Unity+

But the whole point of a troll is to completely avoid the rules, isn't it?

Yes, I think we got way off topic with that one.

But you aren't evading the laws and axioms of Mathematics for limits...

http://www.intuitive-calculus.com/limits-and-continuity.html Limits were developed because regular algebra can't view the "extra dimension" that exists. For example, 1/0 doesn't make sense. Therefore, we can define some form of it by using a limit to see what would happen. That isn't a loop-hole. Physically, there is no see able potential, but mathematically there is.

That make sense and I can't really argue against that at the moment. Therefore, there is a potential for that sound wave to reach its point, which is my point. Which is similar to my limit example. Again, they are not loop-holes.

They aren't "loop-holes." Loop holes give inconsistencies, which are a no-no in mathematics. The point I was giving was if at any given point, or specific point, you would try to see if the potential and actual were equal this would never occur, but if the potential is measured similarly with the actual then they yield equality. It is as if you are saying that any result or conclusion gives nothing to the discussion of hypothesis at hand. We don't just say "If it happens." If you have heard of Zeno's paradox, you might want to consider that as my argument. I must clarify that his argument went more into depth about how if there was no creator then there is no time of causality of the Big Bang and therefore there are many paradoxes that arise. I'm still getting confused about how you came to the conclusion that he is saying that the Universe never had a time of non-existence.

I don't even know why we bother even discussing the topic. I think I have talked about this before, but a website is considered private property when it is run on private servers. Therefore, a person has the right to regulate what occurs within that website unless it is against Federal law(and inhibiting free speech on private property is not considered a crime within Federal law). Though I think you posted about this because of the awesome comic.

I think the problem lies in the thinking of determining what is and what it could be. For example, potential gravitational energy converts to kinetic energy as an object falls. Though the object hasn't fallen it has the potential of that energy. Therefore, the potential becomes the actual. However, the potential may not always because the actual. It isn't paradoxical. Just because a seed can grow to be a flower doesn't mean the flower already exists while no time has passed. The seed has the potential, and the predictability of it is, to become a flower. There would be a difference, which is why the two forms should be separate, where there is potential and actual. The potential and actual, at one particular time, cannot be equal. However, on a broad scale they are equal. For example, if you were to take a limit n->infinity of 1/n = 0, which is representative of potential, then if we chose a finite value n then it would not equal 0.This fraction has the potential to become 0, where the actual is 0, but the actuality of the fraction is it will only get closer and closer to 0.

Well, I developed a Collatz-Matrix equation that works with cellular automation. The equation looks like the following. Here is how it is done. First, find all the matrix solutions for the Collatz-Matrix equation. Then, for each matrix equation represent each element as a 2x2 square that has four elements in total. Using that, convert the number into binary. Then, take that binary sequence and represent each square as a binary node and spiral the sequence in the square, from left to right. If there are more nodes than spaces in the 2x2 square then wrap the binary sequence around the square(making a spiral). Then, connect the squares together as if they are 2x2 squares. If there are nodes that overlap, the rule to use is if a 0 and 0 node overlap, make it a 0 node. If the node is a 1 and 1 node then make it a 0 node. Of course, these rules are defined by the mew in the equation. You can define the rules to change it up. After all that, combine all the resulting matrix solutions and treat them as steps like on Conway's game of life. Put them in the order from which they were found(going downward in a matrix solution to going leftward in a matrix solution). Here is the result of the equation above. Where s(1,1) I call this the "pulsating fish" because of its pulse-like nature and how it pulses. EDIT: Adding onto this, this type of equation came from the idea that equations are the result of cellular automations while the behavior of the cellular automations are a result of the equations produced by the cellular automations. EDIT2: Here are more examples: s(2,2) s(1,2)

That's the point of potential and actual infinity. There is the potential of the universe's existence through time moving forward, but the actuality of the matter is it has not reached that state. The actual infinity would arise from the universes's existence through time moving forward. Is this what you are asking about?

And the reason is...?

Let's take a look at the following picture: Of course, a^2+b^2 = c^2 has infinite primitive(I think) Pythogorean triples where a,b, and c are whole numbers, proven by Euclid. However, are there infinite primitive Pythagorean triples where one of the elements, when square rooted, is also a whole number? I am asking this because, for example, let us take the primitive Pythagorean triple (3,4, 5). Notice how the square root of 4 is 2, obviously. Let us apply this to a geometric visual. This means that it takes a real whole number sided square to get two squares that have irrational sides. In interesting phenomena, I say.

One way to do so would be to split the carbon atoms and oxygen atoms. In some ways, what could happen is the fuel for the proposed algae could become the carbon while its waste is the oxygen that is released.

I apologize. I tried to help so he could understand the content, but I accidentally went overboard.

I edited my post. I apologize for the misunderstanding. EDIT: Was it the right answer? I thought static friction had to be accounted for the final velocity of the block.

I am assuming that c is the last problem and changes the scenario so that there is friction. Using Newton's laws, we can first calculate the kinetic friction force(when an object is moving on the surface). [math]F_{k}=\mu_{k}F_{n}=(0.23)((2kg)(9.81))[/math] [math]F_{k}=4.5126N[/math] Since we now know the force of friction upon the block, we can use it to determine the acceleration in the opposite direction of the block's movement because the force of friction upon the block reflects the force acted upon the surface(this is where others may have to correct me, but I think it is correct). [math]F=ma[/math] [math]4.5126=(2kg)a[/math] [math]a=2.2563\frac{m}{s^{2}}[/math] Assuming that the v2f represents the velocity of the block when it is hit, we can use the kinematic equations to determine the stopping point. [math]v_{f}^{2} = v_{i}^{2} + 2ad[/math] [math]0 = (4.66)^{2} + 2(2.2563)d[/math] Solve for d(distance). [math](4.66)^{2} = 2(2.2563)d[/math] [math]21.7156 = 2(2.2563)d[/math] [math]21.7156=4.5126d[/math] [math]21.7156=4.5126d[/math] [math]4.8122m[/math] Therefore, the block should stop 4.8122m from its original position. Since the block would already be in motion, only the kinetic friction applies. EDIT: Had to fix an error. EDIT2: Of course, you must change the velocity of the block for the equation in order to account for the static friction force. Did you retrieve the final velocity of the block or was it a given? If retrieved, then use the same force acting upon the block by the ball except subtract the force acted by the ball by the static friction friction force to get the total force. Then, use that force to retrieve the velocity of the block. Then, replace the 4.66 velocity with the new one in the steps above.

I am glad you found this. These are what are called Palindromic primes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palindromic_prime

I know, but it was the item of requirement. In the report I wrote, I stated that in order to get a more accurate result for k the air resistance would have to be considered by determining the force it had on the ping pong ball. I think I got insight on the problem. Thanks for all the information.

I keep getting results that don't make sense. So, the idea is I have to find the spring constant only using a meter stick, cross-bow(rubber band), and tape. What I did was I shot the cross-bow straight horizontally and when shot 5 times I got the average distance it took for the ping pong ball(.0025 kg) to hit the ground. Here are the known variables with the experiment: d = 4.471m h = .83m g = 9.81(given) x(spring stretched) = .17m Now, my logic was to use the height and distance the ping pong ball went to find the time it took for the ball to hit the ground. [math].83m = \frac{1}{2}(9.81)t^{2}[/math] [math].83m = (4.905)t^{2}[/math] [math].1692 = t^{2}[/math] [math]t = .4113s[/math] Then, I used this time and the distance in the x direction to find the horizontal speed. [math]v = \frac{4.471}{.4113} = 10.87m/s[/math] Then, I setup the equation of kinetic, elastic potential, and potential gravitational energy because the ping pong ball is being shot with a rubberband(crossbow) from a height of .83m. [math]\frac{1}{2}k(.17)^{2} + (.0025kg)(9.81)(.83m) = \frac{1}{2}(.0025)(10.87m/s)^{2}+(.0025kg)(9.81)(.83m)[/math] [math]\frac{1}{2}k(.17)^{2}= \frac{1}{2}(.0025)(118.1569)[/math] [math]\frac{1}{2}k(.17)^{2}= \frac{1}{2}(.0025)(118.1569)[/math] [math].01445k= \frac{1}{2}(.0025)(118.1569)[/math] [math].01445k= .1477[/math] [math]k= 10.22...[/math] When I did it in this post, it seems I got a reasonable answer now. However, I have a feeling that on the first step of the energy equations I do not put the potential gravitational energy party on the left side of the equation. EDIT: Found an error.