Genady

Tel-Aviv University. Retired.

It works for me. I often use it. Just have it tested again. I closed the screen after typing the sentence above, went to another thread, came back - it was here.

No, it is not.

It is not too late to erase it.

I see. There are teachers here, but I am not. They might advise you where to start.

Seems to me that it's better to start from the other end. What do you know about integrals?

I am one.

What don't you understand?

No, not necessarily. No.

Such a thing does not exist. However, there are many tools which help. And trial and error.

Then how does it work if p=0?

Yes, 'tis the season. Stay safe. We might get some rain from the #3:

Turns out that the sum of squares of the three distances, a2 + b2 + c2, is the same for all points on the circle. It appears as an algebraic "accident." What could be a geometric reason for this fact?

I don't know. But this factor is so obvious that I doubt it was not addressed. How do you know that it was not addressed?

All these factors go under the "tired light" hypotheses. They were investigated quite thoroughly, and the general conclusion is that they don't fit observations. There are many articles about them, their predictions and tests. Perhaps other members here will give you more specific answers.

I've found some information on it here: quote source - Who said "Poetry is the art of giving different names to the same thing"? - Literature Stack Exchange

Does it mean abstraction? For the context, nawinterviewP.pdf (uu.nl):

In what reference frame?

Yes. Gravitational waves.

He asked about (my emphasis) Edit: x-posted

I understand that they ask about, in this case, P(y(x) < 0), which is in [0,1]. Example: y(x) = x2, on [0, 10]. What is probability of y to be within [36, 64]? For x2 < b, x < sqrt(b). So, P(36<y<64) = (8 - 6)/10 = .2

If you can solve inequality y(x)<b, then the range of x in this solution over x1-x0 gives you probability P(y<b). The probability P(a<y<b)=P(y<b)-P(y<a).

Because they hit you sometimes, or something else?

Thank you. Yes, this is new to me, although it is not surprising as my course of set theory was quite basic. But why did you call these solutions "not altogether satisfactory"?

Thank you. Here I've sketched it. The four shapes are 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, and 4-0, where I've numbered the opposite vertices of each: