FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math
Misunderstanding Bateson
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1190 of 1190 [17848 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 1188, 1189, 1190
Author Message
Slavko Rede
science forum beginner


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:41 am    Post subject: Re: A Natural Axiom which disproves the Continuum Hypothesis Reply with quote

Here is the observation of the formal structure of sets that leads to a natural and simple axiom, called the Axiom of Set Equality, the consequences of which I described in my previous letter.

A finite set can be given as a list of its elements enclosed inside of a pair of the brackets {}. Let's imagine that an infinite set can be given in the same way. Since elements of sets are in standard (ZF) set theory again sets, every set consists in fact only of brackets. Let the external pair of the brackets of a set have depth 0, the external pair of the brackets of the elements of this set have depth 1 ..., etc. If we erase from the set all brackets of the depth greater than n, then we obtain a hereditarily finite set. The larger that n is, the less brackets we erase in this way, and the better approximation of the original set we should obtain, since for n = oo (infinity) we do not erase any bracket at all.

Let's denote by An the set obtained by erasing from a set A all brackets of depth greater than n. The sequence A0 = {}, A1, A2, A3, ... should determine A uniquely, since Aoo = A. Although this does not hold in ZF, we can build a set theory AS (approximations of sets) in which we adopt this intuitive conclusion as an axiom - the Axiom of Set Equality.

A set A is in AS uniquely determined by its developing sequence of approximations: A0 = {}, A1, A2, A3, .... Since for the construction of this sequence the potential infinity is sufficient, AS belongs to the area of constructive mathematics. The role of the Axiom of Separation is taken over by the Axiom of Set Construction which guarantees that a set exists if we can generate its developing sequence by an algorithm or randomly. As the developing sequences of a set and of its complement can overlap, a set is in general not disjoint with its complement.

All the theorems which are stated in my previous letter are proved in the book:

A Disproof of the Continuum Hypothesis by a Natural Axiom (http://www.lulu.com/content/353581)


Slavko Rede
Back to top
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz1
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 604

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:44 am    Post subject: Re: maths for programming C++ Reply with quote

In <1153184226.618227.251800@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, on
07/17/2006
at 05:57 PM, stush@rocketmail.com said:

Quote:
Simply not true unless you want to program like a 14 year old.

A lot of commercial software *looks* like it was programmed by a 14
year old, and not a bright one at that.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
Back to top
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 1063

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:12 pm    Post subject: 130 free shares BCE; VonNeumann Gametheory playing StockMarket Re: comparing BCE & Aliant with AT&T Reply with quote

Well I am happy to say a resolution of my problem occurred today. Last
night I looked and saw a cash payment of a little more than $30,600 for
the Aliant component of the BCE restructure plan. So today I reinvested
the cash and with some of the cash dividend ended up buying 1356 shares
of the new BCE at 23.11. Before the BCE-Aliant
deal I had 14420, and now I have 14550. So I am ahead. I hate being a
victim. BCE should have simplified the restructure plan to have said in
Springtime of 2006 that BCE shareholders would end up with 101% of the
new BCE shares once the deal was finished. In that manner, I would not
have had to worry nor scramble around to make sure I was not a loss
victim. If the price of BCE today had been $26 a share instead of
$23.11 then I would have been a victim. Instead of a pay-out of 91.5%
BCE with 7.25% Aliant, internally, BCE could have done the payout to
BCE shareholders as 101%. So I would not have had anxiety and scramble
to make sure I was not a loss victim.

Most people play the stockmarket with the "bottom line" as to dollar
amount. They are foolish. The bottom-line for me is number of shares.
The bottom-line in the VonNeumann Gametheory of playing the Stockmarket
with its Optimal Strategy of Crossover switches is the number-of-shares
continually increasing. What I call share-wealth-units.

And because BCE restructure had cashed me out on 1045 shares of Aliant
with a missing 1.25% from unity, forced me to scramble around to make
sure I was not a loss victim. How much more simple and easy it would
have been for BCE to internally have payed out 101% of old BCE for new
BCE, and let the shareholders at the other end cash out if they wished
to do so.



Portfolio of PAF as of 20 JUL06

BCE 14,550
T 8,510
total share-wealth-units last reported which was 27JUN06 22,930
total share-wealth-units today 23,060
realestate land 3APR03 of 3 lots $19,000.
science-art of pictures,porcelain etc starting JAN03 for $17,556.
realestate land 30JUL03 another lot $11,500.
realestate land Sept05 another lot $75,000.

For me this restructure is over with and ended and I am happy. So let
us move onwards and upwards, hopefully.

Now I wonder, and have the sneeky suspicion as to whether the traded
wireline to Aliant and the wireless to BCE is going to put a strain on
the new BCE. I wonder if the dividend of the new BCE is safe as the old
BCE? Perhaps that is one of the reasons for the sagging price. Did BCE
give away too much to Aliant for the wireless.

I am not saying wireless is a bad thing, because it is noted here in
the USA that wireless telephony has a premium value over the old
wireline business. SBC chased after AT&T wireless rather than Qwest. It
is wireless that the USA telephone companies covet, and rightfully so
as more people prefer wireless.

So the share price of BCE for me is a two headed dragon, on the one
hand it saved me from being a loss victim, but now I have to be
concerned as to why it is at 23.11 and not climbed to 26.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Back to top
Sine Nomine
science forum addict


Joined: 25 May 2005
Posts: 59

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:22 pm    Post subject: Re: 130 free shares BCE; VonNeumann Gametheory playing StockMarket Re: comparing BCE & Aliant with AT&T Reply with quote

<a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153419132.042593.67680@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Well I am happy to say a resolution of my problem occurred today. Last
night I looked and saw a cash payment of a little more than $30,600 for
the Aliant component of the BCE restructure plan. So today I reinvested
the cash and with some of the cash dividend ended up buying 1356 shares
of the new BCE at 23.11. Before the BCE-Aliant
deal I had 14420, and now I have 14550. So I am ahead. I hate being a
victim. BCE should have simplified the restructure plan to have said in
Springtime of 2006 that BCE shareholders would end up with 101% of the
new BCE shares once the deal was finished. In that manner, I would not
have had to worry nor scramble around to make sure I was not a loss
victim. If the price of BCE today had been $26 a share instead of
$23.11 then I would have been a victim. Instead of a pay-out of 91.5%
BCE with 7.25% Aliant, internally, BCE could have done the payout to
BCE shareholders as 101%. So I would not have had anxiety and scramble
to make sure I was not a loss victim.

Most people play the stockmarket with the "bottom line" as to dollar
amount. They are foolish. The bottom-line for me is number of shares.
The bottom-line in the VonNeumann Gametheory of playing the Stockmarket
with its Optimal Strategy of Crossover switches is the number-of-shares
continually increasing. What I call share-wealth-units.

And because BCE restructure had cashed me out on 1045 shares of Aliant
with a missing 1.25% from unity, forced me to scramble around to make
sure I was not a loss victim. How much more simple and easy it would
have been for BCE to internally have payed out 101% of old BCE for new
BCE, and let the shareholders at the other end cash out if they wished
to do so.



Portfolio of PAF as of 20 JUL06

BCE 14,550
T 8,510
total share-wealth-units last reported which was 27JUN06 22,930
total share-wealth-units today 23,060
realestate land 3APR03 of 3 lots $19,000.
science-art of pictures,porcelain etc starting JAN03 for $17,556.
realestate land 30JUL03 another lot $11,500.
realestate land Sept05 another lot $75,000.

For me this restructure is over with and ended and I am happy. So let
us move onwards and upwards, hopefully.

Now I wonder, and have the sneeky suspicion as to whether the traded
wireline to Aliant and the wireless to BCE is going to put a strain on
the new BCE. I wonder if the dividend of the new BCE is safe as the old
BCE? Perhaps that is one of the reasons for the sagging price. Did BCE
give away too much to Aliant for the wireless.

I am not saying wireless is a bad thing, because it is noted here in
the USA that wireless telephony has a premium value over the old
wireline business. SBC chased after AT&T wireless rather than Qwest. It
is wireless that the USA telephone companies covet, and rightfully so
as more people prefer wireless.

you really should get out of wireline and wireless when you can,
there is too much capacity, too much customer churn, prices are declining,
infrastructure costs skyrocketing, and this has been happening for many
years. There is no big good news for wireless, wireline in the future.
Read up on AT&T an see how one bad CEO can completly ruin an excellent
company.
Back to top
Amadeus Train-Owwell Zirc
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 507

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:24 pm    Post subject: Re: is entropy the Faraday law analog or the Ampere law analog Re: Reply with quote

as I have read, albeit without fully comprehending the theory,
Maxwell actually tried to hide Ampere's electrodynamics. anyway,
your syllogisms are hard to follow.

for instance, what is the neccesary *reason* for 'wires
to have ball-electrons, and nerves to have cloud-electrons' --
why should there be any difference?

Quote:
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is more simple than the entropy. It is
obvious that Faraday's law is more simple than is Ampere-Maxwell. There
is that asymmetry in the Maxwell theory that Faraday becomes simple and
Ampere-Maxwell complex with its displacement current.

So the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is the analog of Faraday's Law of
Maxwell Equations and Entropy (4th law of thermodynamics) is the analog
of Ampere-Maxwell.

thus:
wow, we've hit upon the ultimate or freudian bananapeel;
Surrogate Factoring means,
"let the God-am math community do it,
using C-SETI-ware applied to the bananashippingfunctor!"...
A Man, a Plan, a Banana.

Quote:
In Chaos Theory, this is known as The Banana Effect.

But, I thought JSH was attempting to factor the larger bunches of Bananas
into smaller bunches(factors) which allow faster shipping and packing of
said bananas.
But he is late!
He continues to drag his feet.
He is slacking on the job, he wants others to do it for him, surrogoat
something something..........
Meanwhile we contunue to use a primative sorting algorithum to get the damn
banana boxes full, and it dosen't work very well, sometimes we just have to
stuff them in sideways.

thus:
note the key phrase, which I hasn't noticed
til a day after I posted it, that
they actually did have an amendment
to *extend* the God-am preclearance rules
-- how much further, I know not -- although
it may have been illegal to pass it.

Quote:
Of the four amendments defeated in the House, three had the support of a
majority of the chamber's 231 Republicans. Only the suggestion that the
Voting Rights Act be extended to cover other jurisdictions was defeated by
majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

thus:
how is that a series?... phi is the golden section,
or the totient function?

Quote:
S(n) with 0 <= n, defined as
(x^n + y^n) mod z +
(z^n - x^n) mod y +
(z^n - y^n) mod x

and this series isof interest to those interested in random number
generators, and a few interested in FLT.

Now, I think I have got an upper limit on n | S(n) = 0. It's
phi(x)*phi(y)*phi(z)/8. Why 8?

'Cause phi is always even for any non-small number, and there are three
terms, I guess... 2^3 = 8. Hell, I don't know. It just seems to work
out.

I've tested every x.y.z with gcd(x.y,z) =1 and x<y<z<(x+y) up to 41.

Gawd, I hope I got it right when I wrote gcd = 1 instead of pairwise
coprime.... We'll see.

thus:
compression is only & always deployed around tension.

--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/Amplitude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3322_ethanol_no_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf
Back to top
Amadeus Train-Owwell Zirc
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 507

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:35 pm    Post subject: Re: is entropy the Faraday law analog or the Ampere law analog Re: Reply with quote

could this not be the penintimate etymology of "silly?"

Quote:
as I have read, albeit without fully comprehending the theory,
Maxwell actually tried to hide Ampere's electrodynamics. anyway,
your syllogisms are hard to follow.

thus:
note the key phrase, which I hasn't noticed
til a day after I posted it, that
they actually did have an amendment
to *extend* the God-am preclearance rules
-- how much further, I know not -- although
it may have been illegal to pass it.

Quote:
Of the four amendments defeated in the House, three had the support of a
majority of the chamber's 231 Republicans. Only the suggestion that the
Voting Rights Act be extended to cover other jurisdictions was defeated by
majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

thus:
compression is only & always deployed around tension.

--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/Amplitude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3322_ethanol_no_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf
Back to top
Rand Simberg
science forum beginner


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH! Reply with quote

jonathan wrote:

Quote:
Lets just argue the facts of this debate then.

The mathematics of killfiling follows....

The number of people in a killfile list is inversely proportional
to the tolerance and maturity of the list maker.

QED~

That's not a fact. It's just a poorly argued and invalid opinion.
Back to top
jonathan
science forum beginner


Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 25

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:48 am    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH! Reply with quote

"Scott Hedrick" <diespammers-dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7uzvg.16850$iP1.4980@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Quote:

scarlson@sas.org> wrote in message
news:1153320019.850566.152290@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
OM now has as little credibility in the mind of any fair-minded reader
of this forum as does Mr. Guth. If he wants to improve his reputation
there's just one road to take---the high road!

Well, here's the high road for you: <plonk


Lets just argue the facts of this debate then.

The mathematics of killfiling follows....

The number of people in a killfile list is inversely proportional
to the tolerance and maturity of the list maker.

QED~




Quote:

Back to top
Scott Hedrick
science forum beginner


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:27 am    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH! Reply with quote

"jonathan" <Write@Instead.com> wrote in message
news:evVvg.15535$Bx.7282@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Quote:
The number of people in a killfile list is inversely proportional
to the tolerance and maturity of the list maker.

You wish. It *actually* means that the list maker is showing mercy by *not*
choosing to apply correction to those on the list.

Clearly, Mr. High Road failed to read historical posts in this forum. As
LaToya and others like her show, unfortunately, the high road tends to fail
here far, far more often than it succeed. If Mr. High Road had read
responses to Brad Guth, he'd see where plenty of people have taken the high
road with him and gotten nothing but insults. Brad Guth is a moron, as shown
by his confusing Venus and Mars, and he is a True Believer (TM), which means
he is essentially on a religious jihad, and has no interest in the facts
where they conflict with his faith.

You come close to the same, on occasion.
Back to top
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 1063

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:51 am    Post subject: Re: 130 free shares BCE; VonNeumann Gametheory playing StockMarket Re: comparing BCE & Aliant with AT&T Reply with quote

Now I should have waited to the end of the trading day for BCE went
down to about 22.82 and saved about $300 or 10 more shares of BCE. But
experience tells me it is difficult to impossible to know which way it
goes. Most of my buying has been in situations where the price keeps
climbing. And most of my selling finds me in situations where the price
seems to be in a falling mode.

So I take the practical stance where I want to buy and ask if the
current price is reasonable. And 23.11 was very reasonable to me. And
it bothers me not whether it falls lower during the day.

And this is the beauty of Crossover technique. When selling company A
to buy more shares of company B and wait for another Crossover to
repeat, only in the reverse direction. It matters little as to whether
A or B falls more or climbs more during the switch. What matters then,
is how many free shares. And by engaging in the switch I have already
satisfied my mind that it is worth it.

Now I do have some questions about BCE. (1) Is its current dividend
sustainable as before the Aliant deal as it is now that some wirelines
have gone to Aliant. (2) Can BCE build a new wireline infrastructure of
that given to Aliant and can Aliant rebuild a new wireless unit that
which was given to BCE in this deal? This question judges the merits of
whether BCE made a good deal with Aliant. If Aliant can just rebuild a
new wireless unit whereas BCE cannot replace its wireline given to
Aliant, would be problematic.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Back to top
jonathan
science forum beginner


Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 25

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:40 am    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH! Reply with quote

"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@trash.org> wrote in message
news:DrWdnUUsgtI7oF3ZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Quote:
jonathan wrote:

Lets just argue the facts of this debate then.

The mathematics of killfiling follows....

The number of people in a killfile list is inversely proportional
to the tolerance and maturity of the list maker.

QED~

That's not a fact. It's just a poorly argued and invalid opinion.


Well I've been plonked bout as often as anyone around.
And you doubt me? Another relationship is that plonking
is most likely to occur just after the plonker has been
boxed into a corner on a debate. Now that I've seen
at least a hundred times.

I mean it takes milliseconds to skip past a poster you don't
care to read. And why even tell someone you're killfiling them?
Unless it's meant to hurt or drive them away.

You may find Brad offensive, my point is I find OM's type
of killfiling makes this ng look like a tight-assed clique of
jr high school girls that have nothing better to do than
plan ways to make others look like pathetic losers.

You've seen the movie Carrie right.....


s
Back to top
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH! Reply with quote

"jonathan" <Write@Instead.com> wrote in message news:V23wg.19449$iP1.6052@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Quote:

"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@trash.org> wrote in message
news:DrWdnUUsgtI7oF3ZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
jonathan wrote:

Lets just argue the facts of this debate then.

The mathematics of killfiling follows....

The number of people in a killfile list is inversely proportional
to the tolerance and maturity of the list maker.

QED~

That's not a fact. It's just a poorly argued and invalid opinion.


Well I've been plonked bout as often as anyone around.

You have no data to back up that assertion. You have
no idea, for example, how many people have silently
added you or any other poster to their killfiles, and
what particular criteria each person uses in order to
determine who is killfile-worthy.

Quote:
And you doubt me?

Simply due to the above assertion of facts that you
cannot possibly have is reason to doubt you.

Quote:
Another relationship is that plonking
is most likely to occur just after the plonker has been
boxed into a corner on a debate. Now that I've seen
at least a hundred times.

One man's corner is another man's open field. I've
often noted that cranks will allegedly killfile
a poster who corners them logically, but they never
really seem to do so, as they would appear to crave
the attention. Reasonable, rational (and sometimes
credentialed) posters often engage the loons for a
time in an attempt to straighten out woolly thinking
or misconceptions, or to prevent neophytes from
being confused by a lot of nonsense. Only when the
crank is deemed irretrievably delusional and their
posts repetitive and just plain annoying do they
get killfiled.

Quote:

I mean it takes milliseconds to skip past a poster you don't
care to read. And why even tell someone you're killfiling them?
Unless it's meant to hurt or drive them away.

It may be merely to serve as a warning to others to
beware of a troll trap.

It's also true that there are a good many people who
read Usenet using dialup lines, and the extra byte load
of off-topic or delusional crap that cranks and trolls
generate is already enough of a burden without adding
reams of detailed replies (often quoting the entirety
of the troll's manifesto).

Quote:

You may find Brad offensive, my point is I find OM's type
of killfiling makes this ng look like a tight-assed clique of
jr high school girls that have nothing better to do than
plan ways to make others look like pathetic losers.

You've seen the movie Carrie right.....

As far as I know there are a limited number of ways
to killfile a poster based upon the characteristics of
the newsreader being used. How can you object as you
do to the way the software works? Perhaps you intended
to take exception to the missive that OM sent to the
group outlining his reasons for recommending that BG
be killfiled?

Well, this is the Internet, where common courtesy and
decorum are not truly enforceable. It seems in fact
to be a magnet for marginal personalities who take
advantage of the relative anonymity to act out in ways
they couldn't do in a room full of people. That's
life. Grow a thicker skin and get on with it.
Back to top
Brian Lunergan
science forum beginner


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH! Reply with quote

jonathan wrote:
Quote:
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@trash.org> wrote in message
news:DrWdnUUsgtI7oF3ZnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
jonathan wrote:

Lets just argue the facts of this debate then.

The mathematics of killfiling follows....

The number of people in a killfile list is inversely proportional
to the tolerance and maturity of the list maker.

QED~
That's not a fact. It's just a poorly argued and invalid opinion.


Well I've been plonked bout as often as anyone around.
And you doubt me? Another relationship is that plonking
is most likely to occur just after the plonker has been
boxed into a corner on a debate. Now that I've seen
at least a hundred times.

I mean it takes milliseconds to skip past a poster you don't
care to read. And why even tell someone you're killfiling them?
Unless it's meant to hurt or drive them away.

If that worked spam would not be the bain of the internet it has grown
into. Ignoring things (or deleting them) does not make them go away. You
have to act against the problem.

Quote:
You may find Brad offensive, my point is I find OM's type
of killfiling makes this ng look like a tight-assed clique of
jr high school girls that have nothing better to do than
plan ways to make others look like pathetic losers.

Would blocked sender be more palatable? I block who I choose to block not
because I'm some immature prude, but because I accept the mature stand that
freedom of speech doesn't mean the speaker can spout whatever, wherever,
whenever. I am not obliged to listen to or read profanity, childish
behaviour, or poorly thought out argument done for the sake of arguing.
Call it a kill file or blocked sender list or what ever you wish. It's the
virtual way to ignore a conversation you have no interest in sinking into.

--
Brian Lunergan
Nepean, Ontario
Canada
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1190 of 1190 [17848 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 1188, 1189, 1190
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:06 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts pre-fourier piecewise continuous function simple misunder... Chris1171 Undergraduate 1 Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:06 pm
No new posts Eric Davis's misunderstanding of the Higgs origin of inertia Jack Sarfatti Particle 0 Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:14 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1915s ][ Queries: 13 (0.1601s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]