Math Is Fun Forum

That's why you call yourself Choco, interesting!

BTW
Do you like pure chocolate, with milk, or with alcohol?

But the last is infinity if you allow infinite radicals.

If you don't, stop it at some finite step and you can just varify it.

I mean, it doesn't require the intermediate storage so much.

like 23*36 you have to bear in mind 23*3 and 23*6  but now only 1 from 18 (1*10) , 9,  12,

then 2 from 22.

828, correct!

However, it cannot simplify 238*36 too much.

Negative numbers might be describing something reciprocal.

Like I owe you two apples. You write "I have 2 future apples" and I can write "I have -2 future apples".

Ricky, your counter-example is Maxwell Equations if I got it right. You have agreeed that microly it doesn't count. That's enough. The only difference we can discover about an infinitesimal system and a sufficient small system lies in whether microly the former applies. The success of an infinitesimal system in macro world isn't enough because as you have admitted, the error can be so small that the infinitesimal system might just "steal" the success of the sufficient small system.

"So how could the time have changed like that if it wasn't 8:00 at some point?"
-mathyperson you are objecting the abrupt change of time. Well, it definately looks odd. But water, wood and  gold these kind of things just abruptly add one smallest piece of themselves. Besides, electricity does the same too. Looking at cell multiplication, we might have another model of adding one piece of the self.

Anyway, I meant if 8:00 does exist -as you might agree, but according to the probability theory, anything Cannot occur at this moment because of the absolute 0 probability on it.

Great websites you two guys have provided!

I think D is okay, too.

Like
I in this post= George,Y
I in this post(George,Y)

Anyway, an editor shares pretty the same point with you, Ricky.

You completely got me, Ricky. That's my point-the infinite & continuous system may have simulated the finite world so well that people even presume that the further is true while the latter is not. That's a huge problem hindering scientists to discover nature. I mean, how hard it could be for a detective if s/he always assumes the wrong suspect before collecting enough evidence to defy his old thinking? We may provide multi-assumptions to scientists so that they know there Is another math-tool, another assumption.

To mathyperson:

Columb's Law- can it be explained by a repelling force?

Your explaination of probability still uses limit, meaning within a small time interval, the probability exists and is quite proportional to the interval length. However, I do want to ask a question: Does 8:00 exactly, not 7:59 to 8:01, not 7:59'59" to 8:00'01" or anything else, ever exist?

BTW: I have a friend studying electrical engineering in the best technology university in my country.

I asked: Are your courses so simple as to entail only formulas discovered a hundred year ago?

Replied him: Not necessarily. From acadamic year 3 we have courses in micro-electric, where quantum effects take place of simple formulas. We have to examine dynamics & details of materials perspectively instead of applying universal formula.
-The Maxwell equation is not so universal.

"Then you believe there exists a largest integer"
--I am afraid it's the only logical option out. Besides, experiments have shown many failures of existence of infinte amount. Just one example: the gravity force, used to be thought as proportional to the inverse of the distance squared. And it follows that if the two object has no distance to each other, infinte gravity force. However, the nature refuses this assumption, gravity force cannot reach the ideal amount obeying formula even when the distance is small enough. And it's not alone-many physics formula share this micro-breaking-down feature. Just coincidence? I doubt so.

Any way, in Post 4 I have projected the paradox in probability-Can you make a way out of it?

continuousness is based on using infinitesimal implicitly.

BTW

you know what? according to the assumption of "continuous probability" X<Y has the probability 1/3 and X=Y has the probability 0! Moreover, any point within the distribution rectangle has the probability 0! -Any X and Y combination such as X=2 and Y=3 has the probability 0, meaning NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL!!

That's my another reason against continuous assumption. Perhaps I can try a probability magazine and tell them why I object continuous reals.