You are not logged in.
Post a reply
Topic review (newest first)
- bob bundy
- 2012-10-14 18:22:29
OK. Good luck with that.
For years mathematicians have found it difficult to get law courts to understand Bayes theorem and use it properly in assessing evidence where probability plays a part so you may have even more trouble pursuading them to accept your stalker proof.
Bob
- (-infinity,infinity)
- 2012-10-14 11:26:19
Bob, you have inspired me to get back to proofs. Thank you so much!
I removed that last part for privacy reason.
- bob bundy
- 2012-10-13 23:12:43
Hmm... Funny Posts ... Great
Which is further supportive evidence of the proposition that .....
Bob
- Agnishom
- 2012-10-13 22:33:36
Hmm... Funny Posts ... Great
- bob bundy
- 2012-10-13 18:00:47
It is self evident that
I have gone to some length to prove that 2 + 2 = 4
Ask any 4 year old and they will tell you it was not necessary to prove this ... "Don't be silly; everyone knows this!"
Therefore I must have been doing something that is "an activity not in {compulsory activities}"
It follows that it must be in {pleasurable activities}.
Bob
- anonimnystefy
- 2012-10-13 09:57:14
Hi Real
It would be hard not to!
- (-infinity,infinity)
- 2012-10-13 09:51:06
I see anonimnystefy has caught onto the interval notation.
- anonimnystefy
- 2012-10-13 06:52:58
bob bundy wrote:
It is self evident that
And why is that?
bob bundy wrote:
I see you have given (-infinity,infinity) a nickname.
Yup!
- bob bundy
- 2012-10-13 05:42:13
Ok I'm done for now. See post 7.
I see you have given (-infinity,infinity) a nickname.
B
- bob bundy
- 2012-10-13 05:38:17
hi
Just adding some more. Go back to post 7
B
- anonimnystefy
- 2012-10-13 05:35:51
Hi Bob
That's cool. Another contribution to our real world mathematics formulas. I think Real's friends will like it.
- bob bundy
- 2012-10-13 05:33:05
hi (-infinity,infinity)
I'm surprised that you didn't think the meaning of a word was important.
Just to keep my suggestion in 'best' position I have improved it a little.
definition:
definition:
definition:
Let x = {devising the following proof}
axiom 1. 2 = 1 + 1
axiom 2. 3 = 2 + 1
axiom 3. 4 = 3 + 1
rules of substitution apply
associativity applies
proof:
2 + 2 = 2 + (1 + 1) (by substitution and axiom 1)
= (2 + 1) + 1 (associativity)
= 3 + 1 (substitution and axiom 2)
= 4 (substitution and axiom 4)
therefore 2 + 2 = 4
It is self evident that
Hope you like this.
Bob
- (-infinity,infinity)
- 2012-10-13 01:09:57
Great thinking guys! I never thought of using the actual meaning of fun in the proof.
The warm welcome was also well appreciated.
I'll see if there are any other ideas, but bob bundy's looks like the best one so far.
- bob bundy
- 2012-10-12 18:31:05
OK. I have a better one.
Words have meanings. Dictionaries define those meanings.
So I chased around the definitions thus:
fun: bringing pleasure
doing something for pleasure: something you do because you want to rather than because you have to.
Now the proof.
We all know that 2 + 2 = 4
Only a mathematician would do the following:
axiom 1. 2 = 1 + 1
axiom 2. 3 = 2 + 1
axiom 3. 4 = 3 + 1
rules of substitution apply
associativity applies
proof:
2 + 2 = 2 + (1 + 1) (by substitution and axiom 1)
= (2 + 1) + 1 (associativity)
= 3 + 1 (substitution and axiom 2)
= 4 (substitution and axiom 4)
therefore 2 + 2 = 4
Only a mathematician would do this because they want to (clearly you don't have to do this)
Therefore math(s) is fun.
QED.
Bob
- bob bundy
- 2012-10-12 18:11:48
hi (-infinity,infinity)
Welcome to the forum.
All proofs require a set of axioms and rules for how elements may be combined.
Here's a simple example.
axiom 1. All 4 lettered words are fun.
rules of propositional calculus apply.
normal counting rules apply.
proof. math has 4 letters (by counting rule)
math is fun (by axiom 1)
Now I'm not seriously offering this as a useful mathematical theory. I have two main objections:
(i) the proof breaks down in the UK where the spelling is 'maths'
http://www.mathsisfun.com/
note the extra 's' in the address.
(ii) There are a lot of 4 lettered words that you wouldn't want to be proved to be fun!
So clearly more work is needed on the axioms, but it will give you the idea.
btw. proof by contradiction still uses the axiom system and rules of logic.
Bob