Treadstone

right, i also drew attention to it in my first post

did modular addition and multiplication today in my proofs II class and i was wondering if there are modular set products. I was thinking since mod operations create equivilance classes, which are sets, if there were an special things to do with mod set products or if they even exist.

this proof was 123's...his first post

its wicked helpful, lol

thats what i am also asking

thats not what i wrote, look again...i am useing number theory, the def'n of divisor in specific....i proved that x/0 does not exist and because it does not exist it cannot be compared to other expressions nor is it a fraction.

i figured out the syntax... solve(2x+3y=5 and x-y=3,{x,y}) that will solve both for x and y....just had to ask my calc proff from last year.

ahhh, thank you

are you sure? becuase i distinctly remember doing it in calc last year...but ya i saw the | in the manual i also have another, but unrelated, question....how do you find the maximum of a function say, y(t)=2sin(3t) + cos(3t)

anyone know the syntax for soloving a systems of eqs? I forgot what is was and cant re-figure it out...i know its somethng like solve(f(x,y)=a; or , f(x,y)=b, or ; (a,b)) or smoething like that for example a + b = 2 3a + b^2 = 8 just pull out of my head for the syntax purposes

i think its easier to prove x/0 doesnt exist using number theory, simply put 1. x/0 => there exists q, an element of R, such that x = q*0, x!=0 2. since there is no such q x/0 does not exist 3. for x=0, 0/0 is trivial for 123's example and indeed for anything else

you cannot use arithmetic laws on something that does not exist. x/0 is not a fraction because fractions have a quantity and can therefore be compared. Do you see what i'm saying? It has no value because it does not exist, there is no quantity so even though you can write in a fraction form it is still not a fraction. Saying x/0 is a fraction means that you are expressing some number, a, whereby 0*x=a. Remember, fractions are rational numbers which means the denominator and the numerator have a ratio equating them. Look over divisior rules as they apply number theory and the def'n of rational numbers....or just look at my previous post.

also, i is not irrational, its imaginary

123Rock's biggest problem is that you cant look at a rational number, ie 1/0 as having two independent quantities of 1 and 0 and then trying to compare that to 2/0 or 2 and 0. Rational numbers are used to exactly express a quotiant (sp?) of a real number. 1/0 has no value because (useing the def'n of divisor) there is no q such that 1 = q*0, and you cant compare something that lacks a value. Any number divided by zero does no exist because there isnt any number, a, such that 0|a so your comparing nothing when you write '1/0=2/0'. Hence 1/0=2/0 is meaningless edit - also you need to justify several of the algebraic steps in your proof

the irrational numbers have unique properties...in fact its what makes them irrational

ah i see....thanks for the clear explanation

had an idea in class the the other day...feel free to add on or modify for whatever, just a rabbit trail of thought.... Let A = { pi , 2^(1/2) } A only contains 2 items and so Card(A) = 2 => there exists a bijective function from A to the natural numbers of order 2 => A is finite...probably didnt need to prove it but there it is. Write the items in A as sets themselfs as such pi = {3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 9, ... } 2^(1/2) = { 1, 4, 1, 4, 2, 1, ... } So can A be rewritten as A = { {3 1 4 1 5 9...} , {1 4 1 4 2 1...} } ? Would this imply that A has an infinite number of things dispite that it is a finite set? Or is it just my notation and how i'm defining things? Any interesting ideas on where i could go from here?

thanks, dude. that helped a lot. Nathan

Can someone explain to me what equilibrium points are when dealing with diff EQs and slope fields and such? Nathan

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." Thats an interesting quote....i wonder what Bush Sr. said to Bush Jr. when he first talked about going to war with iraq? Nathan

...are there any? Nathan

Math is the best degree you can get imo...though i might be biased ....but with a BS is math or a masters, if you go on that far, you can work practiculy anyway, particularly if you get a stats concentration. Nathan

name one president that did everyone he said he was going to do. You cant believe anything a candidate says, all you can do is look at their voting record and because thats a better indicator of how they will act in position. And yes, in this case, it is trendy...no body was down on bush after 9/11...how have his policies changed since then to make people hate him so much? Few anti-wat celebs made a few comments that arent worth the wieght in air it took them to say and then people started flocking to that. I didnt like him before 9/11 and i still dont, though i think he handled the event as well as anyone could have. As for kerry, he talks about how he's opposed to to war yet he said that if he had been in the president's shoes he would have done the same thing... You can say what you wanta bout iraq, i dont know what i feel about it but i would rather have terrorists killing soldiers over there and civilians over here...the militaries job anyway, to protect the civies. Nathan

As much as people hate us they still buy all the crap we sell them. I think hateing america and hateing bush is the just the trendy thing to do now. I see more people who hate bush and protest the war for no other reason than to hate someone and protest something. Trying to be hip by being synical (sp?) yet they have no real reasons of their own for their opinions, just what they have heard famous people say. How many people in this thread had a 'he's not bush' reason for voting for kerry. Personally i dont like i bush because i cant stand to listen to him talk, he just sounds so dumb. I dont like that he's owned by corporate america and i dont like his stand on scientific research. Also, i dont like kerry because i have no idea what he stands for since he cant seem to give a straight answer on anything. And whoever said anything about a draft must not know anything about modern warfare. If you would like a further explaination, ask, but unlike vietnam and the world wars, today's fights do not require millions of soldiers running around. Our military is fully capable of doing whatever we need it to do without reinsituting a draft. Nathan

no its ok....i had just never seen anyone with my avatar before