studiot

The variance is not dimensionless, nor is the standard deviation. The variance has the units of the square of the variable being measured (the measurand) and the standard deviation has the same units as the measurand. This arises directly from the definition of these quantities. Similarly a % is a dimensionles quantity as it is a ratio of two quantities with the same dimensions. I am not clear what your figures refer to to can you elaborate (just the maths please)?

I agree that is the case in the UK as well. But further regulation or deregulation appears almost irrelevant here as there is precious little enforcement. We have an ever expanding army of 'Regulators' (Nothing like those in the cowboy west of old) who seem to see their vastly overpaid jobs as being the organisation of the punters into an orderly queue holding their chequebooks for the industry to fleece.

Good morning Jaison and welcome to ScienceForums. Yes electric fields can affect the polarisation of light. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.31301!/file/Lecture18-Polarisation-of-light_introduction.pdf It is the electric field component of the light that is affected by the electric field in polarising media. I didn't quite understand your first line can you rephrase it? Finding stuff in the net often boils down to asking the right questions or finding and using the right words.

OK so when a thing moves, something is different. So asking the question what is movement means exploring what is that something that is different. It also involves being able to distinguish anything different that is not movement. Do you agree ? I have a colour changing lightbulb that changes colour from red to green to blue and abck again when I switch it on But the lightbulb stays in its socket and doesn't move. So colour changing is change but it is not movement. Do you understand this? Since you are having trouble with a shadow moving, perhaps we should conside the hands of my bedside clock. They go round and round on the clock face. So do the hands move? But does the clock move on my bedside table? So what changes and what doesn't?

Exactly. +1 The point of symbolism is for the author to communicate with his readers. If the author uses new or different symbols he will fail to communicate if he doesn't let his readers know what those symbols mean.

All non finite countable sets have the same 'size' Perhaps you are mixing up the set and the members themselves? What is the sequence rule that produces this set please? {1,2,3...2^n}.

OK I did ask if you have a problem with English. But you did not reply. So let's take it very simply. I am only answering your question what is movement? So please cooperate. Do you know what a Sundial is? Do you understand that the shadow line on a sundial moves ?

Where's fun in doing the easy bits first?

Did you say somewhere Sorry but you start with axioms in Maths. You don't pick them up in Carrefour somewhere along the journey. The point about this axiom is that you are drawing upon a whole structure of maths that rests upon it Almost everything in arithmetic depends directly upon the property of being closed under addition. Donc, ce n'est pas possible de conduire un entraîneur et des chevaux à travers elle. Bonsoir

A purrfect case for natural selection in cats (and gazelles) +1

Thank you for letting me know this. The above quote is enough to see that you completely missed the point of my post. I'm sorry if it was unclear, did you have trouble with the English or what? I distinguish between all types of change and movement which is a special type of change. For instance as concrete or mud or porridge dries it hardens. And yes the hardening can be measured. So there is change. But there is no movement. For movement I further distinguish between the movement of a material object such as a football. and the movement of a non material object such as a shadow. Does this help to move our discussion forward?

Well the mockery in the rest of your post is a shame because I only have a few minutes and then I will be otherwise occupied for a couple of hours. It is axiomatic in Peano that for all a, b in N then (a+b) = c is in N Those who are closer to this stuff will tell you which of the Peano axioms this is but I seem to remember it was one of the first. You are not only trying to contradict more advanced results of arithemtic you are trying to contradict the basic axioms. Think on that.

And I already asked about that sequence since it's logic is false. (2) quite clearly states (although in poor English) that omega is not a member of N. Therefore arithmetic between omega and any member of N is not defined in the normal Peano system, since Peano arithmetic is closed under addition. So ω-1 is undefined in your system at the outset of your 'proof' So I asked you what system you are using.

Not if its a perfect disk.

My last comments.

It seem I forgot to actually press the post button so this is a bit belated. Sorry. There was just a prime example of someone who says too little in this thread so is counterproductive. Posts 9 and 10 here

I thought this might be the case, but it was worth asking. Can you therefore cement a magnetic disk dead centre on the top of the existing dial and another on the protractor and mount the protractor above the dial so that the magnets drag each other round?

This is the sort of imprecise mathematics that worries me (and others it seems) and lead to my earlier post the last time I looked in. You defined the cardinality of N to be right at the outset. So I asked you to explain what number system and arithmetic system are you using when you introduced [math]\left( {\omega - 1} \right)[/math] since omega is not finite.

I would say the gadget on the guy's wrist is an orientiering compass. You can see the gunsights for taking bearing of landmarks. The small picture looks like a surveryors compass designed to be set level on a stand, jusging by the spirit level. The foldable object at the back ege looks like it might be a magnifying scale reader. Bearing in mind what I said about the gimbals, is it possible to achieve your objective with an extenal scale on a ring placed around the outside of the marine compass housing?

Yup +1

No Since you haven't given me a clue as to what you understand by I said, I don't have a clue and can't elaborate further. So it is up to you?

Well as Mathematician, I disagree that the concept of a triangle with four angles is meaningless. Eise's statement of empty is more useful. Such concepts are actually in much use in (particularly applied) Mathematics. Maybe you are right in your interpretation of Darwin's meaning. But that does not make his a correct analysis. But how is that relevant to Frank Sinatra? I note you have moved from the one unique definition of perfection to a scale of perfection. Again +1 for this shift. However to be mathematical again, (since scales are mathematical) there is the asymptote interpretation to absolute perfection. This would dispel your worries about the use of such, although it is now too late for Darwin to revise his work.

The BBC reports how Ford is getting around US import tax regulations. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45875405 Is what Ford are doing good business or 'sharp practice' ?

I must remember this one. +1 By the way I once had a short (mathematical) paper published in The Empire Survey Review under the title The Use of the 5th Quadrant.

Why is it that many threads do not proceed smoothly simply because posters (particularly the Original Poster) say either too little or far too much in their opening and subsequent posts? What advice can be given to achieve the right length of post?