Math Is Fun Forum
  Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

#1 Re: Puzzles and Games » Math Questions (Easy?) » 2008-10-15 16:30:27

I am sorry. You will never see me post here or any forum at this site ever again. My apologies. Goodbye.

#3 Re: Puzzles and Games » Math Questions (Easy?) » 2008-10-15 13:24:31

13. Is

a formula for the number of subsets of a set in set theory?

#4 Re: Puzzles and Games » Math Questions (Easy?) » 2008-10-15 13:13:05

10. What is the converse of

?

11. The inverse of statement in # 10?

12. The contrapositive of statement in # 10 ?

#8 Re: Coder's Corner » Naming Conventions » 2008-10-14 22:00:01

I could see how that could happen.

#9 Re: Coder's Corner » Naming Conventions » 2008-10-14 14:06:39

As I look at Ricky's example, it looks like you two are talking about either C++ or Java with the { 's.   I am not sure what naming conventions you should use, MathsIsFun, in regard to either of those languages. I am teaching myself some Java, and I like it so far.

#10 Re: Coder's Corner » Naming Conventions » 2008-10-14 14:01:06

Question:

Is this Visual Basic ? Looks like it to me, correct me if I am wrong. My instructor advised our class to use the most descriptive naming convention, while keeping it brief.

Like :

dim intBeans
dim intPots   etc... 

*Note: ("dim" in this example is the dimension (< I think it stands for dimension) command, creating variables Beans and Pots, for anyone reading this that isn't necessarily familiar with Visual Basic)

He said that using CamelCase was fine, but he preferred something short and sweet, so instead of:

dim int dayCountYesterday

he would suggest for clarity

dim int countYest

or something really short and sweet for programmers that may look over the code after the program's creation, just in case the programmer that created the code wasn't doing the revising personally.

So to shorten this up, I think that using what makes sense at first glance matters more than being strict with naming conventions. Conventions should be considered, but ultimately you could try my instructors idea, MathsIsFun. My instructor by the way used to work for Google. So I guess that he must have learned a few good ideas while working there.

#12 Re: Jokes » Limericks » 2008-10-13 11:56:50

Those are funny limericks ! Yes, clever !

#14 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Debate #001: Is math a science? » 2008-10-11 00:01:09

Ganesh,

I agree with mathsyperson as well, and with you in fact. Good points in your last post, Ganesh !

#15 Re: Jokes » If Life Were Like A Computer:- » 2008-10-10 14:52:30

Your hat would never blow away in the wind using the Caps Lock.

Want to have a drink with the inhabitants of the Starship Enterprise ? Go to the Spacebar.

You could reboot whenever your old boots wore out.

Where would we go when we cached in the chips? The Blue Screen Of Death, of course.

#16 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Debate #001: Is math a science? » 2008-10-10 12:37:33

Math must not be science, because in grammar school we had them as seperate subjects tongue

Seriously, though, a very interesting topic ! I will give this some thought. Good point-counterpoint guys, let's keep it going.

#17 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Dennis Kucinich loses New Hampshire 2008 » 2008-10-10 12:32:25

integer wrote:

......Hitler really did not want a war.  But all those English people did not understand his manner of ending all wars, and look at what happened.  Hitler only wanted to get rid of those that he felt were not in his best interest.  If there had been no resistance, there would not have been that nasty war in which many died.

That's right, no war would have meant not just 6 million Jews dying, many millions more people would have been executed as well.

#18 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Religion with science » 2008-10-10 11:06:00

G_Einstein,

I am glad that you feel the same about everyone choosing for themselves. And with that, I am done with this subject, because everything I wanted to say has been said. And I hate to repeat. I hate to repeat. tongue

#19 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Religion with science » 2008-10-10 10:41:16

Look how far the point has strayed ! I know that your English is off a little, and I accept that. But back to the point I tried to make:

What I am saying is, it doesn't matter that I believe in Christianity's way, Islam's teachings, Judaism, Hindu, or any other belief. Science should be science. Plain, pure and simple.  I, as always, respect everyone's opinion, but don't try to tell me Islam is the only way. It is not. For you it is, but for everyone else, let THEM choose.

Science should be conducted with an open mind is all I ever said.

#20 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Religion with science » 2008-10-10 09:52:48

G_Einstein,

While I respect everything you have written, I could carry very similar "proofs" of my own with the Bible. I won't bother, because, as was my point I made before this earlier in the thread, it is all relative. I agree with Ricky in his quote:

You are reinterpreting the words of the Koran so that they fit the science.

Referring to what I said about God, my words : 

....hey I do exist and here's proof that I exist....

This wasn't a question, it was a statement. I was saying that I feel that MAYBE God might have said to himself, "I exist, and I will put proof throughout the universe, in the form of the Golden Ratio, or Golden Mean, for even non-believers to see, to see that I DO exist."

These were NOT God's words, just my own speculation as to why we see such similarities throughout the universe that are in proportion to Phi.Basically I am saying what if God did this so humans could see as proof that God exists. Kind of like a "fingerprint" or signature from God. This would have all been done long before the birth of Jesus.

Ganesh made some excellent points, when he mentioned the 7 components of light. He believes what he believes, and we all should believe what we want to believe as well. G_Einstien, your belief is as important as mine, and I welcome it !

I think that this was a great quote of a quote from Ganesh:

I quote Albert Einstein:-
"Religion without Science is lame, Science without Religion is blind."

We should all believe what we want to believe, but true science should try to ignore who created it ; true science should concentrate on discovering on what was created.

#21 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » LHC (Large Hadron Collider) » 2008-10-10 09:36:24

integer wrote:

.....We will get an enormous amount of data....

Yes, like I mentioned earlier in this thread, scientists are expecting about 10 times what is already available on the Internet in just something like one day !

#22 Re: Guestbook » The BLAN Puzzle - Really Cool! » 2008-10-09 13:46:52

BLAH wrote:

Can YOU find the word, BLAN, in this puzle?

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAN BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Hehehe

wave

I highlighted it dizzy

#23 Re: Introductions » Technique » 2008-10-09 13:44:16

Hey there Technique ! Welcome big_smile

#24 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Religion with science » 2008-10-09 13:41:43

G_Einstein wrote:

What do you think all about religion(religions)???-I mean monotheistic religion,not polytheistic
To be more precis,the "link" between religion and sciences???

Do you think that what the religions says about the creation of the world is true????

And to answer the more precise question put forth by G_Einstein, I am not sure how I feel about the whole creation thing. I do feel that the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) machine over in Switzerland will be giving us some insight to how it all began when they finally produce some data. (I started a thread on the LHC, for anyone interested - just know that I am not trying to hijack this thread, just to add to it).

All in all I feel that God or whatever created the universe, but I do not KNOW this, I believe it. It must be difficult for some of today's scientists - as well as past scientists - to keep opinion separate from fact. My hat is definitely off to them up

#25 Re: Dark Discussions at Cafe Infinity » Religion with science » 2008-10-09 13:34:29

Yes, Ricky ! I agree, that is a good point. People do not have to choose whether they are going to investigate or explore our world from a strictly religious or scientific way, choosing one over the other, that is. They can do both, but this word "compartmentalization" seems to sum it up. We must keep our beliefs in one compartment, and our scientific mind in another.

I suppose scientists, and the otherwise curious, could contemplate both at any one time, as long as scientific findings are produced on paper that stay true to "pure" science without creating a hypothesis and researching that hypothesis based on religious beliefs.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB