imatfaal

I guess total and longterm stripping of electrons from nuclei happens in electron degeneracy - in a white dwarf the pressure and temperate leads to the formation of a degenerate gas in which bare nuclei exist in a gas of electrons. it is the electron degeneracy pressure which prevents the star from collapsing any further (chandrasekhar limit)

Even in the 17th century that wasn't true - and with the 20th century dawn of incredibly counter-intuitive maths and physics it is even more untrue now

Tony Just thinking quickly about your variant (in a numerical fashion) to see if it might be generalisable - I subbed in angle QSR as 60 degrees (makes everything simple and triangles all similar). EP/TP would equal 3/2 but PR/TS would equal 4/1. Just thought to run through the original question with 60 degrees and I still get a variation of the ratios by 1 - I reckon you should be trying to prove that PT/TE = PQ/TS -1

axiomata that are true in and of themselves are as rare as hen's teeth. your statement relies on the axiom that you are a true reporter of your own feelings (what you really want is an excuse to see the cute girl/boy at the corner shop where you buy milk) at the very least. Descartes cogito is almost the arch-example of circularity (or possibly recursivity) that Mr S mentioned above; I believe I am an entity which is able to believe it is an entity because I am able to beleive that I am an entity which is able to believe it is an entity

Congrats on those grades - and enjoy university

The kinetic energy of something like that would be considerable (tens of thousands of joules) and good balancing and safety precautions would be essential - even unpowered and braked it would still have enough oomph to rip your arm off

I cannot work this out - I am getting the ratios being 1 apart, not equal assuming RT is perp to EP - and assuming angle RQS and angle RSQ lie between 45 and 90 1. angle RQS and RSQ both equal a 2. by opposite angles EST also equals a 3. call angle SET b - and bisect angle QRS and join to median point of QS - call new point M 4. triangles EST and RMQ and RMS are similar (for right-angled triangle only need one other angle to show similarity) 5. angle RQM and angle RSM must be same and equal to b as triangles similar. 6. angle QRS is sum of angle RQM and angle RSM ie 2b 7. call length TS and SR J - note this must also be RQ as triangle QRS must be isoceles PT/TE = PQ/TS 8. PT. tan(2b) = o/a = PT/2J. PT = 2J Tan(2b) 9. TE. tan(a) = o/a = TE/2J. TE=J Tan(a) . But as a+b+90=180 (see triangle EST) then a= 90-b. As tan(90-x) = 1/tan(x) then TE = J/Tan(b) 10.PQ. cos (2b)=a/h = 2J/PR. PR= 2J/Cos(2b). PQ = PR - J = 2J/Cos(2b) - J 11. TS defined as J [math] \frac{2J.tan(2b)}{\frac{J}{tan(b)}} = \frac{\frac{2J}{cos(2b)}-J}{J} [/math] but everytime I simplify I end up with the RHS being 1 bigger than than the LHS

No philosophy or ethical system can be created that will be able to answer constructed/contrived hypotheticals. Systems of ethics play a stronger role in allowing us to properly marshal internal arguments when trying to make a rational decision in an inherently messy real world. Pure consequentialism (as per your example) and pure deontology (where the moral action rather than the outcome is prime) will always lead to absurd situations. But the reading of the works of Bentham and JS Mill (utilitarianism) and Kant (deontological ethics) open the mind to greater understanding of moral/political problems. And of course whilst consequentialism/deontology is a great divide in ethics, there are other completely different ethical concepts; aristotle's nicomachaean ethics (follow the path of a good man) is a great start as is the updated modern concepts that follow this (martha nussbaum is great)

[math] 2k+1 [/math] will not be divisible by three if k is a multiple of three. ie if k =6 2k+1 =13, k =9 2k+1 =19

I seem to be the only one replying - and before I spend anytime really thinking about it I would like to know exactly what was asked - the devil is sometimes in the details

MOND is not entirely on the junk heap is it? It is clearly incomplete but is it quite as defunct as Sean blogged. Bekenstein has been stuck out on a limb before only to have mainstream move to him. Sean Carroll's stuff is amazing - but there did seem more than a usual bit of animus in that blog

The problem is that resources are massively misused and the distribution is anything but even. there are many families with no food and they are starving - and too many people with much more than enough and an active interest in keeping the populace hungry and underfed. fertility control is not a solution - it is a draconian punishment for a problem that was created by the developed world, still benefits the global rich, and will be perpetuated. your "solution" is equivalent to punishing the victim "do little to help" - no they actively destabilise and exacerbate the problem. From spin1/2's postings you could guess that her experience is based in southern africa - and thus the mining companies are the focus; my experience and knowledge of africa is mainly based in north and west africa and the villains are most certainly the oil industry. pluralistic democracies tend to support their population (to an extent) warring dictatorships involved in internecine terror are more than happy to accept the oilcos dollar and the mining cos rand whatever the consequences for the farmer, the small holder, and the fisherman. the western arms companies are the third part of a tragic cabal that has sought to slice up africa and divide the spoils

Me too - that has exhausted my understanding of string theory!

Prob better if you put on forum everything that was given - and how it was given.

Surely a two dimensional object has area - ie length and breadth. strings only have length - they are 1-d objects. A 2d object would be a membrane or 2-brane

But that's the point. What Ringer was saying is that there were prior theories that said that variation (in the breed not the individual) could occur during the during the life of the individual. we now know that our genotype is fixed at conception and that environmental variables are only accounted for when a random variation provides a competitive breeding advantage

can you not just calculate the difference between (n+1)^2 and n^2 and get 2n+1. for positive n, 2n+1 will have smallest magnitude when n is 1 - ie difference is 3

Seems screwy to me. Is that the diagram provided? - cos it is deliberately misleading if it is. RSQ does not look at all equal to SQR - but does look equal to QRS. I think the problem is incomplete - but I have a feeling (just a guess I havent tried) you could make a stab at it with the above correction and the assumption that EP is perpendicular to RT

From point 8 onwards your construction seems independent of the position of A with regards to H - and thus independent to the angle you claim to be trisecting

we control very little and manipulate even less - those who are successful are those who understand trends and directions quicker than the crowd and have the temerity to back themselves. you could equally say that religion manipulates politics for their own ends.

Edited for space. Thanks for those Spin. I remain slightly unconvinced - there is undoubtedly evidence that severe malnutrition can affect neural development (and as we were talking about this your point stands correctly although the evidence is hardly overwhelming) however poverty per se is another matter. I was guilty of reading the point without context

where is anybody being offensive?

From what I gather this explanation comes in three parts - and yes so far I can only see bisection. I presume the OP is going to make many many very small divisions at the right hand side of the diagram and then claim that two of lines formed cross the arc or line between AB at the trisection points - this will be an estimation and not generalisable (as has been pointed out above)

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-14765837 From a bystanders position, and being a fan of both the beeb and the guardian I am probably not getting the whole story; but it does seem from a reading of the popular press in the UK that Wikileaks, or possibly more accurately Julian Assange, has gone a little over the top and is now losing friends even amongst the western liberal press

those two look uncommonly like the pair we have running our country - makes you weep...