jordan

I'm a combonation of A and B. If I respond in a thread to someone and see that they're still on line, I might hange around for a while to wait for them to reply. If I haven't posted anything lately for people to respond to, I'll just check mostly general discussion, general science, all the math ones, the politics and the religion. I leave the others alone. I guess for the most part I am a B.

Then it all seems to work for me. I don't see anything wrong with what you're saying. Just out of curiousity, you old are you (if you don't mind saying)?

Wow, YT.

I follow your thought process through everything but I don't understand this: an infintisimal bound progressivly by a scaling speciffic infinty If you (or anyone) could clarify exactly what you're trying to prove, that would be great.

I'm not sure what you're asking there. Can you rephrase it?

Sounds good.

I wasn't saying it was. I was just trying to explain what YT was saying and in the process, make sure I understood it myself (YT, you're still welcome to correct me if I explained your theory wrong). I know there are an infinte number of primes. It's my favorite proof because it's so simple yet has great implications. Sorry for any confusion.

Then I guess it would work. The problem they have is that I go through the steps too quick in my head to write them all down. If I stop and work eveything out on paper, I forget where I was going and have to start over. Then they say I cheat somehow to get the answer or I'm just lazy. I can't win. Sorry to drift so far off topic, but until AtomicMX explains what the DGO method is, I don't have much else to say.

But what YT is saying is that if we only know Pi to 3 decimal places (even though there exist an infinite number of them) then taking Pi^(1000) would eliminate all the known decimals and we'd be left with 4 digit whole number. If we know Pi to however-many decimal places (you said 2 million) than you would use only those numbers and mulitply by the apropriate power of ten to eliminate them, thus leaving a whole number. Whether that number will be prime or not, I'm not sure, though. If we only knew Pi to two decimal places we'd have 3.14. Multiply by 10^2 and you get 314, not a prime number. I don't know whether stopping at any point will always yeild a prime, YT, but I hope I explained what you're trying to say right and I hope AOM understands it.

My teachers never seems to go for that. They think their way is the only way. By the way, how are we defining "mathematically sound"?

Wow. I never thought of something like that. I think you may have found the most ethical solution to the problem. Very good idea.

Really, there is no set name for what I use. My teachers all hate it, but I find visualization a whole lot easier than anything else. I move through steps that no one else seems to follow, occasionaly scribble a few things down, and after coming up with a preliminary answer for one variable, substituting it back in to the others. No, it doesn't always work on the first try, but I find it much easier than trying to add three times row 5 to four times row two with the hopes of making everthing zeros. Though I've never tried ten, it seems like both methods would become increasingly difficult with increasing variables.

Please, no more. They stole my name and then made a horrible method out of it. Really, of all the methods for solving systems, this is my least favorite. And you can mark one more vote in the "haven't heard of DGO" column.

I see what your saying now. The only thing I don't understand is exactly how it would work, but that's because I don't have much understanding of those sorts of things. For a second language, your english isn't bad at all. Don't worry about what Tesseract says. Si Tesseract no entienda su ingles, hablas en espanol. Si Tesseract no entienda espanol, reir. That's my attempt at spanish. Your english is much better than my spanish.

First, let me clarify myself. Your machine is different than others in that it only sends what is inside the machine back in time. Others would move everything back in time with them. Since yours only sends what's inside back in time, what would happen if the object you sent back was part of a greater whole? If I took half of something, we'll say an apple this time, and sent half an apple back in time to before I cut it, would the apple take with it the other half from my time? How would the apple get whole again when I only sent half of it back? Where does the other half come from? Also, you've mentioned freezing a few times. Can you explain what you mean by freeze in relation to your time machine?

Wouldn't that involve putting the entire universe into the machine? Which makes me think, what if you put part of an object (say have a spaceshuttle) into the time machine and sent it back to the point in time when it was whole? Would you have sent the other half (not in the machine) back in time also, or would you change the past? I guess I'll have to go read up on those somewhere before I can continue this.

I guess everyone's biggest fear would be the fields you talk of. You haven't really explained what fields you plan to invert or how that will help us travel back in time. I don't want to discourage you or anything, but with the level of explanation you've provided, anyone here could come up with an equaly viable theory. What will give your theory more credibility than others is when you explain more about the fields and why you believe they will work. Sorry, but that's about the best I could put it.

There's a debate on this?

We need more teachers like you, then.

Cool. Do you really employ your refined teaching meathods? Some kids could certainly use it. Oh, and I'm going to assume Chemistry or science in general, right.

Does TV bother you too Buendia? I know I used to wonder if the people in the TV could watch me the same way I could watch them.

Have you considered teaching YT?

Sorry, I forgot to take into account that I have no idea what his theory actualy is.

I'm still a bit unsure of how this is useful. Is this just for the sake of saying you can travel through time because spending an hour in a capsule only to be taken back to the exact moment you enter the capsule doesn't seem to be too useful. YT, wuoldn't the Earth be at the same spot when you return also? That's what going back in time is about.

Just kidding aommaster. I don't really think we will ever take them over, but I'm an optimist.