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

You are not logged in. #101 20100426 14:32:06
Re: Is this cool with you?
I tried my longhand idea...and I was wrong. Too much mental arithmetic involved, and too easy to make a mistake. Also too easy to miss some. It can be done...with some sweat and tears (unless you're wide awake for this sort of thing). Last edited by phrontister (20100426 14:33:35) "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #102 20100426 14:38:24
Re: Is this cool with you?Hi phrontister; 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. #103 20100426 14:40:09
Re: Is this cool with you?Last edited by phrontister (20100426 14:58:14) "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #104 20100426 14:58:32
Re: Is this cool with you?255 is correct! The answer is suggestive. 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. #105 20100426 15:35:47
Re: Is this cool with you?
Something to do with Octal (the number after 8 is 11) or binary (255 = 11111111), maybe? "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #106 20100426 15:38:24
Re: Is this cool with you?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. #107 20100426 15:50:17
Re: Is this cool with you?Sorry...that's too advanced for me. I never did any of that at school (up to 4thyear high is my limit). Last edited by phrontister (20100426 15:54:08) "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #108 20100426 15:51:08
Re: Is this cool with you?Sorry, it is probably wrong anyway. 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. #109 20100427 23:22:12
Re: Is this cool with you?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. #110 20100430 23:51:33
Re: Is this cool with you?HI; B was going to explain more when... C said) Forget that gibberish. A is right,it is 1 / 991. Who is right? There are 15 players on a team roster. I need to select 10 of them for the team, 3 of whom will be cocaptains. How many ways can I select my 10 man team with it's 3 cocaptains. A says) 120, I counted them! B says) think of the team as c,c,c,p,p,p,p,p,p,p,p,p,p,p,p and your pick is: c,c,c,p,p,p,p,p,p,p so: 10 ! / ( 3! * 7! ) = 120 so A is right. C says) Oh boy, both of you are wrong it's: Who is right! 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. #111 20100512 02:05:49
Re: Is this cool with you?Hi; A says 3^1000 + 2 B says 2^2000 + 2 C says 2^1000 D says You can't do it. It is too tedious. Medium: 3 people draw 3 different random numbers. They notice that when they take 2 of them, call them x and y and plug them into: it is divisible by thirty. They pick 3 more different random integers, same thing. A) says everytime you pick 3 random positive integers there will always be 2 so that f(x,y) is divisible by thirty. B) says it is just a coincidence. True, there are no small numbers where that doesn't hold but it will eventually fail. C) says B is right. Here is a counterexample (18735625374653746532611112342965142999^3 1, 872653419864765342638499993333333^18, 4653625436475888888888888111111113773^25 ) Original work please, I already know the 2 methods shown to me. So I will be looking for a new approach. 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. #112 20100515 04:40:47
Re: Is this cool with you?Tough: 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. #113 20100515 18:42:17
Re: Is this cool with you?
If two or more thoughts intersect with each other, then there has to be a point. #114 20100515 18:46:32
Re: Is this cool with you?Yes, thank you, I have corrected the original problem. 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. #115 20100515 19:46:50
Re: Is this cool with you?
Now I've seen the answer, there's probably a far nicer way of doing this. But here's my way: Why did the vector cross the road? It wanted to be normal. #116 20100515 19:53:03
Re: Is this cool with you?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. #117 20100528 19:39:40
Re: Is this cool with you?5 die are thrown at once. What are the odds that just 2 die are the same? e says) a and b are right but no one can expand that expression without a computer. f says) Takes less than 5 minutes to expand b's expression, but it is wrong anyway 144 / 216 is right. 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. #118 20100530 09:29:53
Re: Is this cool with you?It's alphametic time: Can you solve both equations simultaneously? The usual rules, using only 0 to 9 for each letter. 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. #119 20100530 14:37:07
Re: Is this cool with you?So easy! 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. #120 20100605 10:48:12
Re: Is this cool with you?B) submitted this proof: Of course everyone knows the Nicholas Oresme proof that the harmonic series is never an integer when p >1. But the question demanded a proof that took advantage of the fact that p is a prime. This is what B) did. Assume that: for some integer n. Now multiply by (p1)! The right side n * (p1)! is still an integer. All the terms of the LHS up to the last are clearly integers, the last term is clearly not. The sum of a bunch of integers and one rational is not an integer. So the left side is not an integer, Now had the first statement been true that both sides were an integer. when I multiplied by an integer both sides would have remained integers. Proved by contradiction! A says) It's brilliant, I used it on a test and my MIT professor loved it. C says) Proof is garbage, there is at least one major hole in it. D says) I taught B, he is an imbecile, but the proof is correct. E says) B worked for me, and he is incompetent, I agree with C. B has never been even close to right before. B says) I stand by this proof! No, it's not brilliant but it is adequate. Who is right? 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. #121 20100610 23:33:17
Re: Is this cool with you?Hi Bobby,
I agree with b, f, g, h and i (i says he used a calculator, and he also partly used LB). Btw, who is/was Euler? Last edited by phrontister (20100610 23:42:19) "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #122 20100611 01:01:16
Re: Is this cool with you?Hi;
A real giant. He is long gone. 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. #123 20100612 01:11:09
Re: Is this cool with you?A cryptogram: 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. #124 20100624 04:28:10
Re: Is this cool with you?A toughie: 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. #125 20100627 01:34:33
Re: Is this cool with you?This one is really daffy but easy. Should get hundreds if not thousands of correct answers. 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. 