Dave

On a complete tangent, that colour scheme has to be quite the most horrible one I've seen yet 5614 How do you work with that?

You're right, of course I was copying and pasting, so must have pasted the = by accident

Where's the exp come from?

Are you sure this can even be evaluated? I mean, one approach would certainly be to use the fact that: [math]\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |x|^{|x|} \, dx = \int_{-\infty}^{0} (-x)^{x} \, dx = + \int_{0}^{\infty} x^{(-x)} \, dx[/math] Besides this, I don't think that function is integrable at all (although I could very well be wrong). Is this an assignment, or is this just something to satisfy curiosity?

I think you're right on all three counts. The easiest way of proving (1) is by providing a simple counter-example to show that it's not true for all functions f. As for (2) and (3), they're fairly simple. Just show that as x tends to the limit, the function becomes unbounded. I've also corrected your LaTeX errors. The problem was that you were using \lim_{x\to\0} - the error is highlighted. You just need to use something like \lim_{x \to 0} instead.

Dudde!! Nice to see you around again

Damn that Aeturnus fellow. I can see I'm going to have to G:Line him and his silly regex fixes

It's a common ploy. I've seen these "returned e-mails" that look authentic, so you open the attachment because you can't remember sending it and... Just ignore them. They'll go away after a while.

Fixed - hopefully. Let me know if there's any problems, since I've literally just finished coding it

Another small fix: PNGs in Internet Explorer don't render with any alpha channels, so LaTeX images were coming up short. I've decided, for the time being, to implement a small JavaScript hack to fix the situation. I strongly recommend you use a decent browser, like Mozilla Firefox, but I will eventually get around to allowing users whether they want GIF or PNG images.

I'll see if I can re-implement that. I'd forgotten about that mod, thanks

I've split the posts off from the previous thread into this one. This is a far more appropriate place for discussion.

I've gone through and made a couple of minor fixes. The main one to note is that I've rebuilt the post counters, so your post count may go down a few posts.

I know our university definately does. Try connecting on another port like 6665 and see what happens. Barring that, PM me and I'll try and open another port up.

Moved to a more appropriate place.

We've now successfully upgraded to vBulletin 3.5. There are many changes, but most of them are behind-the-scenes. I will, however, list the changes you will see from now on: The most obvious is the new AJAX systems. These allow you to post/edit your posts without even reloading the page, and adds to the style of the forum. It takes a bit of getting used to, but it's a great feature. LaTeX has been updated to give much quicker rendering times. I'll post more on this in another thread. The style has been updated so that it actually works properly now, loads faster and is generally more efficient. For the moment, those are the only ones I can think of. I know that there's going to be a lot of teething issues, so if you see something (big or small), please post it here and someone will deal with it when we have time. Thanks all, and enjoy the new features!

We're not using it as a number anywhere in the thread; certainly not in my posts But we're not concerned with this. "0.999..." doesn't mean "have a finite number of 9's in the expansion". We're only concerned with the limit, so none of this counts. I'm betting you won't find one either. After considering this thread for a bit, I thought of something a little more interesting. If you have a problem accepting 0.999... = 1, then it follows that you must have a problem with things like exponentials, and more specifically, exp(). After all, we define e using an infinite sum (or equivalent limit): [math]e = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n!}[/math] Really guys, what's so difficult to accept about this? Whilst I accept that it may not be completely intuitive, that's pretty much true of a lot of mathematics out there.

You're missing something. A is defined using every element from G, so if the identity is an element in G then it's trivially in A.

Another update: We're going to begin the upgrade process over the next few days. I've been doing some prep work on a development version, and most of the things we need have been at least tested. I'll post an announcement when I know for sure when the upgrade is going to take place.

Only just seen this. It appears that mhchem doesn't really support organic rings. There are other style sheets around for this, but I haven't implemented them on here since they're quite hard from the standpoint of syntax for users. Maybe I'll get around to doing it one day

Sure, why not. In my opinion, the easiest way of doing this is by use of the 'e' selector that you get with PCRE. i.e. do a preg for the [table] tag, then pass the contents to a function which parses the interior. Shouldn't be too hard

Wow, this thread is bad - even by Pseudoscience standards

By the way, it's not [imath]-1^n[/imath] since this is generally interpreted as [imath]-(1^n) = -1[/imath]. You'll want to write [imath](-1)^n[/imath].

This is possibly the least most useful thread on the entire forum. If someone can come up with a good reason as to why I should re-open it, feel free, but for the time being it's closed.

I'll sticky something with links to all of them if people would find it useful.