[Archive c 17.03.2008] Humour [Archive to 28.04.2012] - page 273

New comment
 

I can't get the video in.

The incomes of Russian officials' wives.

 
PapaYozh:

I can't get the video in.

Income of Russian officials' wives.


Gop team :)))

Charity is a good business, you can make a fortune :)

Housewives, I wonder, do they earn so much from pocket money? :)))

I wonder how you put up with it?

 

gip:

I wonder how you put up with it?

Where do you come from?
 
Yurixx:

Who is the author of this book? Why is his name nowhere to be seen?
One V.A. Nykhtilin
 
Integer:


Indeed, Melchizedek has outdone everyone... It's been known for a long time that he's a hog, but that he's so much more than that!

Incorrect take-out because of the brackets. 2(1:1)=5(1:1) => (2:1)=(5:1).

Quite right, but don't jump to conclusions...)

Here is a discussion of this and other "easter eggs" of the book, http://www.metek-site.ru/metek.php?p=guest_book

and about this case in particular:

I may be wrong, but I think the ''example of an algebraic train of thought'' given on pg. 6 of chapter "Beginning" is not quite correct. The bracketing action is mentioned, but as far as I remember it applies only to addition: ab+ac= a(b+c) (the distributive law of multiplication with respect to addition). And for the expression (2:2)=(5:5) it would be true, for example, 2*1:2=5*1:5, i.e. 1=1 and no contradiction. Brackets are inappropriate in this case. Although I'm not actually a mathematician and I can't assert with certainty.
If it's another Easter Egg, at least give me my ordinal number :) By the way, I had a thought that Kandinsky and ''Square'' are not an error but a ''trap''. Well, my suspicions have been confirmed :)
Thanks to the author for the excellent book.
Regards, Ann
Response:
Ann, that's right. You are not alone in pointing this out. At one time we
Dealt with it, because there were a lot of emails about it,
and we dealt with it remotely, through emails, and we came to a certain
conclusion. If you like our conclusion, I will give you an extract from a letter that ended
and reconciled everyone (the author of the letter is a professional mathematician,
PhD student), here's the passage:'...you can't look at this example just as an example, everything here is just tied to the main idea, if you don't take that into account, nothing will work.
The point of the example is that in mathematics really
anything is possible and it's a self-existing reality
completely unrelated to physical reality. Only arithmetic is completely related to the physical world, because it is simple counting and simple number operations on a natural number. And as soon as there is algebra, there is abstraction. Arithmetic can't add kilograms to kilometres, but algebra can. A table can be added to a chair in algebra to make a wardrobe. 4+3 modulo 2 in algebra equals 1 etc.
And the point of this is that the 'algebraic thought process'
doesn't work in arithmetic, and arithmetic is a reflection of real
real world processes, therefore algebra and everything above it
don't reflect the real world. If any action from arithmetic is transferred to algebra, it works, but if any action from algebra is transferred to arithmetic, nothing works as in this example. Arithmetic thinking is our real thinking about the real world, and algebraic thinking is abstract thinking about the abstract mathematical world.
And for my part, don't jump to conclusions when you start
to solve an example right away and say you can solve it correctly, but
the author can't solve it. That's not why it's in the book, to solve an example correctly, because if you want to solve an equation arithmetically you don't have to take anything out of the brackets, you just have to do what's in the brackets and you end up with 1 = 1, but if you're caught out and want to solve an equation algebraically, then the '':'' there is no such sign in algebra, and whatever you write next is just fitting the answer and not algebra, but it should look like this 2(1/2) = 5(1/5) that's when it's algebra and it's all natural. It's not about the look of the example, it's much deeper in essence and so aptly stated that it scratches your head.
As you can see, the example is simply to show how
mathematics thinks in categories and self-signified expressions, which in application to work with real phenomena are not suitable and hence just the first serious doubt in presence of empirical base at the theory of real infinity. And as you'll see further on if you
if you read on, that's what happens - you take the provisions of the mathematical
characteristics of a real infinite object and substitute instead them the usual real infinite object, only not mathematical but subject-physical and we get ''white hot''...
That's how it was written, and that's how I'm passing it on to you. Maybe there's something here
will come in handy:))) Good luck to you and to St. Valentine!

 
denis_orlov:
one V.A. Nykhtilin

Thank you, that makes sense now. The file you posted was called Melchizedek, but there was no author or title in the text. Hence the question: if it is the title, who is the author, and if the author, where is the title (and, even more interestingly, who is it ?)
 
denis_orlov:

Quite right, but don't jump to conclusions...)

.....

Strange how you got that, I deleted this post of mine a few hours ago as it has nothing to do with Melchizedek personally (although the dick isn't any sweeter than the dick).

Response. The author screws up and excuses himself by calling it "easter eggs". Whether the ":" sign exists in algebra or not is irrelevant, it is clear to everyone what it stands for.

This professional mathematician's musings about algebra and arithmetic are wow))))))))). For the age of Coca-Cola, gigabytes and 30 year old professors this is normal.

There's a lot more to say about this book - the author doesn't seem to be familiar with the concept of black holes. He is the one trying to explain the world through his limited understanding of mathematics.

 
Yurixx: When one's own imagination (at least it !) doesn't work and one's own head is incapable of coming up with anything new, then one takes the Middle Ages, polishes them up a bit, colors them, multiplies by 100 and passes them off as the distant future.
There you go, I'm beginning to see why Star Wars doesn't excite me in any way, because it's fantastically primitive.
 
Mathemat:
... For they are fantastically primitive.
That's probably the reason why they're considered sci-fi. :-)
1...266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280...847
New comment