Unity+

Because of my willingness of opinion, I did. I didn't see it as a joke rather as a criticism that was unnecessary, therefore I stated that the logic he was presenting was unneeded because it doesn't help solve the problem. The point of a mathematical problem with seemingly illogical parts is to help to solve the problem. Just my opinion. I will take up the challenge and see if I can solve it.

With mathematics, sometimes the illogical is needed to solve the logical.

But, will you solve the problem of creativity and inspiration? Innovation?

But, then you have to have engineers to build the artificial intelligence required for this robots, so here is my take on it. As the market grows and progresses, new jobs are formed and people are still needed for the equation. Even back then, as the market was more agriculturally based, we thought as the technological age improved that jobs would be scarce. That isn't true because we still definitely have a market for the IT department and the computer science/software development/hardware development market. There will always be new jobs to be done by people. Robots will make it easier for corporations to produce products, but there will always be new job markets to deal with. I am not for corporations, I am not against corporations(I am actually a fan of independent/indie developers because they seem to produce better content than the corporations, which just saddens me). Just my two sense on the topic.

I don't see how constants of physics and quantum mechanics have any relation to mathematics, at least in the context put.

Here is a mathematical reason why Collatz numbers are unique to their given parameters within a Collatz-Matrix equation. This provides a way to find the value of [math]r[/math] for a given Collatz-Matrix equation. However, this only applies to the Special case of the Collatz parameters(in other words, only applies to linear equations). A general form is being formulated(to apply for polynomial parameters).

Here is an example of the Step-Limit notation with the Collatz parameters.

Wait...what? I'm not hijacking this thread. You brought up the topics in the first place. I think they will have a fix by that time unless the Democrats begin trying to find loop holes to stop them. I think we can afford to scrap it. The more we scrap from it, the more money that is saved.

And there are a lot of experts who say it isn't a good idea. I can trust the Republicans in 2016 to do their best to help the country succeed in its administration. Now, please if you want to continue your unnecessary commenting, then do so, but it merely makes you sound unprofessional.

You brought up the deficit problem, not I. ACA is already a lost cause and was from the start(and it is a pretty badly formed government healthcare policy). I don't see why the Democrats are trying so hard to put it through, besides for political motive. The Republican administration wouldn't have begun ACA to begin with because of the questionable constitutionality of it and the large spending and deficit will cause. I am glad they are shutting down the government, though it probably won't do much. EDIT: The fact that now people are against the ACA just shows that the Democrats are doing it for political motive. Most people who support Obamacare never really had a glance over the bill itself and relied on government here-say to make their decision when they had the chance to read the thick-book the policy was. "Don't read it, just sign it"

The only reason why the deficit got so large was because the government spending got out of control, which is both partially the Republican and Democrat's fault. Putting all the blame on Republicans, which users on here seem to do, means people ignore the problems that the Democrats caused. Well people keep putting blame on the Republicans, so I don't blame if they are doing this to say "I told you so." And unfortunately, your response only gives them more motive. If people are going to continue putting their heads up their butts and continue to support the policies that the Democrats put forth, our nation is most likely going to fall. And you assume ACA will do any better? And somehow putting a President who has no credentials in the Presidential seat is any better. Also, Romney had much experience in the business field(and actually owned a business and knew how to keep it economically stable, unlike Obama).

Well, let's take the original image: The challenge was to find the two parabolas that are the height of the original parabola and that meet at both points. Now, once you find those two parabolas, take those two parabolas, specify the points on those parabolas with relatively the same position on those parabolas, and then find the two parabolas that go through those points.

What would make this challenge interesting is for each parabola found for one given parabola, you would also find the two parabolas for the found parabolas. If this were to be done, I would like to see how it looks.

There is also a way to make a new form of Conway's Game of Life, which involves the following notation. Simply put, this is the Step-Limit notation that includes a new part called the If-Then parameters. These parameters are what can be used to modify certain elements when another element is affected. This can be used to essentially make a general form of Conway's Game of Life. For example, the following makes it so that the If-Then parameters are only carried out when the variable [math]k[/math] reaches a value above [math]w[/math]. Here is the same thing within an Area-Limit Collatz-Matrix equation.

So now we are going to warrant further credibility checks for Theistic scientists and less for Atheistic scientists just because of difference in beliefs... EDIT: So your saying because I am a theist that you would double check my mathematical works even though if the same were done by an Atheistic mathematician it would supposedly not require more credibility checks... Sounds like now we are being more discriminatory...

You clearly are taking my statements out of context and make a generalized statement of those of theistic beliefs. "The age of the earth isn't an opinion." I would agree, but I never brought that up as a subject at all. "The nature of evolution isn't an opinion." I would also agree, I don't see why you keep bringing it up. "The number of ribs men and women have isn't an opinion." Yes, please stop bringing up the obvious. I don't see how it is an argument at all. Again, this was taken out of context. Science can describe and predict what had occurred, I would agree. However, the science lies in the mechanisms involved to help else conclude something about an event in history. I would fully agree. If you keep bringing up the same argument over and over again, I am going to get so frustrated right now because it is completely redundant. If you keep repeating the samething over....nevermind. But you just generalized religion all together as a falsehood. This, right here, is an opinion.

You know what, since this comment has been brought up so many times, here is a gift to such occurrences. EDIT: Just to make sure you know, I respect everyone's opinion, but seriously to keep bringing up the same thing over and over again just brings redundancy in counter arguments and it gets irrelevant to the matter.

Science finds the mechanisms of the world. It isn't meant to describe a part of history. We are beating a dead horse that we already had discussed before. If you have read the other posts, you would realize the argument for this.

You may be right, but this post is of no contribution to the topic thread.

Forgot to add the following: The difference between the standard notation and the sum notation is both have a different limit factor. The standard notation has what is called a Area Limit, while the sum notation has the Step Limit. Area Limit - Step Limit - Each limit differs on what specific matrix solutions that it focuses on. For example, the Area limit focuses on 4 sets of matrix solutions, which are the solutions that use one of the four parameters first. However, the Step limit looks at each matrix solution and does not separate each one into different sets. The following is the way to combine the limit types, or the Area-Step Limit.

Wait, is it what he interpreted it as or an actual translation?

There is also another way to notate a Collatz-Matrix equation. Where each sum is representative of matrix solutions of a Collatz-Matrix equation. There are a variety of sums for a given Collatz-Matrix equation. These are called Indefinite Collatz-Matrix equations. This implies that the matrices are in an infinitely large matrix, not a finite matrix. Raymond arithmetic also applies to this notation. For example, the following would be true: Which could also be stated as:

Simply stating that the Earth is immovable doesn't mean that it is the center. Also, immovable could have multiple interpretations. It could mean immovable from it's current orbit without a giant object hitting it(and the science involving this). It could mean anything, whether being literal or figurative.

That would really depend. Maybe bigfoot is some how more intelligent than most animals that exist to become road kill. To question the existence of bigfoot, there would have to be evidence that it was a part of the evolutionary chain. If not, then the possibility of BigFoot is 1/100000000000000000000000000000000.

Oops, my bad. I guess I missed that bit. I wonder if those crackpots who proposed this idea are like "I told you so!" (Problem with the crackpots proposing this idea is that they never had a completely valid mechanism to say that this is possibly true).