ydoaPs

The Gospels give us some information by which we can date when the crucifixion was. The Last Supper was (depending on which Gospel you read) either a Passover dinner or the night before. Passover starts on the first full moon after the spring equinox. Immediately following the crucifixion, the Gospels say there was an eclipse. Eclipses, full moons, and equinoxes are all calculable. This should be enough to find the date. When was it?

That's what I was thinking. It seems like a really easy problem. That makes it y(0)=cos(0). And everyone should know the value of cos0.

Really? You might want to learn from a different source than the one you're using if they didn't teach you this before they taught you how to do differentiation.

What you want to do is get p entirely in terms of x. Then find p'(x)=0 that gives you all of the turning points. Those points that make p''(x)<0, the turning point will be a maximum. Where a turning point makes p''(x)>0, the turning point is a minimum.

Ethics? Heterophenomenology? Epistemology? I suggest you look up what the "Ad Hominem" fallacy actually is lest you make yourself look more of a fool. Not me. No, my argument was that the example you provided is a prime example of when memory would have been false. You still have yet to give any reason to think the memory hasn't been altered. See every thread you've ever posted in regarding the topic as well as any modern book written on the subject not written by an idiot that doesn't understand math. In curved spaces, parallel lines can indeed intersect. See, lines are parallel if they have equal constant first derivatives. In curved spaces such lines can, and often do, intersect.

You asked what philosophy gave us and I answered with historical fact. Good thing I did none of that then. Thanks for showing your utter incompetence again as demonstration, though. Yep, including psychiatry. Remember where I showed again and again that you haven't gotten the faintest clue about human memory and testimony? Yeah, that bit. Actually, contemporary philosophy has already answered those questions. You just don't understand math and refuse to accept it.

Math, logic, chemistry, physics, epistemology, scientific method, etc.

Try using [math]f'(x)=\lim_{h{\rightarrow}0}\frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}[/math]. edit: which is what John just said

If your arguments assume the moon is made of cheese, that space aliens probe farmers, or that water has memory, then you're doing it wrong. Owl should by no means be considered either representative of philosophy or competent in philosophy (or psychiatry for that matter). He tends to grab frince papers by incompetent people and run with them as though they are the very infallible words of the gods themselves. I agree with you that the lack of active users that actually know what they're talking about contributes quite a bit to the poor philosophy section of the site. I may start being more active or at least blogging once a week or so when classes let out for this semester. Indeed, I am pretty awesome. I'm fairly representative of modern philosophy. There are a few exceptions, but by and large philosophers these days tend to be materialistic and know how to use science. Empiricism is alive and well. In fact, when I write papers, they're empirically based enough that even people like A Tripolation wouldn't call them crap. Spot on. I think much of people's issues with philosophy is from running into people to read the Cliff Notes of "The Republic" and think they know what they're talking about when it comes to philosophy.

So, it turns out that Tim Minchin live is amazing even in the rain. With the poor weather, we had about a 20k turnout not including the Westboro Baptists and the other miscellaneous protesters. We must have done something right, because FOX wrote a horrible article about the rally. Here's a taste: I was a fair bit closer than that.

"Div, Grad, Curl, & All That" is a fairly good introduction to vector fields.

That's circular among other things.

n2-1 is a difference of perfect squares. a2-b2=(a+b)(a-b). You can do the multiplication on the right hand side yourself to see that it's true.

If you don't understand the math behind it already, there's not a whole lot of explaining that can be done short of teaching you loads of math.

It's funny how they also thought the world was flat and above the dome of the sky was another ocean.

What do you mean?

Have you read the transcript? It's more than clear what went down.

The implied usage presupposes the existence of time. Would you like to try again?

I'll let Feyman handle the OP:

So, when you just plug in -1 to the original, it is undefined. This is a case where you can use L'Hopital's rule. Let f(x)=n2-1 and g(x)=n+1. Now you can set [math]\lim_{x{\rightarrow}-1}{\frac{f(x)}{g(x)}}=\lim_{x{\rightarrow}-1}{\frac{f'(x)}{g'(x)}}[/math]. -2 is indeed the correct answer. Heh. I completely forgot to factor. Yes, this method works as well.

"Once you know what people really want, you can't hate them anymore. You can fear them, but you can't hate them, because you can always find the same desires in your own heart."-Andrew Wiggin

I don't see the relation between the two problems. I think it's an attempt at using L'Hopital's rule.

You didn't actually define what the word means; you just used it.

Please define "persistent" without the use of time.

Looking back at these old threads, it appears that there was an idiot with the same username and and avatar as me.....odd