Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °
| |
|
|
You are not logged in. #1 2012-10-05 10:29:58
New Puzzles 4Even more "Stephen Froggatt" puzzles:: "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman #2 2012-10-05 17:21:44
Re: New Puzzles 4hi You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei #3 2012-10-05 18:00:32
Re: New Puzzles 4Hi MIF; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on. #4 2012-10-06 11:55:05
Re: New Puzzles 4Great! I will put that in the solution. "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman #5 2012-10-06 19:03:01
Re: New Puzzles 4Hi MIF; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on. #6 2012-10-07 03:57:19
Re: New Puzzles 4I would think there is one, thought it does seem GFs might be of use. 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 “A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón #7 2012-10-07 07:29:21
Re: New Puzzles 4Hi anonimnystefy; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on. #8 2013-03-04 23:04:21
Re: New Puzzles 4There is a problem with the "Three Of The Best" puzzle. MORE COMPLEX PROOF: The formula is the limit as n goes to infinity of the sequence defined by . Assume some exists (otherwise the sequence would be undefined). Define a sequence . We proceed by induction. Base step: Inductive Hypothesis: Thus we have proved by induction the relation for all . Since is a sequence of the form , this ratio converges to the golden ratio. Last edited by Thurhame (2013-03-06 12:28:02) #9 2013-03-04 23:15:36
Re: New Puzzles 4Wonderful, Thanks! 'And fun? If maths is fun, then getting a tooth extraction is fun. A viral infection is fun. Rabies shots are fun.' 'God exists because Mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove it' 'The whole person changes, why can't a habit?' -65 #10 2013-03-05 01:39:19
Re: New Puzzles 4Hi Thurhame 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 “A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón #11 2013-03-05 03:24:55
Re: New Puzzles 4Hi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. 90% of mathematicians do not understand 90% of currently published mathematics. I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on. #12 2013-03-05 04:23:07
Re: New Puzzles 4
Oh, my mistake, it just said there were two solutions to the formula. However, that's still wrong; my proof shows that any solution must be equal to the golden ratio, i.e. there are at most 1 solutions. Last edited by Thurhame (2013-03-05 04:26:01) #13 2013-03-05 05:30:13
Re: New Puzzles 4Hi Thurhame 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 “A secret's worth depends on the people from whom it must be kept.” ― Carlos Ruiz Zafón #14 2013-03-06 12:27:40
Re: New Puzzles 4Ah, thanks for reminding me, my simple less-rigorous proof isn't adequate if i'm only proving the number of solutions, rather than the value. Removing it now. Hope the more complex proof doesn't make anyone's eyes glaze over. |