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

Login

Username

Password

Not registered yet?

#1 2013-06-01 20:45:29

MathsIsFun
Administrator

Online

Classifying Living Things

Comments and suggestions welcome: Classifying Living Things


"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  - Leon M. Lederman
 

#2 2013-06-01 20:47:55

bobbym
Administrator

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

Hi MathsIsFun;

Please check the spelling of bionomial. I can not find it anywhere. Is that what you intended?


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 2013-06-01 20:49:03

barbie19022002
Super Member

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

the USA one buzzard just looks like a vulture..


Jake is Alice's father, Jake is the ________ of Alice's father?
Why is T called island letter?
think, think, think and don't get up with a solution...
 

#4 2013-06-01 21:05:52

MathsIsFun
Administrator

Online

Re: Classifying Living Things

bobbym wrote:

Please check the spelling of bionomial. I can not find it anywhere. Is that what you intended?

Thanks, will fix!


"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  - Leon M. Lederman
 

#5 2013-06-01 21:22:47

barbie19022002
Super Member

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

hi, mathisfun, what are you going to fix?


Jake is Alice's father, Jake is the ________ of Alice's father?
Why is T called island letter?
think, think, think and don't get up with a solution...
 

#6 2013-06-01 21:27:19

bobbym
Administrator

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

Hi MIF;

The rest looks pretty good but I think you should take a break. Hard work makes me dizzy, even when someone else is doing it.

barbie19022002 wrote:

what are you going to fix?

The spelling of bionomial -> binomial


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 2013-06-01 21:30:31

barbie19022002
Super Member

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

Oh, that


Jake is Alice's father, Jake is the ________ of Alice's father?
Why is T called island letter?
think, think, think and don't get up with a solution...
 

#8 2013-06-01 21:39:44

bobbym
Administrator

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

Hi MIF;

On second thought maybe you should leave it, thus coining a new word. Bear with me, bionomial looks pretty good. It has the prefix bio in it and is superior to just stealing binomial from mathematics. I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.

My brother says that line of reasoning is nonsense.


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 2013-06-02 08:19:26

MathsIsFun
Administrator

Online

Re: Classifying Living Things

It was a rather appropriate spelling error!


"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  - Leon M. Lederman
 

#10 2013-06-03 07:46:56

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

bobbym wrote:

Hi MIF;

On second thought maybe you should leave it, thus coining a new word. Bear with me, bionomial looks pretty good. It has the prefix bio in it and is superior to just stealing binomial from mathematics. I am willing to wager that over 75% of the new words that appeared were nothing more than spelling errors that caught on.

My brother says that line of reasoning is nonsense.

I still remember gAr's "mathod". smile


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
 

#11 2013-06-03 08:34:30

bobbym
Administrator

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

Yes, but look what happened to him.


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.
 

#12 2013-06-03 08:39:57

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

What happened. I do not know.


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
 

#13 2013-06-03 08:41:29

bobbym
Administrator

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

He was abducted by aliens for his mathematical knowledge.


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.
 

#14 2013-06-03 09:18:57

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

Really? Where is he now?


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
 

#15 2013-06-03 09:20:31

bobbym
Administrator

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

Somewhere in the Orion constellation.


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 2013-06-04 23:32:58

barbie19022002
Super Member

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

Are you joking are serious..? somewhere in the Orion constellation...how are you so sure about it........


Jake is Alice's father, Jake is the ________ of Alice's father?
Why is T called island letter?
think, think, think and don't get up with a solution...
 

#17 2013-06-05 03:12:16

bobbym
Administrator

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

I am not sure about anything. There is only a probability assigned to each thing I think I have seen or know. Certainty only applies in math and religion. Anyway, that was a joke. I am sure gAr is at home studying.


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 2013-06-05 03:14:50

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

Ah, well. I was just about to build a transmitter to send him a message to see if he's alright.


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
 

#19 2013-06-05 03:16:32

bobbym
Administrator

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

It is like 500 light years from here. Your message is going to be very, very late.


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 2013-06-05 03:40:16

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

Ever heard of warp drive?


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
 

#21 2013-06-05 03:41:38

bobbym
Administrator

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

Yes, but that is not what they call 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.
 

#22 2013-06-05 03:50:32

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

So? With that, I could've transmitted my message.


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
 

#23 2013-06-05 03:51:29

bobbym
Administrator

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

That is used for vehicles and other solid objects.


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 2013-06-05 04:06:41

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

Again, so? I can send him the message carved on a chunk of stone and send it to him. The only problem is I do not know his exact location...


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
 

#25 2013-06-05 04:12:09

bobbym
Administrator

Offline

Re: Classifying Living Things

Yes, so what you are suggesting is time stopping, gravity distorting kaboobly doo. Is it not?

The only problem is I do not know his exact location...

Is that the only problem? You have a large supply of [    ] available? The largest I know of is at [ ], some [  ] pounds of 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.
 

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB