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

You are not logged in. #2 20130918 20:59:56
Re: Hi :)Hi Gerasimov; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #3 20130919 03:06:21
Re: Hi :)Hi Gerasimov Last edited by anonimnystefy (20130919 18:22:09) The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #4 20130919 16:55:56
Re: Hi :)hi Gerasimov You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei #5 20130920 02:00:50
Re: Hi :)hi.... #6 20130920 02:02:55
Re: Hi :)Hi prathima; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #7 20130920 02:07:41
Re: Hi :)in mathematics #8 20130920 02:10:04
Re: Hi :)What type of math do you like? What type are you good at? What is the age and type of the audience? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #9 20130920 02:17:25
Re: Hi :)i am doing M.sc now. my audience are classmates and my lecturers. #10 20130920 02:23:58
Re: Hi :)Then you can do it about the Fibonacci Sequence. There is probably more literature on that sequence than all the rest put together. There is even a journal devoted to it. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #11 20130920 02:31:11
Re: Hi :)which is that journal.. my time limit is 15min. #12 20130920 02:37:50
Re: Hi :)They call it The Fibonacci Quarterly. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #13 20130920 02:45:08
Re: Hi :)ok... can you give me some explanation and some simple example on branching angle, distance between nodes and number of branches per branch point in L system. i saw an example on algae but i dint understand it. #14 20130920 02:46:00
Re: Hi :)Hi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #16 20130920 02:49:43
Re: Hi :)Hmmm, is it wise to mention some topic that you know less than even I do? You could always leave it out... In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #18 20130920 03:01:51
Re: Hi :)I can give you some nice visual images for an L system but I am not an expert on them. They might make a nice display. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #20 20130920 03:08:21
Re: Hi :)A logarithmic spiral is best described right here. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #22 20130920 03:23:48
Re: Hi :)Yes very much so. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #24 20130920 22:57:34
Re: Hi :)It is called the Fibonacci Quarterly. A university library would have it in the reference section. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. 