Dave

This theme's good as it is, it doesn't really need much changing.

I'm sure we used to have a page like that somewhere, but I can't be bothered finding it. My favourite quote of the moment is:

Inside the installer is the compressed data that will eventually be decompressed and put onto your hard drive. If you've ever tried zipping something twice, you'll find that when you zip it the second time, it doesn't get much smaller at all, by a matter of kb. If I zipped the installer and sent it to you, I'd be very surprised if the file size went down by more than half a meg.

That's been done before, but it's quite funny nevertheless.

I'm currently using 1.6a, i think 1.6b is out but I can't be bothered upgrading

I think career wise, it's going to enable you to adapt to new mathematical ideas a lot better if you have some understanding of the basic principles behind the mathematics you're doing. For example, with calculus in general, you should at least have some knowledge of how the ideas of limits work, and soforth.

I can see this is where we differ. I think that for any math that you do, you should understand the basic principles behind it, or at least have a fairly good grasp of the concepts that are involved.

In fact, to go a little further, I agree somewhat with your argument. CAS's play a very useful role in the education of students and indeed in real-life applications. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't have to depend solely on the CAS's in case they need to learn something new later on in life.

I can see the merits of this argument. However, I feel that people should have at least a basic understanding of what they are doing when it comes to mathematics. My reasoning for this is simply that if you try to introduce people who are trained as such to new and more complex issues mathematically speaking, then they are very likely to fail in a large fashion. With technologies advancing as fast as they do in these fields, these people need to have the latest tools available to them to ensure their job safety, and when these tools are mathematical it is essential to have at least a basic understanding of the principles behind them in order to use them to their full potential. Whether you agree with my viewpoint or not, this is my opinion

Wow, it's been a while since I posted on here... Anyway, here's the solution to the main problem. I've left the extension open, if you think you get the right answer, e-mail me or something. I've yet to think of something for the next question yet; when I do, I'll type it up and post it. I promise not to make it so hard this time Enjoy... mathssol3.pdf

And somewhat of an engineering feat, be quite interesting to watch though

It's already compressed in the installer, so zipping it wouldn't make it smaller by a significant amount.

I've always had to show working, and I think that's the way it should always be. If you don't have a decent understanding of the mathematics behind whatever you're doing, then it's not going to stand you in good stead.

Blunt and to the point there YT I don't really think it's a very useful neural net, possibly feasible if you could find some way for it to fit inside the definition. But since neural nets are supposed to emulate neurons the brain, it's not a very lifelike approach.

ouch, my head.

well when you encode it as an e-mail attachment it's gonna get bigger anyway, so I'd definately go for the server option.

Yeah, that's sensible. An 89 is a bit excessive, they need to be able to do some calculus really otherwise they'll just bung the letters in the calculator.

(actually wasn't being sarcastic, you are actually quite good at it and I suck)

me? sarcastic?

If you can prove that there's not a bijection between the two sets, then you can prove that they don't have the same cardinality. At a guess, I don't think there's a bijection, but it seems like a little bit of a git to prove. And your avatar is corrupted for me.

Definately use a long piece of fuse wire then

By the way, as a disclaimer to myself, don't even think of attempting that, because it's probably highly illegal and you can definately injure yourself unless you're careful. You have to be mildly insane to try it in the first place anyway though.

My dad got a load of petrol in a 2 litre container, had a hole at the top, lit it. Nothing happened apart from the vapours being ignited until about a third of the petrol had been used up. When the oxygen mix was just right, it exploded and apparently was just a bit loud

Ah, good old junk I saw the funniest thing on TV last night. They blew up a caravan my putting 2 very large weather balloons in it and letting the gas out. It made a very large bang

Hmm, a good selection of things to keep me occupied. Might have a go at the power generator. Cheers.