imatfaal

You need to do a bit of work and let the members comment - we do not just do answers for you. And I deleted the duplicate question you asked. Maybe go through the facts, list them, and say whether you think each is important (how regular is her period; is 32 days normal or longer than expected in which case future contraception might be shutting the stable door) - and some combinations of facts (ie over two hundred pounds and less than five and half foot)

I apologize to all the European members of the Forum - my country is wrong and we will regret this vote for years to come.

I had missed arc's follow up :-D The guys who invented them got funding from kickstarter - maybe they would like a suggestion for an every racier front light

That sounds dangerously like the fallacy of poisoning the well - or have you taken the plunge and read the file?

! Moderator Note Nope - we do not allow this. You need to post your summary and enough detail here to allow members to partake of the discussion without visiting other sites and especially without downloading. Please do so - otherwise I will be forced to lock thread.

As the company is called Bike Balls - and they are advertised as ‘the world’s most overconfident bike lights' I am pretty sure that above is just a mealy-mouthed bowlderism. Although the set I bought for a friend were 18 dollars so that is a good price - perhaps they are a rip-off and trying to avoid being sued by claiming it is an upside down heart

Calc 85/3 = 28 1/3 ie not factor calc 85/7 = 12 1/7 ie not a factor calc 85/5 = 17 ie prime factors found That took me about a minute to work out in my head and type - and I got the answer. Your calculations are computational intensive and get to only an approximate result - WHY BOTHER? You are NOT homing in on an answer - just going around the houses to get one you can find more easily. If you don't understand what I mean by homing in on an answer above - or the iterative process I referred to in the previous post may I suggest you look at the Newtonian method for solving a quartic. That takes an initial guess and via the equation, its derivative, and a combination of both answers gives a closer answer; you then repeat with the closer answer; then you rinse and repeat. For the prime factorisation problem a new algorithm like this would be gold dust. But I repeat - YOURS DOES NOT DO THIS.

Exactly. I didn't know the term irrealis mode / mood - interesting article on Wikipedia. The Subjunctive was my aim; but, after reading the WikiWiki, I realise I would like to include certain hints of the Desiderative and Hortative moods in the phrase as well.

! Moderator Note moved to speculations - please take a moment to read the Speculations Guidelines pinned to the top of the topic list

why are you squaring both sides of this equation - it makes little difference (apart from opening a few changes to sign ie + / - ) if x*y=z then (xy)^2=z^2 and of course x^2*y^2=z^2 NO you wouldn't - you have an equation with three unknowns. If you know one of them you only get the function of the other two - if you know two of them you know the third. In the prime factoring problem YOU ONLY KNOW one - that is the product. If you knew two it would not be a problem - just a simple matter of division This is the crudest and longest sort of sieve - in effect you are just trying all primes (less than the largest prime which is smaller than the square root of the product) to see which works. The simplest way to do this is PNP/3 followed by PNP/5 f/b PNP/7 etc. You are doing this but making it very cumbersome It is not different - it is merely a very round the houses and calculation intensive way of dividing by guesses; the quickest way to divide by guesses is to do just that. If you were to demonstrate that some manipulation allowed a remainder which can be steadily gnawed away till you had an exact answer - that would be something special - BUT I promise at the moment your method does not do that; all it does is divide badly. But you cannot make an "educated guess"- Boring and workable method - very slow 1 . you have a PNP of 1081 2. that is ALL you have (otherwise this is not the prime number factorisation problem) 3. divide by 3 - there is a remainder 4. divide by 5 - there is a remainder 5. ...etc n. divide by 23 - there is no remainder and you have your other factor your way 1. Do a horrendously complex iterated function on 1081 and 3 - find that it doesn't ever divide without a remainder etc. There is nothing in your operation by 3 that helps you get to "ah I should divide by 23" - and until you show that there is you are wasting your time. You are NOT allowed to GUESS a test number to use in an operation with your PNP that you actually know is a factor - that is begging the question

There are lots of theories about where planets would form given an almost homogeneous protoplanetary disc and one disturbance - you can make up models that would put all the planets at orbits which are in a form of resonant series; whether this would ever give radii that would give a regular coincidence of calendar who knows. Some of the gaps on saturn's rings are because there is a actually moon in there clearing out the ice particles; but other rings are there because moons both interior and exterior to the gap combine to clear a path at a distance through gravitational interaction. It is not hard to extrapolate that idea to the dust grains around our nascent sun.

After the first, second, .... and tenth attempts at the first experiment had not produced the claimed results, and a subsequent set of ten follow-ups had also mysteriously not shown the expected observations then a revised time frame was decided upon for the next tranche of testing

On Marcel Duchamp's Fountain - just as interest did you know that it has been used as a urinal by people jumping barriers and "creating pieces of radical performance art" Piet Mondrian is one of my favourite artists - but then I am strange. And agree about Rodin - first time I saw the Kiss in RL I blushed; there is something about it that speaks to the "inner-mind" and bypasses all the usual sensory censors. Similarly Louise Bourgeious' Maman (the spider thing that was outside the Tate Modern) - I saw children refusing to go close to the sculpture with their parents quite clearly both angry with them for fussing and agreeing with them cos they were also terrified. Canova's The Three Graces is another piece that just hard-wires into the psyche

That's easy - it came from the unified field of the grand unification epoch when the strong decoupled Or is that a complete non-answer

If there were no other forces acting then it would be very easily maintained as it would be the bottom of the potential - ie it would require energy to push closer together and energy to pull further apart

Mike - the origin of the cosmic microwave radiation was other radiation; it cannot be the start of a medium that allowed EMR. Hot plasma gives off light and at the same time absorbs/scatters light; you have a hot mess of plasma and photons - this is expanding. As it expands it cools - this allows the protons and electrons to combine to make hydrogen; the hydrogen no longer absorbs the photons and we start to get a transparent universe. The last lot of photons created by the hot plasma is not absorbed, it is stretched over the vast time and cools from hot ultraviolet to cool microwaves - this is the fossil radiation of the CMBR. For this idea to work (and it passes all the evidentiary tests) there MUST have been EMR before recombination. Your idea that the act which created the CMBR and your medium are one and the same is at odds with our current idea about the CMBR.

I think our system uses 2^4096. But as with all these systems the most obvious weakpoint is the warm thing between chair and screen.

RSA encryption uses the product of two large primes. 10 digits? Seriously? - I could do that with a pencil and paper

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36563337 wow - just amazing. vote them out.

We would be getting more out of it if it were. I think at the least it could stick to the topic of the OP and not branch off at every opportunity PopQuiz - what is the probability of getting a brown M&M in the Van Halen dressing room?

xxsolarxx has been suspended for one week for rude and abusive behaviour on the boards and in Private Messages

And the applications for these sorts of prime product factorisers tend to be looking at inputs of minimum 2^2048, and more likely quite a few orders higher. These are big numbers exactly - and the calculation is very very long; unless I lend you my quantum computer running Shor's Algorithm

It is the final else that might perhaps cause difficulties

You have the product and one of the factors - why are you not just dividing one by the other? In simple terms - without code and acronyms - what are you trying to do? The tricky thing that will win a Field's Medal is if I give you a product of two large primes and you tell me quickly what those two large primes are - what you seem to be doing does not approximate or help with that.

Being a good theoretical physicist does not give you free rein to talk AND have attention paid to you when you stray into metaphysics and philosophy. This is called the Argument from Authority - and is a well known logical fallacy (check section 2 of the link) String theory is NOT a legitimate theory yet - it is a mathematical framework of breathtaking brilliance which is yet to shown to be of any predictive power. We are still waiting for one prediction of string theory to be conclusively observed in a laboratory. You talk about the maths - who created the maths is completely immaterial. One of the greatest Mathematicians ever is Nicolas Bourbaki and he doesn't actually exist Theoretical physics is doing great and there really is no rut - to be honest the idea that string theory being the "be all and end all" of progress was probably the rut; and physics has moved on and is very healthy. Remember - you cannot dial up breakthroughs like Einstein every couple of years. Dark matter and to a lesser extent Dark Energy are backed up by empirical evidence - they are something we need to explain No we shouldn't taken all theories into account. We take the well evidenced theories into account and think hard about how to get to well evidenced theories on everything else. That's easy - men are falliable and weak whereas good science is strong and trustworthy. One of my scientific heroes was Prof Walter Lewin - he was forced to resign, look at James Watson co-discoverer of DNA - not a great role model. Dismissing the science cos we don't like the man is wrong, accepting the science but distancing ourselves from the man is fine theories really do not have owners. Brian Greene is probably the leading pop-sci promoter at present and as others have said Ed Witten is maybe the leading theorist; my favourite would be Leonard Susskind who is brilliant at both I have seen Michio Kaku say stuff that I KNOW to be complete bullshit too many times. By the way - I do not "accept" anybody's thoughts on any matter without critical analysis first Because we have seen this very very often - trust me we would be quicker and harsher in our words if the ArchBishop of Canterbury had made guesses about LHC results. We have seen Kaku step out of his zone of expertise and speak nonsense so many times before that he no longer gets the "he is a theoretical physicist at NYU perhaps this might be good" break any more I have taught Philosophy - he has taught Physics; when he strays into my area I call shenanigans. Frankly I wouldn't argue with him on any point of empirical science - but outside that zone I know he takes rubbish. It definitely took real balls - big brass balls that demonstrate that he really doesn't care what the theoretical physics community think about his mad publicity seeking alter-ego