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

You are not logged in. #126 20121228 09:24:22
Re: Hangman 1Need an I to figure this 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. #127 20121228 09:46:00#128 20121228 09:50:01
Re: Hangman 1How about an O? 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. #129 20121228 11:03:53#130 20121228 11:06:05
Re: Hangman 1An F? 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 #131 20121228 11:09:45#132 20121228 11:10:58
Re: Hangman 1N? 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 #133 20121228 11:15:33
Re: Hangman 1Zeno of Alexandria 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. #134 20121228 12:18:43#135 20121229 06:18:43
Re: Hangman 1Are you sure? 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. #136 20121231 05:04:57#137 20121231 05:15:36
Re: Hangman 1Yes, I forgot about him! You are correct! Very good puzzle. 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. #138 20121231 05:18:05#139 20121231 05:22:20
Re: Hangman 1Gimme an S, and put it in the puzzle. 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. #140 20121231 07:17:15#141 20121231 07:21:21
Re: Hangman 1Do we have an E? 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. #142 20130101 03:38:11#143 20130101 03:43:42
Re: Hangman 1How about an R? 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. #144 20130101 03:52:50#145 20130101 04:11:16
Re: Hangman 1WiFi 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. #146 20130101 07:29:56#147 20130101 10:30:07
Re: Hangman 1Let me have a big S! 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. #148 20130101 11:32:11#149 20130101 11:33:31
Re: Hangman 1Better be a T in there somewhere. 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. #150 20130101 11:38:45 