ahmet

meanwhile, I respect your status in regard to every direction. But I am sure that if you were at somewhere else ,(where I do not want to specify) ,while some people would respect your academic title, they would definitely laugh to you if you were expresing your other positions you mentioned in this paragraph. Though, this is not a generalisation and should not be ,too. Luckily, healthy minded people also exist at almost everywhere even though the amount of such people is dense or few.

I think or I was thinking that doing science or dealing with it as a hobby could not mean that you were not doing that job professionally?" could you define what profession means?

@Phi for AllI was thinking that this was NOT relevant to examples ...but was more relevant to defnition itself and what people think about it. but of course I can examplify: I have come across with strange people more than several times. But maybe,this type of strangeness might be classified,not sure. For instance the first one was in my childhood. I had several times come across with some people (each were different personalities) who were called "insane".they were not being called more correctly a "patient" ,folks were directly mention those people with "insane" . Honestly,I can clearly express that I had felt myself too strange! (I also feared too much) the second time was in my adolescent term/period of time. One man was wearing very strange clothes. I say "strange" ,because those clothes he was wearing were really dirty and wrinkled. I probably saw the same people or very similar two people in istanbul and somewhere out of istanbul far away. one of my cousin said "do you know this one" ,I replied, "Yes I presume I saw someone like this or the same one at somewhere else,too" he said "ahmet, this person is very strange. He will shoot you also will beat you if he wants something from you and you do not follow it." ... These examples ,I think, were just relevant to external appearances ,because some acts or some ideas could be defined or reminiscented as "strange" when they be disclosed,although this may have potentiality to be ordinary or natural. I mean or ask here whether a strange thing or strangeness might be "relative." This last one is generally being to be relevant to the people who are neither patient nor insane. Maybe in the folk or the member of any of our family. For instance, you could find something strange, in very well known people's biography.

I think I might help you via clarifying or specifying some instructions which given by @timo , or try to understand or follow these advices independehtly. ---->> you may use regression analysis. ---->> try to find out whether there is a correlation between the variables you mention. However, the first one might be easier than the second one. Because for the second one you will need numerical results. You can also try to analyze curves. For instance you could try to find to which curve the new result (graph) fits (e.g: normal distribution, t- chi-square, etc.) I think you can do this last one by approach,too (i.e. approximate curve) and this might ensure you analyze and comment more easily. I hope these helps. (As studiot states or implies that he was dealing with applied mathematics ,I invite him to make external /additional advices.)

what does MathML mean? is this libreoffice's one pocket usage (i.e. program like libre office writer)

hi, my lovely hodja replied today. But probably.. as I understand she implies that if except unitary element (of first operation) any ring contains just two elements ,then this will not satisfy group criteria according to second operation. To be honest her e-mail is a bit mixed. I am not sure whether I should recontact her. But I see "loves" conclusional word instead something more formal (e.g. regards, best regards also sincerely etc. Generally I had seen "sincerely" if someone would act across me rather formal ,especially when they do not know me, but loves is a bit intimate (not like warmly "kind regards" (I mean this last one seems like both positive and negative or at the centre of these approaches ) she also accepts that just {1} set is a group according to multiplication operation and it is obvious. mmm,yes I reread the taken e-mail and decided that she would express that if except the unitary element of first operation(I mean the ring's zero) ,if we have just two element,then this (according to the second operation) will not meet/satisfy group criteria. Z2 satisfies group criteria , because this ring has just one element except ring's zero.

I need to contact my hodja for help. Could you wait for a while for the clarification. There should be some unclarified details. (And are we confident/sure that Z2 contains just two elements. Because this ring is defined by congruence or equivalence (I could not find the correct word to explain very well) but there are such details in our hand .... 23≡1 22≡0 .... (infinity) so, is this group (or claimed so) finite? as I said,I shall contact my hodja and make suitable clarification.

This is okay. ✔️ but what about the theorem appearing above. In Regard to the multiplication operation, Z2 - {0z2} should satisfy group criteria.(Should be a group for multiplication operation) is this also being satisfied? Here H=Z2 maybe you might be right, not sure. Because I am sure that my hodja had made me note that theorem. But already galois thorem is not specified for specific prime number (to be exempted),therefore you might be right.

no, this is not a group for multiplication operation.To be honest Galois's theorem does not specify the case for 2 ,which is prime number. But this prime number is unique prime number that is even number. There is one a very basic theorem that will not accept any set which has had just two elements to be a field. That basic theorem is given as below: Theorem: a ring having just two elements cannot be a group for/across multiplication operation.(Thus <H,+,.> cannot be a field) Proof: <H,+,.> is a ring. if <H,.> is a group, we should have at least x element in H such that for 0H≠ b , a.x=b should be satisfied. when we care one other theorem ,which states 0H.x=0H , we have b=0H and this is a contradiction. thus, as any ring that has just two elements cannot be a group in regard to multiplication operation, it will also not be accepted as a field. I think Galois theorem is invalid specifically for 2. meanwhile, I think wikipedia might be not suitable for mathematical sciences ,where the issue is upper level than MSc or equivalent. (for Z2 there 0 is not invertible. )

what is this ?

would you like to share your opinions in convenience of title? let us learn which engineering book you mostly enjoyed,pleased to read and why.

I think there should be three element at least. lets see 1+(-1)=0 but -1 is not element of {1,0} set. Thus we can say that additive inverse does not exist for "1" element in {1,0} in fact, the second operation should meet/satisfy group criteria to be field, and to be ring; first operation should also satisfy group criteria.

simply, I see the use of "de morgan" rules.

this is an ideal (also it is one of trivial ideal) but not a field. Could you explain how you have defined . and + operations here? what is more ,I can additioally say that there was one theorem claiming that a matehmatical structure containing just 2 element also would not be field.(i.e. not only just one element but just two element is also insufficient to be field.)

in normal or direct reflection,no. but...I mean or claim and also underline "coincidences" , I think that this was high potential. because it is always probable to find a new thing when you look for something. but these days ...I am sure that searches are dense. here,in turkey I see some associations (e.g. TUBITAK) also turkish authority ease some conditions For instance in previous times ethical board was mandatory prior to some researches but now this conditon has been eased. not only turkey, I predict many countries have high desire to find a cure or vaccine for covid-19. but what if by coincidence ...?

the cure of AIDS or vaccine of HIV be found by coincidence simultaneously while the studies across covid-19 are being performed ?, what is your opinion?

ahahahha really right!

as I remember Z and Q are not in the same category. One of them should be different. Menwhile, to you; which type of fields do you claim? there are many types of fields (E.g. P.F.F. , Euclid field or completeness field etc.) Anyway, It seems disccussing such contexts under another thread will be better.

.........................

welcome @wtf, .I think I have done a mistake. (But some terms changing between languages, so I am not sure whether I would express all terms correctly (or equiavlently) Description: if <H,+,.> has 1H and has no zero divisors, and is commutative, then we call this ring with " completeness field" (I translated from turkish into english that term) Description: if H is commutative and has 1H and for every x element H-{0H}, at least y element H-{0H} such that x.y=1H conditions are being satisfied then we call this completeness field specifically with "object" (but not sure about the correctness of this term)( or equivalently this ring should satisfy group criteria for the second operation (multiplication)) All Q,R,C are objects. also, all finite completeness fields are also objects. Q,R and C should have no more than their trivial ideals

heyy ! I was just joking , but generally my jokes have potentiality to be also real. The thing I know I do not lie. ok,as they do not prefer to reply in the current status,I think I can postpone some operations. meanwhile,I was to use their materials about html+css ..(also maybe js) but I am still not sure whether interferring their specific samples would also provide me another copyright (?) (my own copyright) Thanks (Could you also respond: assume please I have contacted to the author of that or any else book. Also assume that the author kindly gives me permission to use the content. Should I also take the permisson from the publisher??)

ok. this is already rational idea. but contacting over the phone,will not this be non sense? because they will be able to refute later? I think I need written (material)/ permission (like an e mail) ok,now I decide to postpone somethings. furthermore,as far as I know copyright is not like a patent , and is valid only in the published country. But I do not really dominate all the relevant contents

maybe,I will try that but this will be a bit time later. Furthermore, do you have information about the questions on this issue ,for instance , what does require me to request a permission and not. (Specifically: I do not know whether I have to take permission on constructing a website or websites. I intend to use almost all of the codes they provided in some samples, but I also know that I would definitely interfere to that codes, for instance I shall change css part, and will add some new codes. however,I shall not use any extra (for instance I shall not copy paste any else section of the book and will not use the information provided in example (appearing on that sample of website) but I shall use just the codes succintly.

and what to do now,should I send a complaint form? inquiring: why don't you reply?!