studiot

So the little boy starts by stamping his foot yet again and insulting the rest of the membership here, myself included, and ends on a typical playground threat. In my post 14 I made two comments. One was a technical one about your summation of partial derivatives, which seem to play a central role in your theory. The second was a complaint about your rude style towards others. Your response, quite reaonably, was to ask me to clarify my point. Unfortunately you failed to state which one requires clarification and I am still waiting on that. I actually (probably like others here) find your ideas interesting and am quite intrigued by the claim that the two approaches always result in the same answers. But I am assuming, with your doctorate and all, that when one of your technical statements, is challenged then you will take the appropriate technical action and reappraise it. So I say again, Quote Not so. To try to break this impasse I also offer a further explanation. There is a difference between being equal to and being identical to.

Doesn't it also depend on your definition of everything at least as much?

Not really. I just have a lot of dependents on the internet forums.

Could anyone who thinks maths can solve everything please PM me the next three week's lottery numbers. Thanx in advance.

Utter nonsense. They are European Union Beaurocracy units of economic setaside.

What you haven't told us is the context of your essay, given the title. The earliest mathematics, even such things as the requirement to measure the seasons, planetary conjunctions etc all derived from the practical or observational before the mathematics. The earliest example I can think of of mathematics preceding the application was the introduction of complex numbers in the 16th century by Cardano, some 400 years before was applied to alternating electric current theory.

What intrigues me is the "unreasonableness" part. What is unreasonable about it and why?

You misread what I wrote Counting reals means counting every real, not just focusing on two of them.

But we can (and do) include infinity in our counting. There are as many real numbers between 0 and 1 as there are on the entire real number line. This is why ordering is an important concept. Because if we count reals in order from 0 to1 we have counted an infinity of numbers.

Complex numbers and geometric vectors are not the same.

How many equations would you say this expression represents, 1 2 or 3 or more? [math] \frac{x- x_{1} }{ x_{2}- x_{1} } =\frac{y- y_{1} }{ y_{2}- y_{1} }=\frac{z- z_{1} }{ z_{2}- z_{1} }[/math]

Testing some more [math] \frac{x- x_{1} }{ x_{2}- x_{1} } =\frac{y- y_{1} }{ y_{2}- y_{1} }=\frac{z- z_{1} }{ z_{2}- z_{1} }[/math]

One thing that has not been entirely clear to me is whether you are making any distinction between collective nouns or individual nouns and if so on what basis?

According to the site information the OP has not been since since posting this. Upon rereading my post#3 I find I owe him, or her an apology for taking this thread down imaginary avenue towards complex street, fascinating though the scenery en route has been. Post#1 clearly did not envision complex numbers, indeed it is not totally clear if even the full real number system was meant. I am backtracking because in other mathematics forums there are currently debates going on as to whether numbers actually exist or can be realised in the real world. That seems to be the thrust of post#1 and the thread title. My answer is yes, any real number can, in principle, be given a place in reality.

It means more than that, which was my earlier point in post#11.

No because say one real number, a is equal to another real number is equivalent to saying that a>b and b>a means that a=b. Now for a complex number the definition that Acomplex = Bcomplex is more complicated.

Would that List be subject to Russell's Paradox?

Snow is frozen fresh water. Seawater is salt, what is the freezing point of seawater? The ice age timing is well defined by the Milankovich cycles. It has to do with the variation of the tilt of the earth and when the southern and northern hemispheres are at perihelion and aphelion which affects the radiation input to each. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

Thank you for that clarification, imatfaal, +1

Forgive me for commenting on your discussion about playing with the presentation of the figures, and I do understand the issues about improper scaling of charts, but what about the provenance of those figures themselves. What does the 'fraction of the general' mean? figures I have seen are between 90% and 99% extinction for the end permian event, and the references I gave go with this figure. Please also note that the original BBC report I linked to presented a balanced view that the BBC are famous for in that they presented both sides of the discussion ie they presented the counter argument as well.

Here is the film of the book The Day the Earth Nearly Died by M Benton. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xw5o16_the-day-the-earth-nearly-died_shortfilms PS the book is good too (written by a professor of geology)

Which one? By my count I made two in my post you referred to.

Thank you, John for that full and frank exposition. +1

That's what I said, but I can't draw molecues here. RRC=O + H2 goes to RRHC-OH

Doesn't the ketone have a carbonyl group with a double bond between the carbon and oxygen which is reduced to a single bond to an OH group, leaving one bond free on the carbon that has the other half of the hydrogen molecule attached to it?