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

You are not logged in. #1 20130601 20:45:29
Classifying Living ThingsComments and suggestions welcome: Classifying Living Things "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  Leon M. Lederman #2 20130601 20:47:55
Re: Classifying Living ThingsHi MathsIsFun; 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 20130601 20:49:03
Re: Classifying Living Thingsthe 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 20130601 21:05:52
Re: Classifying Living Things
Thanks, will fix! "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  Leon M. Lederman #5 20130601 21:22:47
Re: Classifying Living Thingshi, 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 20130601 21:27:19
Re: Classifying Living ThingsHi MIF;
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 20130601 21:30:31
Re: Classifying Living ThingsOh, 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 20130601 21:39:44
Re: Classifying Living ThingsHi MIF; 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 20130602 08:19:26
Re: Classifying Living ThingsIt was a rather appropriate spelling error! "The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  Leon M. Lederman #10 20130603 07:46:56
Re: Classifying Living Things
I still remember gAr's "mathod". 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 20130603 08:34:30
Re: Classifying Living ThingsYes, 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 20130603 08:39:57
Re: Classifying Living ThingsWhat 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 20130603 08:41:29
Re: Classifying Living ThingsHe 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 20130603 09:18:57
Re: Classifying Living ThingsReally? 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 20130603 09:20:31
Re: Classifying Living ThingsSomewhere 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 20130604 23:32:58
Re: Classifying Living ThingsAre 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 20130605 03:12:16
Re: Classifying Living ThingsI 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 20130605 03:14:50
Re: Classifying Living ThingsAh, 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 20130605 03:16:32
Re: Classifying Living ThingsIt 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 20130605 03:40:16
Re: Classifying Living ThingsEver 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 20130605 03:41:38
Re: Classifying Living ThingsYes, 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 20130605 03:50:32
Re: Classifying Living ThingsSo? 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 20130605 03:51:29
Re: Classifying Living ThingsThat 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 20130605 04:06:41
Re: Classifying Living ThingsAgain, 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 20130605 04:12:09
Re: Classifying Living ThingsYes, so what you are suggesting is time stopping, gravity distorting kaboobly doo. Is it not?
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. 