrub 13y ago
Using the Peano axioms, we need to prove that S(0)+S(0)=S(S(0)). From the definition of +: S(0)+S(0)=S(S(0)+0) Again using the definition of +: S(0)+0=S(0). And we get: S(0)+S(0)=S(S(0)) Q.E.D. There is also a famous proof by Whitehead and
250.
by pavelrub 13y ago
"Follows" in the sense that it is not an axiom - it has a proof of more than one line in the sense of the Hilbert system. Seeing functions as collections of ordered pairs tells us nothing here. Your definition of ^ doesn't di
251.
by pavelrub 13y ago
My point is that when talking about the definition of 2, it is enough to restrict ourselves to the natural numbers - since that is where 2 is coming from. If we then want to extend this symbol to other places - the meaning of such an extens
252.
by pavelrub 13y ago
Whatever it is, 2^1=2 is not part of it - it follows from it.
253.
by pavelrub 13y ago
Maybe. Formally this is inaccurate as the successor function is not the addition function, and one has to prove that S(S(0))=S(0)+S(0). Edit: it should also be noted that this equality shouldn't seem "obvious": the name &qu
254.
by pavelrub 13y ago
You don't usually define 2 at all when talking about abstract structures (it makes little sense to call the polynomial 2 as being "the 2" of the field of rational functions, for example). 2 is something that exists only in N,
255.
by pavelrub 13y ago
This is simply wrong. 1+1=2 is the same kind of statement as 2^1=2 - it follows from the definition of the operation and from a general rule (it would be absurd here to say that 2^1 is the definition of 2, or that 2^1=2 is part of the defin
256.
by pavelrub 13y ago
What a load of elitist BS. YES - that's exactly what should happen. Your "political degree" gives you no right to decide for other people what's good for them. If I like my leaders to have nice eyes, then I am entitled t
257.
by pavelrub 13y ago
Seriously? I'm out of this argument.
258.
by pavelrub 13y ago
This is hand waving based on dubious analogies. You keep repeating the same thing without providing any justification, proof or sense behind it, despite being given counterexamples and counterarguments. Please show me a mathematical derivat
259.
by pavelrub 13y ago
If A is the event that x is causing y, and B is the event that x and y are correlated, what you are essentially saying is that P(both A and B) > P(A)P(B). There is nothing about the world that makes this statement correct without further
260.
by pavelrub 13y ago
No. Correlation doesn't make causation more likely. This is something you have made up.
261.
by pavelrub 13y ago
Those "catastrophic" events represent a tiny percentage of flight crashes, and a black-box wouldn't help to properly diagnose them either. Your argument still doesn't make sense.
262.
by pavelrub 13y ago
It means nothing. Causation can exist without correlation.
263.
by pavelrub 13y ago
I'm not convinced by your argument. I'm not sure what you mean by 'something catastrophic happens'. 'Something catastrophic' is the result of a certain chain of events. Telemetry data about those events can be
264.
by pavelrub 13y ago
You are right, it's my mistake. I meant 100^2 km^2 (for the satellite coverage), and 500^2 km^2 for the bounding area. Fixed.
265.
by pavelrub 13y ago
The whole area between Malaysia and Ca Mau is bounded within a square of less than 500 km^2, and even that is a vast exaggeration of where the plane is most likely to be.
266.
by pavelrub 13y ago
How difficult is it to scan the entire area using satellites? There are civilian satellites that offer resolutions better than 30cm today, surely enough to spot wreckage in the middle of the sea. DigitalGlobe alone has over 3 active satelli
267.
by pavelrub 13y ago
For this and the "general" definition to coincide, the ring in question has to be a unique factorization domain, which the integers are an example of. In any bigger subset of rings (integral domains or general commutative rings),
268.
by pavelrub 13y ago
The correct "general" definition also requires the prime element to be non-invertible and non-zero, thus 1 is excluded. It should be noted that this definition excludes "composite numbers" only when the ring is an integr
269.
by pavelrub 13y ago
This doesn't mean anything. Of course they had plans for the occupation of Crimea - countries have operational plans for a variety of contingencies that they practice for: that's what militaries do.
270.
by pavelrub 13y ago
That's like being surprised that after 10,000 hours of practicing basic arithmetic you don't know any algebraic topology.

More ›