Bignose

This x1000. This is something I really have a hard time understanding. The majority of critiques in the Speculations section, if addressed, would make the speculative idea stronger. Sure, there are a few potshots and snark in there, though the mods don't let too much of that survive for long. But in the majority of cases, the criticisms are met with an abject reluctance in any way to even explore the critique. I just don't understand that. One of my main regrets in life is that I'll never read everything I want to read and learn about. There is no idea that there isn't something more to learn about it. These people who claim to have some nugget of knowledge that mankind doesn't yet have should also be doing as much as possible to learn about the nugget. Not just sitting on that nugget and calling it the greatest thing since sliced bread and being done with it. Heck, even sliced bread is improving... there was a recent news article about techniques to make bread that will stay not moldy for nearly 2 months instead of the 1 to 2 weeks it currently is.

It is in the definition of the Taylor series [math]\sum^\infty_{n=0}\frac{f^{(n)}(a)}{n!}\left(x-a\right)^n[/math] This definition is nice because it can be shown to typically have some good convergence over a range, hopefully a range that is large enough for the need at hand.

Well, glad that's all settled up. Let me go back to banging two rocks together and learning how to use this femur as a weapon, now.

A semicolon is an end-of-line marker in python. This is useful if you want to put more than one line of code on the same line in the editor. However, a carriage return is also an end-of-line marker (barring other ways of telling the compiler you AREN'T at the end of a line). And in fact, if you read the python style guide, they really strongly urge against multiple lines of code on the same line of text. But, I am sure someone really wanted to do it, so the compiler knows what to do with it. See http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#other-recommendations about 'compound statements'

Boy, you said it. Doing integrals the way we currently are has been supremely successful. Can you show a specific example where it is shown to be wrong?

[math] x \in (0,3) \cup (4,7) \cup (8,10)[/math] easy enough. Set theory is a fairly rich field, and handles situations like this pretty easily.

No, I don't think you understand what you were being asked. You weren't asked to post another copy of the exact same link you already posted. I, for one, don't click on links to websites I don't know and trust. This is how malware gets spread -- people post links that are randomly clicked one and then their computers are infected. I have zero interest on clicking on a random link, but I am interested in your reasons for saying that there are errors in calculus. imatfaal is asking you to please copy and paste or re-type a summary or abstract of your work here -- on a website that I and others trust. That way we can also discuss it here as well.

Heck, I don't even have to invoke 2-D vectors to replicate what you are doing there. Well-defined functions would just fine. Replace "3 + (.0) 3 = 3 or 3 + (.. 3) = 3." with A(x, y) = x + y -3 Replace "3 + (.1) 3 = 4 or 3 + (.. 2) = 4" with B(x, y) = x + y - 2 Replace "3 + (.2) 3 = 5 or 3 + (.. 1) 3 = 5" with C(x, y) = x + y - 1 Replace "3 + (.3) 3 = 6 or 3 + (.. 0) 3 = 6 or 3 +3 = 6" with D(x, y) = x + y This is essentially what you are doing anyway... replacing the + operator with a combination of my A, B, C, D functions above. You dot and double-dot notation could just as easily be replaced with A, B, C, D. Lastly, considering your quote that you only reply to "meaningful questions" ... I'd actually like one from my very first reply in this thread answered. Namely, how is this an improvement over the tried an true? Instead of the tried and true addition operator, how is replacing it with some number of dots and an additional digit an improvement? And then secondly, is there any practical application? And THEN, will you retract your statement about how this is impossible in current mathematics? Because now I've provided at least two methods with the current mathematics that shows it can be done...

From what I read, your lecturer didn't necessarily say what you did was wrong, but asked you why you did what you did...

well, that is a rather different question than what you asked in the OP, isn't it? Python is a very high level language, dynamically typed, and very object-orientated but not requiring that you use the OO paradigm. While the base language is very powerful, its real strength comes from how extendable it is with the very wide variety of modules that can be imported to do very specific things (see a list here: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/). Beyond that, python does all the things other programming languages do. For more details, see the tutorials I referenced above. Really, such a general question doesn't have a good answer. Because, like with a lot of programming languages, it's uses are limited only by what you can imagine. It's 'importance' is also a tricky question to answer. Tiobe lists it as the 8th most popular language in use today: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html What I really like about it is what I wrote above: its extendability. I like that for a lot of things you want to do, someone had made a pretty decent module for it already. Now, can other languages do a lot of things python does? of course. And, I'd even say there are a lot of things that other languages do a lot better. But python can do a lot itself. There are far worse languages to consider.

in Matlab, the tool that is set up specifically for simulations of controls is Simulink. There are excellent resources on Simulink available on the web. http://bit.ly/WiIYs6

http://bit.ly/WiINNu please don't take this the wrong way, but is there something wrong with any of the first 20 or so links that come up when you Google "Introduction to Python" or "Python Tutorial"? e.g. http://docs.python.org/2/tutorial/introduction.html straight from the source. or similarly any of the number of books when you search for the same thing at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Python-Programming-Absolute-Beginner-Edition/dp/1435455002/ if you have specific questions about python, ask away, but I don't understand what you are asking for from the forum that you can't get from the above...

Wow, couldn't be wronger. This is not an algebraic problem, but a differential equation.

Is this all that is required to deny evidence? Something looks retouched to you? Can we use this same weak-ass standard against anything you present to us? I'd like to have a word in your thread about UFOs and their grainy videos if so...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html just as a counter for anyone who comes upon this thread, the above is a web site that does a pretty good job refuting the hoax claims (see not just this page, but several others by this same author). I think it is important to get that in this same thread so that there are counter arguments made.

Shhhhhhh, I also don't actually have a very big nose, either. But 'Reasonably Sized Average Nose' as a username didn't quite have the same ring to it.

Start at the back third of most any university level college calculus text, as well as http://www.amazon.com/Div-Grad-Curl-All-That/dp/0393925161/ will give you a good start on vectors. Vectors is a very, very wide field, and I am not going to type it all into this forum. Once you learn the above, you will learn that you can use operators on a vector or group of vectors and be able to re-create the pictures you posted. Specifically, translation, rotation, and possibly dilation operators. Have you seen one of those video games with advanced graphics? To render them, the GPU is constantly applying operators to vectors to create those images.

Arthur C. Clarke has a pertinent quote: Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying. I am with ajb, I think you'd be hard pressed to find too many scientist that will argue against the likelihood of life outside this planet. Just the sheer number of stars that are out there, with what we expect to be numerous planets around them, there are many, many Earth-like planets out there. There is virtually no doubt that there is life on these other planets, in terms of algae, bacteria, etc. What isn't knows as well is how likely these turn into higher life forms, and then into intelligent life. That said, the law of large numbers (again large number of planets) seem to say that we aren't unique. But, I am also with ajb in that your 'evidence' presented to date is almost comical. Grainy videos and eyewitness testimonies are insufficient. I'm sorry, but they just aren't. And certainly not enough to claim a violation of one of the most tested laws of physics ever. Without a way to replicate the 'experiments' in the videos, they are instantly suspect. Do you remember the supposed cold-fusion discovery some years back? It was big news... until the reported results couldn't be replicated. No one uses Pons & Fleischmann's 'result' as evidence for cold fusion any more -- because their results weren't reproducible. And that was with reporting the materials used, the temperatures used, all the equipment used, etc. How can you expect us to accept some grainy video, taken with some unknown camera, filming something unknown in the air, under unknown conditions, etc.? I mean, there are just so many other possibilities that explain the 'evidence' that you cannot focus on any single one of them and declare it right. When there are many other viable explanations, more testing needs to be conducted to help determine which possibility the evidence best supports. And lastly, per my factitious example above, it is not up to the rest of us to 'debunk' your evidence. One does not just assume something is true until it can be proven false. (You never proved my invisible dinosaur false -- do you assume it is true? From your posts, I'm guessing not.) It is up to the people supporting an idea to present objective, clear, conclusive evidence to support their idea. It is up to the supports to bring a wealth of evidence before a claim is even given the possibility of being true. Science is intentionally conservative this way. This way, no one's word alone is good enough, no matter what kind of authority they are. It used to be that the 'learned men' of a village could declare the world to be flat, the moon made of green cheese, and that dragons would eat little boys who misbehaved -- and they were believed without question. Science has rejected this model in favor of requiring clear, objective, statistically significant, conclusive evidence. I think we're better for it. And I'm going to reject you trying to pull us backward and accept your grainy, sketchy videos as evidence. Sorry, please try not to take it personally, because it really isn't personal. Again, it is all of science -- ALL science requires clear, objective, conclusive evidence.

Thanks for not even bothering to try to answer my question...

Decimal is just a convention. There have been societies that developed mathematics using base 20 (Mayans), base 60 (Babylonians), or base 6 (Ndom language in Papua New Guinea). I am sure there are others. And there is no reason you can't do all your math in base 2. Just know that most of the rest of the world is going to expect base 10 answers.

Scruffy is upset with you. He really wanted to know how you planned to debunk him.

Here is a photograph of the invisible dinosaur that lives in my garage, debunk it!

I read it. I was the first one who commented on it. I am asking you to explain it better so I can understand it. Just repeating yourself by pointing back to your post doesn't help. e.g. I don't read Russian. Handing me an original copy of War and Peace is unreadable to me. When I ask for help, I don't expect to just be handed a second copy of the book. I am actually asking for help... And furthermore, it certainly doesn't answer the my question about stuff that current mathematics can do, because, AGAIN, careful use of 2-D vectors can completely and wholly replicate your pictures there. Edited for spelling/grammar

I can describe every one of his figures with careful application of 2-D vectors. Certainly not impossible with current mathematics. I want him to tell me what he's done that is impossible with current math.

The extensive Unidentified Flying Object evidence... LOL. I know I haven't been a member as long as some of you guys, but this is a new one to me. Though, allowing unidentified evidence to count could just blow the doors wide open in science