Along with that, it is immensely pacifying to read through it.
That is true.
There seems to be some misconceptions in this thread, many Buddhists believe in God, I know this for a fact. Buddhism doesn't seem to forbid you but they generally don't pray to him. This is a high concept.
The Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace has also indicated (as shown above) that saying that Buddhism as a whole is "non-theistic" may be an over-simplification. Wallace discerns similarities between some forms of Vajrayana Buddhism and notions of a divine "ground of being" and creation. He writes: "a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation." In fact, Wallace sees these views as so similar that they seem almost to be different manifestations of the same theory. He further comments: "Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory.
At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience ... To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, 'panentheism', according to which God is ... all and one and more than the totality of existence .... As I mentioned before, Buddhists do not make use of the term God, which characteristically belongs to Christian terminology. An equivalent most commonly used is Dharmakaya ... When the Dharmakaya is most concretely conceived it becomes the Buddha, or Tathagata ...
Buddha was loathe to speak much but it's said that he came to the concept of God through his own development.
Rather the idea that they don't have a deity has been fostered by the western misunderstanding that in a mystery school you don't study God, you don't even mention him. It is unproductive and confusing to analyze him.
I try to avoid giving the answer, since I think it's best for the poster to find that for themselves.
I am truly sorrow and will follow that suggestion. I can see how Bob might have wanted him to use his own head.
My rules are not arbitrary.
I can live by them.
I'm surprised that you would use experimental maths to solve this question. Does that mean you drew, say, 100 triangles, each with the given lengths, then measured XB in each, before calculating the mean and standard deviation to assess the reliability of your answer. Of course, that only shows that the answer lies close to your chosen value. I suppose you could state a confidence interval.
Hello Bob, no I didn't use that method but I would prefer that to having no answer. If necessary a simulation is always an option, I would do millions of them not a hundred. This would get about 3 digits of precision and a bound which might be good enough.
Why use experimental math? The best answer might be because it works. The first rule taught to me by my two teachers was to transform each problem into what I was good at doing. One called it the "home court advantage," the other said it was Sun Tzu's favorite motif to fight every battle on terrain that was favorable. Instead of thinking about the problem in terms of the language that is obvious ( in this case Geometry ) each problem is changed over into the same paradigm.
The old way of solving problems demanded that we be experts in Geometry, Calculus, Linear Algebra, Group theory, Abstract Algebra, etcetera. That meant if you don't know each discipline as well as the person who wrote the problem you couldn't do the problem. Conversion to experimental math means knowing only one field as well as an expert.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Did I get the right answer?
I also got the answer faster than bobbym.
Bobbym, EVW: I've already brute forced it with a computer and found it to be 8119
stripping the labels.
Answer is the first row. The generating function is now easy
Even though this is very nice there are some advantages to the brute force solution. Do you know why?