| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Comments:
<0> Younix: seriously, i don't know.
<1> whats 2+2?
<0> Younix: 4
<1> MATHZ!
<0> Younix: i guess
<1> yarly
<0> Younix: you probably know more than me. i really don't know anything other than basic arithematic.
<1> same here
<1> i don't care to know, really
<1> i can find out anytime
<1> googel teh wabz
<0> Younix: i care to learn now. but i think it will take a lot of effort for me.
<1> probably
<2> Better
<0> i ***umed that to read 'Zakons Basic Math' i need to learn 'Foundations of math'. But, i've found out that 'Foundations of math' is actually a whole research discipline itself!
<0> so, my question is what is the prerequisite for 'Foundations of math'?
<2> Well
<2> That's referring to like, the theoretical/philosophical/logical foundations
<2> Which are not basic math
<3> actually, first study a whole bunch of normal math before starting on foundations
<0> and, actually i don't know arithematic either. i tried to read 'A course in arithematic' but i coudn't understand the first page.
<3> otherwise, you won't see the point
<3> that's not Serre's book is it?
<2> Heh
<0> lieven: 'A course in arithematic'?
<0> lieven: yes it is
<3> it uses the french definition of arithmetic and it's graduate level
<2> :D
<0> lieven: i don't know arithematic
<0> lieven: i know NOTHING about math
<3> a graduate student could go through it at about a page per hour :)
<0> lieven: i think i'll try to read a book on logic and try to get familiar with notations.
<2> sleep time
<3> pyenos: you could start with Hardy & Wright's book on number theory
<0> lieven: what's the title?
<3> Introduction to the Theory of Numbers
<3> it's a more reasonable start to number theory than Serre :)
<0> lieven: holy ****
<0> lieven: i have that book
<0> lieven: i've been collecting ebooks
<0> lieven: although i can't read them. i searched and it is there
<0> lieven: but my aim is not to learn number theory. but to understand math notations.
<0> lieven: shouldn't reading 'introduction to the theroy of numbers' be a distraction?
<0> lieven: because i need to learn basic notations and fully understand and able to use them.
<3> notation is not really what mathematics is about, so I don't really see your point
<3> I mean, the phrase 'by abuse of notation' is notorious in higher level of texts.
<0> lieven: how can i understand math text without fully understanding notations and symbols used in the text?
<3> most introductory books explain their notation at the beginning
<0> lieven: i've been trying to read 'Zakon basic math concepts' and i stopped
<0> lieven: because i was not satisfied with the explanation on set theory notations.
<3> if you don't care about the topic, Munkres's Topology has a very good introduction to math concepts and notation.
<0> lieven: ty. i have that book too
<4> Ugh. I have that book.
<0> |Steve|: i didn't read a single page from it
<3> pyenos: what's your problem with the Zakon text? Scanning through it diagonally doesn't find any problems
<0> lieven: i want explanation on all the possible ways to use set theory notations and when not to use them
<3> pyenos: notation just isn't that standardized. every author has a lot of latitude in notation and terminology.
<0> lieven: i tried to translate every sentence in that book from english or a combination of math symbols and english to only math symbols. and, i couldn't do it.
<0> so i stopped reading.
<3> take blackboard bold N and blackboard bold N_0. if you're taught in the french tradition like me that means the numbers 0,1,2,... and 1,2,.... respectively. there's another convention which does that the opposite way.
<0> lieven: that's really confusing... i understood what you wrote, though.
<0> lieven: i wasn't taught math in a formal way and i'm not a good student.
<0> lieven: literally, i don't have math tradition and i know nothing.
<0> lieven: but i want to learn small things completely, because i think that's all i can do at the moment.
<0> lieven: maybe i'll stick to one tradition, like french and learn it.
<0> 'by abuse of notation': how can did be? if you can translate without loss of information between one formal system to another?/? there shouldn't be such athing!
<0> there is no such thing a 'by abuse of notation'.
<0> unless there is loss of information during translation
<0> if there is, then i won't use these notations! neither english nor math symbols!
<3> do you know what a group is?
<0> lieven: no
<0> lieven: you can ***ume that i don't know anything.
<0> lieven: only part of conversational english
<0> lieven: which book do you recommend to the most inferior math student candidate?
<0> lieven: because i need that book
<3> no idea. You seem to be a bit to occupied with formalism for a beginning math student.
<0> lieven: i need formalism to learn, because i'm inferior.
<0> lieven: i can't accept anything unless i understand the previous concept.
<0> lieven: i don't have a brilliant insight.
<0> lieven: so... i'll ***ume that you can't recommend the book for me. tyvm for your information.
<3> formalism and axiomatics aren't tools to learn a subject, they're tools for ordering it.
<0> lieven: i don't understand.
<0> lieven: i don't think it is possible to learn any subject completely without formalism.
<3> what gives more insight: the statement 'there are infinitely many prime numbers' or that statement translated in a mathematical formula that takes 2 pages?
<0> lieven: i'll take the latter
<5> hi
<0> lieven: i need to know what 'infinitely' means and what 'prime numbers' mean in all suitable contexts.
<5> what does the operator for congruence with an number written under it means?
<0> lieven: see what i mean?
<0> lieven: DustyDingo is asking for definition of notation
<3> pyenos: go checkout http://mizar.org then. They'll probably be glad to have you :)
<0> lieven: but i'm an idiot. they want idiots?
<3> pyenos: point
<0> pyenos: what?
<0> lieven: what?
<5> pyenos: ???
<0> lieven: i'll ***ume that you can't help me any further. tyvm
<5> is there really noone, who can explain me, what rotate_90_deg("|||") with a small n written to the bottom right means?
<3> DustyDingo: in what context have you seen that?
<5> lieven: i shoould proof, if x |||n x' and y |||n y' that x+y |||n x' + y'
<6> just wondering, whats |||?
<5> rotate(|||) with a small n in the bottom right
<5> i have no idear, waht it means
<3> probably equality modulo n
<5> so x mod n = x' ?
<0> this is pure bull ****
<5> pyxl: ???
<5> narf
<3> no x=x' (mod n) or x-x'=kn for some integer k
<6> oh, you mean rotate the ||| 90 degrees, funny :-)
<5> ok
<5> yes, better idear, how can i write it here, without knowing the name of this operator?
<7> hi TRWBW
<8> yo
<9> hu
<9> hi
<9> if i have a function that has an integral over [a,b], how can i how there is an x where the 'integral from a to x of f(x)' = 'integral from x to b of f(x)'
<8> GuySoft: think of it this way, if you have a function g(x) with g(a)=0 and g(b)=u, is there an x such that g(x)=u/2?
<9> TRWBW, yes, because F is continiues
<9> contioues*
<8> ....
<9> TRWBW, but how can i be sure that the x existis?
<9> exists?
<8> GuySoft: you just proved it. F is continuous.
<9> ill play with it
<8> GuySoft: you kidding? you seemed to get it, what's left to prove? F(x)=int f(x) over [a,x]. F(0)=0, F(b)=u, there is an x where F(x)=u/2
<9> TRWBW, i just thaught i might be missing something
<8> GuySoft: it's a bit of a red-herring question, there is nothing special about integrals that makes it work, just that they are continous
<9> TRWBW, well thanks anyway..
<8> k
<10> How do I go about finding the sum of an infinite series where the terms are something like 1/(9k^2+3k-2) ?
<10> Our textbook gave no examples of any problems which looked remotely like this one, but then included about 15 of 'em in the exercises section
<10> ...so, either it's really trivial, or they just didn't feel like explaining it
<8> ccbrti: try partial fractions
<11> I dunno how it is called inenglish, nulldivider maybe? where a,b in R (ring) a,b != 0 and axb = 0
<8> "zero divisor" is an element a!=0 with a b!=0 and ab=0
<8> but basically, yes
<11> ah, there is the rigth term, ty
<11> in Z/9Z, there is only 1 zero divisor? 3?
<8> jin: british dialects might say "null divisor"
<8> jin: yes
<8> jin: in Z/nZ the zero divisors are going to have gcd(x,n)!=1
<8> jin: british dialects might also say "zed divisor" i don't know
<11> thanks for pointing that out :)
<11> an element is an unit if it has a multiplicative inverse.. can some explain the last part? or point me to some source?
<8> jin: it's just a definition
<3> a is a unit if there exists a b such that ab=1
<8> jin: sometimes it leads to things you wouldn't expect. for example in the real numbers, everything by 0 is a unit
Return to
#math
or
Go to some related
logs:
openfiler livecd
bttv / edubuntu
homespyvideo username
#gaim
gentoo uname wrong
#gaim
junix - definition
img2.php
epoll_wait bad address
#linux
|
|