Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ZetaX

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15
1
General Discussion / Re: Mathematics Help Thread
« on: April 13, 2016, 04:38:06 pm »
There are mathematicians who are also uncomfortable with proofs like that. I believe reasoning like that in the proof displayed above is disallowed in the school of Intuitionistic logic (which is not widely used).

Intuitionists allow that false statements imply everything ("ex falso quod libet"). They only do not use proof by contradiction, or more precisely that one of A or (not A) is true for every statement A.

2
Other Games / Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« on: February 23, 2016, 01:07:48 pm »
difficult to dodge or stop because they're never where you see them as being.
Predicting it is no problem at all. You know precisely where they are at what time. Just calculate. This doesn't require relativity and works the same in Newtonian physics.

Stopping is also quite easy: throw something in their way at a safe distance. The resulting collision is so powerful, both parts will be essentially obliterated.

3
General Discussion / Re: Mathematics Help Thread
« on: February 17, 2016, 07:18:23 pm »
One should also wonder why they even give the angle alpha at all. Solvable without it, and self-contradictory with it.

But what exactly does it mean that you have to do this crap to get to Germany? If this is an actual entrance test, I expect them not giving it out as homework, so where does it come from?

4
General Discussion / Re: Mathematics Help Thread
« on: October 22, 2015, 07:14:18 am »
First, in the forward, the author mentions a geometric approach to calculus created by Newton. I was wondering where I might find a book that explores this (or do I have to read the Principia?)
I have not heard of this before (it probably falls under "history of mathematics" more than under calculus; and I don't know much about such), but I can imagine it being related to the usual visualisations (derivatives as slopes of tangents, integrals as areas under a curve).

5
General Discussion / Re: Mathematics Help Thread
« on: October 21, 2015, 06:32:44 pm »
Spehss_?
Please stop scaring me.
:P
Spoiler: *eldritch noises* (click to show/hide)
Yes, this is actually maths. I actually need to condense half a book's worth of this stuff into a bachelor's thesis.

What kind of evil professor gives horribly technical stuff like stacks as a bachelor thesis' topic¿
Technically it's sort of my own fault, I asked my Algebraic Geometry prof for a topic involving singularities and he started talking about reducing singularities on projective curves and also the Stable Reduction Theorem. The second part seemed pretty intuitive when he explained it, but apparently it was way more complicated in theory. We talked about it today and apparently he didn't actually expect me to do that theorem, but he didn't tell me because he wanted to see if I could actually pull it off (spoiler alert: I can't, I have way less than the necessary foundations). So that's nice, I can stop having nightmares about impenetrable textbooks and missing deadlines now.
Sounds a bit evil to do, but I can understand his motivations. Now that I think about it: I am really different in giving very hard (IMO and such) problems to students that are training for regional or national olympiads, because that was also mostly to see if they can solve them (some very few sometimes succeed). If I shall ever get to that point I might try that with my own students (PhD student close to the finish here).

My knowledge about stacks is pretty lacking (only knowing the basics), but I saw enough to know that this is far too technical for what I would like to work with.


Can I post some complex analysis stuff from this book?

Is there anyone here who knows complex analysis? I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the convergence of complex power series.

There are several as far as I know. Just carry on with the questions. Definitely not as hard as the stacks mentioned above ;-)

6
General Discussion / Re: Mathematics Help Thread
« on: October 14, 2015, 08:14:24 pm »
Spehss_?
Please stop scaring me.
:P
Spoiler: *eldritch noises* (click to show/hide)
Yes, this is actually maths. I actually need to condense half a book's worth of this stuff into a bachelor's thesis.

What kind of evil professor gives horribly technical stuff like stacks as a bachelor thesis' topic¿

7
General Discussion / Re: Mathematics Help Thread
« on: October 11, 2015, 01:32:26 pm »
Unless you know what you are doing, you should indeed not treat dy/dx as if it were a normal fraction. But within the right setting it actually is a fraction; for example when using nonstandard analysis.

8
General Discussion / Re: Mathematics Help Thread
« on: September 10, 2015, 05:58:11 pm »
The answer is indeed "yes" (assuming you are talking about the actual number, not a floating point number on a computer), but depending on the actual situation (what do you want to use it for¿) it might still be suboptimal.

9
Other Games / Re: Aurora - The Dwarf Fortress of 4X Games
« on: August 12, 2015, 09:45:45 pm »
Unfortunately physics just proved recently (2003?) that gravity doesn't work faster than light which a lot of HH plot works around (and maybe the starfire books?).
Pity... I hate it when science gets in the way of a good plot.

That's not a recent result. We knew since general relativity that gravity should move at the speed of light, and very definitely not faster; it  should not be slower, but that causes way less quirks than being faster: loss of causality.

10
General Discussion / Re: Mathematics Help Thread
« on: July 14, 2015, 03:12:45 am »
I would try to avoid using the sarcasm mark. It shows up as a broken character on a very significant proportion of computers/fonts.
I have seen several persons that said exactly the same in full sincerity. And judging from the reponses at least some here are serious about tthat.
Next time either say the intended thing or add some sarcasm tag; or at least don't respond like it is "obvious" that it is when it really isn't.

Umm... he/she didn't say anything about the content of your post whatsover, just that the sarcasm symbol you used doesn't work for many users (there's also no universal convention that that means irony either). So they won't get what you mean anyway. Try /sarc instead or something that can be viewed by all users.
Ah, now I understand what this was about. No, that wasn't supposed to be a sarcasm mark at all. Yes, the sentence was somewhat sarcastic in its meaning, but can also be taken at face value without problems, so I didn't bother. That reverse question mark (it's the spanish one) is just a pet peeve of mine. Sorry for the confusion.

11
General Discussion / Re: Mathematics Help Thread
« on: June 09, 2015, 11:53:04 am »
I would try to avoid using the sarcasm mark. It shows up as a broken character on a very significant proportion of computers/fonts.
I have seen several persons that said exactly the same in full sincerity. And judging from the reponses at least some here are serious about tthat.
Next time either say the intended thing or add some sarcasm tag; or at least don't respond like it is "obvious" that it is when it really isn't.

12
General Discussion / Re: Mathematics Help Thread
« on: June 09, 2015, 11:06:35 am »
This is talking about the denumerability of the rational number system, I don't see how that doesn't fall into number theory. Although its kinda a trivial argument...
The denumerability is a set theoretic property. Nothing number theory is really concerned about. Obviously, set theory is. Why would you associate it into a field that does not care about this instead of the field that is by definition concerned with the question¿
Edit: Additionally, this is not really about the rational numbers, but about denumberability of finite products of denumerable sets. And the denumberability of their subsets. See, no mentioning of the rationals at all.

13
General Discussion / Re: Mathematics Help Thread
« on: June 09, 2015, 06:28:04 am »
If you dislike Banach-Tarski for it being a "paradox", you should consider that the paradox divides the sphere/ball into 5 parts that are not only "unrealistic" (for being infinitely finer than atoms or any other real world thing), but also "unmeasurable" (which is a mathematical way of saying: those parts are so weird, one cannot even say what their volume is; generally, if talking volume, one only consideres measurable things).

That's not actually calculus. That's more number theory... sorta?

"What is Mathematics?" puts this under: "The Number System of Mathematics" so yeah, number theory is more or less right.
No, this is set theory. Number theory is concerned about the inherent structure of the ring of integers, diophantine equations and such. Those two are very different things.

A simple theorem is (a+b)2 = a2 + 2ab +b. This is true assuming that multiplication is associative (meaning the order of multiplying doesn't matter; ab = ba)
ab=ba is being commutative, not associative. Associativity is a(bc) = (ab)c, which is not needed here. But distributivity, i.e. a(b+c) = ab+ac, is used twice.

14
General Discussion / Re: Mathematics Help Thread
« on: June 07, 2015, 06:43:21 am »
Alternatively, one can use the (Cantor-)Schröder-Bernstein property of sets:

Let A, B be sets.
1. Write A ≤ B if there is an injective map from A to B. Then A ≤ B ≤ A gives A = B.
2. Write A ≤ B if there is an surjective map from B to A. Then A ≤ B ≤ A gives A = B.
Actually, the CSB property is only part 1. Part 2 is dependent on the axiom of choice, I believe.
Both are CSB properties. The first one is the well-known CSB theorem, the latter is its dual (and indeed requires the axiom of choice). In general, a CSB property in its most general form (that is known to me) is a statement of the following type:
Let C be some category. For objects A, B write A ≤ B is there is a monomorphism from A to B. We say that C satisfies the CSB property if A ≤ B ≤ A implies that A, B are isomorphic in C.

One could replace "monomorphism" by any property of morphisms and "isomorphic" by "equivalent in regard to some equivalence relation on objects". But I never saw those generalisations in actual use.

If C are all sets, then "monomorphism" simply means "injective" and we get the first one from above.
Now let C be the dual category of sets. Then a monomorphism in C is an epimorphism of sets, i.e. a surjective map in the opposite direction. This gives the second one.

Wikipedia only really talks about injective versions in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6der%E2%80%93Bernstein_property, but their formulation is actually just what I wrote above.

15
General Discussion / Re: Mathematics Help Thread
« on: June 07, 2015, 04:48:37 am »
Infinite sets are of the same "size" if you can map one set to the other without any "leftovers".
To be precise: without any "leftovers" (the map is "surjective") and without sending two things to the same thing (it is  "injective").

Which is also a problem in this approach: you hit each rational number not only multiple times but infinitely often. There are several easy fixes, which amount to either showing that "a non-finite subsets of the positive integers is of the same size as the integers" or "a non-finite image of the positive integers is of the same size as the integers". Both these arguments often use the well-ordering (every non-empty subset has a smallest elements) of the positive integers somwhere.

Alternatively, one can use the (Cantor-)Schröder-Bernstein property of sets:

Let A, B be sets.
1. Write A ≤ B if there is an injective map from A to B. Then A ≤ B ≤ A gives A = B.
2. Write A ≤ B if there is an surjective map from B to A. Then A ≤ B ≤ A gives A = B.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15