123rock

Battlefield1942 is a good game but they lack many key weapons such as antitank guns like the German Pak38 and etc. Call of Duty still ownz.

It would be the same representations for the same notions, but the system would be different. However you are right, with respect to our system it would be a different definition. That system would have a definition for itself.

According to you time is separate from space, thus the apple would exist at 0 time as an unchanging apple, but not according to this:

As for the 1 does not equal 1 disproof, here is a very simple equation: z=x+y, thus x=z-y, substitute z=z-y+y, z=z. However this is true under the condition that z=z, x=x, and y=y. If that condition is not true, thus the axiom of x=x not true, then z may or may not equal z. The reason there is no way to prove or disprove this is that this is the fundamental axiom of mathematics, and the only way to disprove that z=z as our friend Daymare here is proposing is to assume that z=z thus creating a contradiction as to his proof. There is no way to prove the axiom either, and that's why pure mathematics is USEFUL if it is applied. That's the proof, physical proof, but it's not mathematical proof, and thus it is an axiom. I think there are systems where x does not equal x, and such axioms are unprovable too. Such as 10/10=1/2, this statement cannot be proven true or untrue. Whether a nature can be based on such a rule is under the extent of your imagination, since it could have some arbitrary value, say "v" meaning that all of it exists if and only if only half of it exists as the statement 10/10=1/2 suggests In pure mathematics these two systems are both valid under their axioms, and there's no need to ridicule a person who's seeing the fact that axioms are unproven mathematically. It is only in nature that they apply.

I think that the reason there is a great deal of use for the radian is because since the unit circle has a radius of 1 (for ratio purposes), the circumference is 2pi and thus 2pi radians for both the degree measure and the length of the circumference. I realize that this is a false derivation of the use of radians, since even if you double the radius of the circle, you double the length of the circumference, but the degree measure is still 360 thus 2pi, since all circles are similar. That's why 180deg.=pi radians, and then they eventually got that 1 radian=about 52degrees.

I saw somewhere on the net that there are gonna be 5GHz processors cooled by liquid nitrogen. Does anyone have any recent, or any info at all on this?

Since a degree is measured by the length of the arc divided by the radius of a circle, they aren't unites, since it's distance/distance.

Since a degree is measured by the length of the arc divided by the radius of a circle, they aren't unites, since it's distance/distance.

Radians aren't units

Radians aren't units

A shadow is 2 dimensional because it is the absence of something, namely light, thus it is nothing. Since an actual shadow without photons would be perfectly black, then you will realize that the grey shadow that you are thinking of here is in fact tricking you and you should be thinking of the surroundings with a gap or black spot. A shadow is a representation of what isn't there, and is less lighted by its surroundings. This argument is similar as to what's at the surface of an atom, 2D right, so how can it exist?

A shadow is 2 dimensional because it is the absence of something, namely light, thus it is nothing. Since an actual shadow without photons would be perfectly black, then you will realize that the grey shadow that you are thinking of here is in fact tricking you and you should be thinking of the surroundings with a gap or black spot. A shadow is a representation of what isn't there, and is less lighted by its surroundings. This argument is similar as to what's at the surface of an atom, 2D right, so how can it exist?

I meant if S(n)=1/2n^2+1/2n then S(n-1)=1/2(n-1)^2+1/2(n-1); We replace n with n-1, but then why do we replace n with n-1 and call it equal?

Chaos theory is what actually happens, and chance is what might. That's the connection.

1/2 Edit: never mind

I don't if this is along the lines, but: The sum of consecutive integers is S(n)=1/2n^2+1/2n where n is the integer. Now for the integer of n-1, we get the equation 1/2n^2-1/2n. If S(n)=1/2n^2+1/2n, then to get S(n-1) we replace n with n-1, which is obviously a contradiction, but the formula works. Can anyone elaborate why or how this happens, and what I'm interpreting wrong?

This isn't exactly a proof that 0/0=0, since we arrive at [0/0]/0=0/0, since 1/0=0/0, but 1 doesn't equal 0, but it's a step forward. x and y do not equal x/0 0/0=0^x/0^y 0^2x-x/0^y [0^2x/0^x]/0=0/0 [0/0]/0=0/0

sqrt.3m/s=sqrt.3/1000km/s, then multiply by 3600, get yeah my bad approx 38.888/h^2, forgot it was squared.

3m/s^2=10.8km/h^2

I can only simplify it to [e^(ln3)+3]/e^(0.5ln3) I guess you have to find out what ln3 is and 1/2ln3. Edit: oh nvm 4/e^(0.5ln3) since e^ln3 is 3. e^0.5ln3+3(e^-0.5ln3)=[e^ln3/e^(0.5ln3)]+[e^0/e^(0.5ln3)]=[3/e^(0.5ln3)]+[1/e^(0.5ln3)]=4/e^(0.5ln3) substitute e^0.5ln3 for e^(ln3-0.5ln3)=e^ln3/e^0.5ln3 and e^-0.5ln3=e^(0-0.5ln3)=e^0/e^0.5ln3

It's relative, but I don't think it's man-made.

e^ln3=3 Proof: x=b^y; y=logbx by definition of a logarithm. substitute b with e, and y with ln3, what do you get? ln3=logex, logex=lnx, thus ln3=lnx, and thus x=3, and e^ln3=3