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

You are not logged in. #1 20130803 13:55:15
MicroscopeHi; 246 pages on Prime Numbers Wiki (+1) #2 20130803 21:36:05
Re: MicroscopeHave you checked the Wikipedia page on it? 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 #3 20130803 21:43:42
Re: MicroscopeEver heard of the Dutchman Leeuwenhoek? 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. #4 20130804 16:22:35
#5 20130804 21:42:47
Re: MicroscopeThe guy who first invented it but Robert Hooke gets the credit for the modern form. 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. #6 20130805 09:37:16
#7 20130805 15:47:52
Re: MicroscopeYes, he used two lenses rather than one. 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 20130805 18:42:25
Re: MicroscopeThe two lenses are called ocular and objective. When you use one lens as Leeuwenhoek did you get more distortion. 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. #10 20130807 16:00:03
Re: MicroscopeWhy? 246 pages on Prime Numbers Wiki (+1) #11 20130807 17:20:30
Re: MicroscopeThat is if you have a 10x ocular. 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. #13 20130807 18:14:24
Re: MicroscopeYou rarely see oculars pf more magnification of 10x or 15x. His ocular was around 200x or 300x. 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 20130808 14:34:08
#15 20130808 19:15:53
Re: MicroscopeThere are limits to what can be done with light or even ultraviolet light. The next advance was the electron microscope. 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 20130810 13:52:39
Re: MicroscopeThe electron? So, the compound is two lenses, right? 246 pages on Prime Numbers Wiki (+1) #17 20130810 20:57:59
Re: MicroscopeLight has a certain wavelength. Things close to that wavelength or smaller can not be seen clearly by it. The best light microscopes have about 2000 X magnification or so. To get more you have to use something smaller than light. The electron is a particle we can control and it is much smaller than the wavelength of light. It requires more specimen preparation but magnifications of over 100000 are possible. 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 20130818 10:57:59
#19 20130818 11:34:16
Re: MicroscopeThe difference though is that in the light microscope you can see the specimens alive, in the electron microscope they can only be viewed after lots of preparation and in a vacuum. So they are dead. 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. #21 20130921 16:11:53
Re: MicroscopeThis concludes our broadcast about microscopes. 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. 