http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math Mathematical discussions and pursuits. 2010-03-10T20:38:57Z Google Groups gudi mathm...@hotmail.com 2010-03-10T20:38:57Z http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d8c13488e73e6b1f/c3b48288560b0f1f?show_docid=c3b48288560b0f1f

On Mar 10, 10:51 pm, &quot;2.7182818284590...&quot; &lt;tangent1...@gmail.com&gt; <br> wrote: <br> Gaussian curve is the limit as the number of trials goes to infinity. <br> It is also shown in above Ray Vickson referred Wikipaedia demo. <br> Narasimham

RussellE reaste...@gmail.com 2010-03-10T20:37:48Z http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d0b953a11c077a61/d32e08d29a15cad6?show_docid=d32e08d29a15cad6

Thank you for the reference. <br> I notice Sazonov says modus ponens can't be true in an ultrafinite <br> theory. <br> If it were, it would be possible to prove the existence of infeasible <br> numbers. <br> Modus ponens does not hold in some three value logics. <br> Assume we have the truth values: True, False, and Unknown. <br> We can easily come up with truth tables for this logic.

gudi mathm...@hotmail.com 2010-03-10T20:27:57Z http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/b039eb7cb26e6036/0c25dd69203388de?show_docid=0c25dd69203388de

On Mar 10, 11:59 am, Archimedes Plutonium <br> e^(pi*i) = -1 for half navigation, and, <br> e^(pi*i)^2 = e^(2 pi*i) = +1 for full / circum navigation. <br> Narasimham

Me, ...again! arthu...@mv.com 2010-03-10T20:25:13Z http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/2328f3fe4ab3daef/a67bacb242665eb3?show_docid=a67bacb242665eb3

Which &quot;he&quot; are you talking about? <br> Quite frankly and after (I'm retired now) a career in professional <br> science, including publishing in peer-reviewed journals in my <br> specialization, I can tell you that if you have a wacky-idea, it's going <br> to get rejected. I can also tell you that if you have a good idea, it

Risto Kauppila risto.kauppi...@nospam.saunalahti.fi.invalid 2010-03-10T20:17:48Z http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/0cdc278a0a5369a9/25d7362a41d960da?show_docid=25d7362a41d960da

07.03.2010 00:41, master1729 kirjoitti: <br> Google is your friend. I found several years ago <br> a very interesting article on this topic in American <br> Mathematical Monthly. <br> Rike

arithmeticae arithmo...@hotmail.com 2010-03-10T20:07:05Z http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/3b764e5753944845/5d3ca9d50d3b7df5?show_docid=5d3ca9d50d3b7df5

that's right, I included the following phrase right after you sent your first message : <br> &quot;a set of values ordered according to their values (being a_1/b_1 &lt; a_n/b_n). <br> Many thanks Chip

gudi mathm...@hotmail.com 2010-03-10T20:03:51Z http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/9be7e7f355e4a2f4/4240a5b89f0c656e?show_docid=4240a5b89f0c656e

Referring to ongoing thread &quot; The relationship between Gaussian <br> Curve and Pascal's Triangle Coefficients &quot; I like to ask the <br> following <br> question for gleaning the nature of events linking discrete intervals <br> of the variable and the associated probabiity, even if I never worked <br> in this area. So please correct any errors that I may make in

A N Niel ann...@nym.alias.net.invalid 2010-03-10T19:54:17Z http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d8c13488e73e6b1f/221fa39df3e6bc9b?show_docid=221fa39df3e6bc9b

In article <br> &lt;b6d44537-cd88-4603-a2d8-3dd0d 4dc7...@i25g2000yqm.googlegrou ps.com&gt;, <br> Feller, as the other reply said. <br> but this part is nonsense.

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard j.deboynepollard-newsgro...@ntlworld.com 2010-03-09T02:36:27Z http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/dc87b16891900b18/31b5d7a19f3e9a9c?show_docid=31b5d7a19f3e9a9c

... but not that there was an Isaac Newton. That is according to his <br> epitaph, at any rate.

Inverse 19 mathematics hope9...@verizon.net 2010-03-10T19:39:00Z http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/3e46c2013a991de1/a45a5d99c78d89e7?show_docid=a45a5d99c78d89e7

We are not sure , this was just dicovered a minute ago , but we know <br> that these are primes <br> 19+1.75/.25=(26)/.25= (47) /.25 =(131) /0.25= (467)/.25=(1811) /. <br> 25=(7187) /0.25 =(28691)/.25=114707--- <br> ---------/.25 &gt;.(458,771) , (1835027), ( 7340051) , (29,360147) , <br> AND ANDREW WILES OF PRINCETON / FERMAT WANT TO PROVE FLT CORRECT!!!.

Chip Eastham hardm...@gmail.com 2010-03-10T19:27:59Z http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/3b764e5753944845/475af043b51942c6?show_docid=475af043b51942c6

The look of your new officelive website is <br> clean and attractive. <br> Please consider the set V = {1/2, 3/1, 1/3}, <br> all real and all denominators positive. The <br> definition you gave is that the Rational Mean <br> is Mr[V] = 5/6. This doesn't fall between 1/2 <br> and 1/3, even if these numbers be transposed. <br> Perhaps what you want is to impose ascending

PD thedraperfam...@gmail.com 2010-03-10T19:09:15Z http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/684930be614c8293/4e816702241da072?show_docid=4e816702241da072

However, an indication does not mean a necessary consequence. <br> Therefore, your foregone conclusion that it is ruled out because it <br> would yield antigravity in another theory altogether neither follows <br> logically nor is at all relevant. <br> He didn't suggest a negative mass. You did.

Butch Malahide fred.gal...@gmail.com 2010-03-10T19:09:11Z http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/0f5add0f855932ab/51dd18cfbce1693c?show_docid=51dd18cfbce1693c

Change &quot;linear&quot; to &quot;well&quot; and you've got it. <br> Example: Suppose there are distinct sets x_n (n in N) such that, for <br> each n in N, <br> x_n = {x_m: m in N and m &gt; n}. <br> These sets would be ordinals by your definition. Of course, they are <br> not ordinals.

Frederick Williams frederick.willia...@tesco.net 2010-03-10T19:01:11Z http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/0f5add0f855932ab/3d164b16cf671054?show_docid=3d164b16cf671054

It's a Zermelo finite ordinal!

Frederick Williams frederick.willia...@tesco.net 2010-03-10T18:56:06Z http://groups.google.je/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d8c13488e73e6b1f/d5509dc2d14d7034?show_docid=d5509dc2d14d7034

Feller, An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Application, <br> volume I, chapter VII, section 3.