imatfaal

a sky from summer but the wind is of winter autumn in london St James's Park earlier this morning

It estimates them using an inductive method where each guess is an improvement on the last - (Newtoniam Method or Laguerre or one of others); it does not arrive at the correct answer because there isn't one. The methods for solving polynomials of a lower order will only give radical solutions - and quintics have non-radical solutions so a general formula to solve all quintics cannot exist

QP you are conflating the idea that a quintic must have at least one real root with the existence of an method to find it. All quintics must cross the x axis and will have a real value of x for which y is 0 - that does not mean that there is a method for find that x value in radical terms. The equation y = x^5-x+1 must cross the x axis - ie it has a real root - but that root is not expressible in terms of radicals or quotients of integers; ie what ever value you put will be an approximation. No we haven't found a method - but we have shown that a general method is an impossibility - that is Abel-Ruffini which you have mentioned, which prove that some quintics have non radical solutions.

Your first phrase states that they are both non-singular - you will struggle to use that as the starting point to show that either matrix must be singular (is is non-zero perhaps)

Nice vids Moontanman - saw them a while ago and good to rewatch. Deluxe you really should try to watch them all - and not just dip in to the first one.

I don't necessarily disagree with the move to change corporate personhood (dont like that word) - but I do vaguely remember long lectures on the vaguely philosophical underpinnings of contract law and the need for this artifice and why we hadn't got around to changing it in the 500 years or so since it was first mooted (but to be honest I cannot remember any of the reasons).

message is unclear even inow perplexed "naive young hippies..."

I saw your replies from a year or so ago in Chemistry - thanks

Deluxe - you said "There are no transitional fossils", I provided an example. Which bit of that do you disagree with? I never mentioned DNA, neither creators nor lack of them cropped up in my post, and there was no mention of teeth - so why do you bring them up? I was not asking for an explanation of why that hominin looks as it does; I already have a rational explanation I believe, just as you have a faith-based one. I don't know if we could mate with that creature, I would strongly suspect no - but again what does that have to do with your initial assertion that I showed to be false? I do not care that you choose to believe in a faith-based narrative - what I do care deeply about is you making unwarranted and incorrect statements about the body of scientific knowledge.

Apart from the corporation as legal person bit - which I think is recondite and not as simple as they purport - I am pretty much in agreement with those lists. I do not think that for a document trying to be accessible to the general public it could be much more detailed (although it could be phrased in less personal terms and without so many colourful phrasings)

Hmm I am not so sure - I think it would open the way for rule by civil servants; ie the mandarins will allow the parliamentarians get on with debating the latest criminal cause celebre whilst the civil service makes policy. i don't think it would stop politics being a dirty game - it would just make one side unaware of the best tactics and even the rules.

Nice post and thanks for the links (read most of them) . I would have thought that the WTO would have a great deal to say about this - I will have a trawl and see what I can find.

This is just plain incorrect. You can get away with sweeping statements like the above in a faith based knowledge system - but in a rational system, when you make statements of fact, you need to back up claims with some evidence. Here is a link to a page at the University of the Witwatersrand detailing the discovery, morphology and dating for Australopithecus Sediba. This is an unusual early hominid because it was found in Southern Africa not in Eastern Africa - but it is still an excellent candidate for early homonins

Need a few more details to even speculate on this.

The authorities knowledge of an action cannot have any weight on the illegality of that action - merely on the chances of prosecution. On the ongoing nature - I was trying to show that if one of the sides of the arrangement was ongoing and the other unique that it would be difficult to draw a link between them; but if either both were on-going or both one-off then the link is more readily apparent. The second section - 10k for a piece of work could well be charged as a one off fee by either an individual or a corporation, 10k to a 9-to-5/M-to-F will always be presumed to be employment; frankly the impression I get is a hark back to very old class distinctions, if you pay someone 10k to redesign your garden it is a fee, if you pay them 10k to mow the lawn it is employment. As it will both increase tax revenue and protect the individual a presumption for employment over a contract for services will often be made - even if a service contract is in evidence.

Let's face it - this is how we select our juries who have great power (potentially that of life and death) - and whilst many in the legal profession will have stories about terrible juries, they wont be as bad as the stories about judges

If you really enjoy number crunching and unwieldy formulae - there is a method for determining if a quintic is solvable with radicals, and another which (3 page equation) which allows the solvable quintics to be solved

The real mathematicians will have a better answer for you - but I do sometimes get pretty vile equations in my line of work, and most of the time you can simplify or make assumptions. for f(x) = x^6+x+57 you immediately know that no +ve real can give f(x) = 0, x^6 is always +ve so any real roots must be both -ve and damn close to zero, you can differentiate to find the turning point (gives you a quintic but one that is easy to solve), if the value of f(x) is positive at the minima then you aint gonna have any real roots - and if all else fails I think you can use the Newton-raphson method to estimate the result once you are sure they do have real roots.

For those that can use bbc iplayer or are able to listen live there is a new series on BBC Radio 4 "The Life Scientific" in which Prof Jim al-Khalili talks to prominent scientists. The first episode was Sir Paul Nurse and a very good listen indeed http://www.bbc.co.uk...fic_Paul_Nurse/

Gold is anything but stable - it has gone up by 1.2% so far today - and has varied (in both directions) by over 4pct in a business day in the last few months. If it was in consideration for work done then tax would be payable. Also arranging physical delivery of gold entails quite high costs for small amounts. I am not a tax lawyer - but I wouldn't relish arguing your first point with either HMRC or IRS and claiming they needed to show a direct causal line. I reckon they would charge you tax at emergency levels and then ask you to prove that the money received had nothing to do with the work done. Revenue departments tend to have fairly draconian powers (that most of the time they eschew) - but in situations like this I think they might well be able and be willing to reverse the burden of proof. The tax authorities being alerted to the fact is a much more difficult area - for a sum as small as 10k I cannot see how this would come to the revenue's attention without someone dropping them a hint; but many honest tax-payers do hate being cheated (and that is what is happening) and they might take advantage of the anonymous tip off lines that are available. I am pretty sure that any revenue service will disagree about there being little link between a gift and pro bono work - if the gifts are every year and the work is a one off (or vice versa) then it could make sense, but if both the gift and the work are unusual and contemporaneous they would try and charge you, no matter your protestations. I would be very surprised if there isn't precedent on this matter in both UK and USA - but my academic westlaw subscription has lapsed and I cannot afford a personal one. Whilst it might not benefit the friend financially to pay above the board (ie won't be able to put it against income to lower profit and thus tax) it will definitely reduce the liabilities (employers contribution etc) and responsibilities that an employer has to an employee and to the government. It is, in the end, a nice cosy agreement between friends; but in the UK (and from what others have said) in the USA it would be evasion of tax and thus morally and legally suspect.

If you don't want the assignment done for you - then you need to show that by putting down what you have done so far and entering a dialogue with the forum members to clarify the areas that you are not sure about (ie not open 4 different threads all asking the same question)

You can try the Khan Academy (a massive online learning site) - here http://www.khanacademy.org/ To check answers you can try Wolfram Alpha ( a very clever online computation site) - here http://www.wolframalpha.com/ And for free text books you could try wikibooks - here http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Subject:Mathematics

Homework Help Rules A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give the answers may be removed.

Whilst not something I am an expert I would say that in the UK this would be treated as deliberate tax evasion - which would mean that tax would be due as would a fine. Ethically - it is clearly remuneration for work done and to evade tax on it should be treated in the same manner as being paid a portion of a salary under the table.

I love enthusiasm and those who find joy in small and outwardly unimportant matters I love St James's Park in the autumn I love espresso coffee - but have just had throw out my machine; however, I love spending too much time bargain hunting on the net