|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: pgpg
Date: Jan 21, 2008 21:34
Hello everyone !
Just 5 minutes ago I found mathcurve.com and was totally fascinated by
that site ! It has detailed description and tutorial for many (sorry,
I just been there, so haven't have the chance to explore it
thoroughly) kinds of math-related stuffs.
Like the fractals, I randomly click on the below 2 links, and wow !
www.mathcurve.com/fractals/hilbert/hilbert.shtml and
www.mathcurve.com/fractals/koch/koch.shtml
Unfortunately, the site is in French, and my French is as good as my
Greek. (much apologies to the French people and the Greek people out
there !) So my question to the gurus here is:
Is there an English equivalent to the mathcurve.com math related
site ?
I appreciate any pointer ! Many thanks in advance !
|
| |
|
| |
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: MoeBleeMoeBlee
Date: Jan 21, 2008 19:12
On Jan 17, 5:39 pm, Scott gmail.com> wrote:
> Proof: Assume x is any set such that uni(x). For every yex and zex,
> either y c= z, z c= y, or ~(y c= z)^~(z c= y).
Okay. But don't forget, x might not have any members.
> Now suppose AyexAzex[ y
> c= z v z c= y ].
That's called a "subset chain in x" (or sometimes just a "chain in
x"), by the way.
> By hypothesis, every element of x is either a subset
> of another element or has no superset.
Has no superset at all? No. The following are theorems:
AxEy y superset of x
AxEy y propersuperset of x
So, you must mean
Azex(Eyex z subset of y v ~Eyex z subset of y)
which holds not just by hypothesis but by pure logic.
And I see that you don't deploy this in your argument below anyway.
> All elements without supersets
> are proper subsets of Ux
|
| Show full article (1.67Kb) |
|
| |
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: MoeBleeMoeBlee
Date: Jan 21, 2008 18:43
On Jan 17, 5:39 pm, Scott gmail.com> wrote:
> D4: dis(x) <-> EyexEzex[ ~(y c= z) ^ ~(z c= y) ] (where "c=" means
> subset or equal)
'subset or equal' is equivalent to 'subset'
> D5: uni(x) <-> Ayex[ ycUx ]
>
> L6: Ax[ uni(x) -> dis(x) ]
> Proof:
I don't need to read your argument to know that it's incorrect in some
step or another.
Aye0 y propersubset of U0.
But ~Eye0Eze0(~y subset z & ~z subset y).
MoeBlee
|
| |
|
3 Comments |
|
|
Author: JimmyJimmy
Date: Jan 21, 2008 17:46
Can someone help me with the following questions?
1) We always treat "t" as truth value "true" and "f" as truth value
"false",
if p is a variable, then (t v p) is not WFF (well formed formula)?
Because WFF can only contains variable(s)? No constants & no truth
value(s)?
2) As for the below implication, where p = t (true) & q = f (false),
which one of the below is correct?
p -> q = f ?
or
p -> q eqv f ? (eqv means equivalent)
3) p ^ q = p
- Is this NOT tautology?
- Can I assume if there's AT LEAST 1 ROW result as false in the
truth table, then it's NOT tautology?
4) p |= tout p ^ q
- Is this wrong?
- If it's wrong, is it because t ^ f = f (where p = t & q = f)?
|
| Show full article (0.74Kb) |
|
3 Comments |
|
|
Author: collection60collection60
Date: Jan 21, 2008 16:06
So, I think I realise what I am working on.
Creating space for the hate.
Your reaction to the idea that someone wants to create a space where
hate is freely allowed, may be one of disagreement or confusion.
Even if you agree or are simply neutral, to the idea that creating all
the space for hate to be freely allowed everywhere, you would
understand that most people will react against this, saying that "hate
is a bad thing".
And that, you see, is the problem. Most people think it is a bad
thing, so there is no space for hate.
How can this piece of crap world be cleansed of evil, if everytime
someone does something detestable, those who KNOW someone else has
done something wrong, and have suffered the wrongness, can't just go
in and hate and make pay those who do it wrong?
How can this piece of crap world be cleansed if most people stop other
people taking the most efficient course to undo lies and evil?
Without space to hate, this worthless world cannot be cleansed. Unless
the good are free to hate the bad, nothing will change.
|
| Show full article (6.51Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: ZaljoharZaljohar
Date: Jan 21, 2008 14:39
On Jan 19, 6:36 pm, Zaljo...@ gmail.com wrote: > Hi all,
>
> H is the collection of all sentences entailed (from first order logic
> with identity and the primtives binary relations @ and # ) by the
> following non logical axioms.
>
> Note: @ is read as ' is a part of ' , # is read as 'paired in order
> with'
>
> 1) Axiom of Parts: Every heap is a part of itself
>
> Ax ( x @ x )
>
> 2) Axiom of Transitiveness : The part of a part of a heap is a part of
> that heap.
>
> Ax Ay Az ( x @ y @ z -> x @ z )
>
> 3) Axiom of Asymmetry: a heap is not a part of its proper part. ...
|
| Show full article (4.70Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: ScottScott
Date: Jan 21, 2008 10:47
On Jan 20, 5:30 am, LauLuna wrote:
> No superset in x? Even so this doesn't follow from the assumption.
I don't understand why you think this doesn't follow from the
assumption. If yex ^ ~Ez(y c= z), then y does not have a superset. Is
this not correct?
|
| |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Scott HScott H
Date: Jan 21, 2008 08:30
I call conditions that are both collectively sufficient and
individually necessary to cause and effect "contributing causes" of
the effect. For example, a gas leak and a plug spark would both be
contributing causes of a house fire. Also, two pillars holding up a
platform are contributing causes of the platform's staying up, the
removal of either causing it to fall.
Similarly, I call contributing causes of human choices "collective
motivators." I may decide to go to a party for both desserts and a
sleepover, but not for either alone.
What are the conventional terms for these?
Finally, I know that (A => B) => (B => A) is called the fallacy of
affirming the consequent. But what is the fallacy of (A => B) => (~A
=> ~B) called?
|
| |
|
2 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: AkashAkash
Date: Jan 21, 2008 03:37
The task of the "master" or the soul is to acquire something. The
impressions of previous actions impel the soul to act; and the other
faculties engage in action because of the soul. The urge to action
depends on the nature of the soul; and, as all souls are not equal,
their actions are different; Tapas or meditation too is a cause of
this difference; but all other faculties depend for their action on
the soul. Desire too is associated with the soul.
A further exposition on the subject maybe read at:
http://www.narachphilosophy.com/the_problem_of_action_the_method_of_interpretation...
(You may click on the link above or type the complete URL address into
your browser)
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
