Eotvos, not Newton

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:53:42 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote this crap:

On Monday, 10 August 2015 16:57:08 UTC+2, Lord Vath wrote:

You are quite wrong. I was on the internet before you were born. I
worked for the military when they were trying to connect computers
into a network. I did these functions using punchcards.

That would certainly explain your [over]familiarity with men
in white coats!

I don't know any men in white coats. But you can probably find some
driving ice cream trucks.

Signals containing information sent over wires has been going on
since the 19th century.

Duh! You think? Probably not much.

The mechanical punched card is much older than the computer variety.

Your job as punched card filer did not make you a computer boffin.
But it must have impressed the girls.
Well, let's call it one. Rather than zero. ;ø]

You make no sense.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 15:02:07 UTC+2, Lord Vath wrote:

You make no sense.

Your unfamiliarity with early computing does you no service in believing your [fictional] autobiography related to punched cards. Back in the 1960s computer staff wore white coats as they moved about the sports-hall-sized computer rooms. Punched cards had to be collected, filed, retrieved and regularly brought back to the machine. There were lots of large tape machines involved too. These huge, early machines soon cleared the vast drawing rooms and office blocks full of clerks packed in on every floor. Early computers provided new employment too. Though never again on the vast scale I saw vanish almost overnight with my own eyes. I suppose you had to be there. I was. But I don't remember you? ;ø]

On 09/08/2015 19:13, Lord Vath wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:02:12 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 9:43:47 AM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:

You are bat**** crazy. Even rational numbers are variables. Please
show me what 1/3 is? Is it, 0.33, or perhaps, 0.333, or
0.3333infinity3's. Anyway, you can't calculate it, therefore it is a
variable.

One-third is one-third. A rational number,

Of course it is. There's no dispute.

and hence constant.

No, it's not. Your own will prove it.

You are just too dumb to understand the difference between a constant
and a variable. Clueless, ignorant and arrogant in equal measure.

Just because it can't be expressed finitely in
*decimal* notation doesn't mean anything.

Yes it does.

Only if you are dumber than a rock. It is a minor inconvenience.

1/2 is 0.5, thus presumably a constant.

But in base 3, 1/3 is 0.1, and 1/2 is 0.1111....
so now 1/3 is fixed and 1/2 is variable?

You just showed by your own words that 1/3 can be expressed as a
variable. Is it 1/3 or .1, or 0.33, or 0.33333infinity3?

I await your answer.

Mathematicians have long since developed a notation for recurring
decimals that go out to infinity. You are a first rate clueless idiot.

1/3 = 0.3' = 0.(3) = 0.3333...

1/7 = 0.'142857' = 0.(142857)

There isn't a universal notation worldwide although I was taught the
allegedly Chinese notation with raised dot markers a la ' in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeat...cimal#Notation

Still waiting for your fantasy "proof" that i = 1/2.

ROFL

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:28:10 PM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:
Back in the 1960s computer staff wore white coats as they moved about the
sports-hall-sized computer rooms.

I think that "Lord Vath" can be forgiven for thinking that any references to men
in white coats in posts replying to him are instead references to the sort of men
in white coats who would be seeking to fit him for a special kind of jacket.

John Savard

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:10:49 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote this crap:

On 09/08/2015 19:13, Lord Vath wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 11:02:12 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 9:43:47 AM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:

You are bat**** crazy. Even rational numbers are variables. Please
show me what 1/3 is? Is it, 0.33, or perhaps, 0.333, or
0.3333infinity3's. Anyway, you can't calculate it, therefore it is a
variable.

One-third is one-third. A rational number,

Of course it is. There's no dispute.

and hence constant.

No, it's not. Your own will prove it.

You are just too dumb to understand the difference between a constant
and a variable. Clueless, ignorant and arrogant in equal measure.

Are you kidding me? I was a math major. I have more math in my
little finger than you have in your whole hand. I know the difference
between a variable and a constant.

Just because it can't be expressed finitely in
*decimal* notation doesn't mean anything.

Yes it does.

Only if you are dumber than a rock. It is a minor inconvenience.

1/2 is 0.5, thus presumably a constant.

But in base 3, 1/3 is 0.1, and 1/2 is 0.1111....
so now 1/3 is fixed and 1/2 is variable?

You just showed by your own words that 1/3 can be expressed as a
variable. Is it 1/3 or .1, or 0.33, or 0.33333infinity3?

I await your answer.

Mathematicians have long since developed a notation for recurring
decimals that go out to infinity. You are a first rate clueless idiot.

1/3 = 0.3' = 0.(3) = 0.3333...

1/7 = 0.'142857' = 0.(142857)

There isn't a universal notation worldwide although I was taught the
allegedly Chinese notation with raised dot markers a la ' in the UK.

Your own words show that these numbers are variables.


Still waiting for your fantasy "proof" that i = 1/2.

ROFL

I guess I'll have to show you again what I wrote.



Goody. Goody. I was hoping some idiot was going to call me on my
bloviating. And you're just the fool to do it.

I actually did this calculation in high school. But I'll bet you
never took differential equation calculus in high school. This type
of mathematics is far beyond you, but you can ask some more
intelligent person to color you some pictures.

Take the integral from minus infinity to positive infinity of, "e"
raised to the square root of minus one times dx and you can calculate
that i is equal to 1/2.

It's quite simple and any mathematician can figger this out. Too bad
you can't do it.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 12:53:45 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:

Signals containing information sent over wires has been going on since the 19th century. The mechanical punched card is much older than the computer variety.

One can stretch a point and claim information over wires has been going on for thousands of years. A fishing line is a wire and I'm sure the fish obtained information over it when the fisherman started to haul it in.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 7:29:38 AM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:10:49 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote this crap:

Still waiting for your fantasy "proof" that i = 1/2.

ROFL

I guess I'll have to show you again what I wrote.

Goody. Goody. I was hoping some idiot was going to call me on my
bloviating. And you're just the fool to do it.

I actually did this calculation in high school. But I'll bet you
never took differential equation calculus in high school. This type
of mathematics is far beyond you, but you can ask some more
intelligent person to color you some pictures.

Take the integral from minus infinity to positive infinity of, "e"
raised to the square root of minus one times dx and you can calculate
that i is equal to 1/2.

It's quite simple and any mathematician can figger this out. Too bad
you can't do it.

Well, Euler's Formula tells us that e^(i*t) = cos(t)+i*sin(t), and in this case t = 1, so we can integrate this from minus infinity to positive infinity as well. WolframAlpha can do this for us...

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...o+%2B+infinity

Go ahead and take it from here, and show your steps to prove your assertion.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:14:12 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote this crap:

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 7:29:38 AM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:10:49 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote this crap:

Still waiting for your fantasy "proof" that i = 1/2.

ROFL

I guess I'll have to show you again what I wrote.

Goody. Goody. I was hoping some idiot was going to call me on my
bloviating. And you're just the fool to do it.

I actually did this calculation in high school. But I'll bet you
never took differential equation calculus in high school. This type
of mathematics is far beyond you, but you can ask some more
intelligent person to color you some pictures.

Take the integral from minus infinity to positive infinity of, "e"
raised to the square root of minus one times dx and you can calculate
that i is equal to 1/2.

It's quite simple and any mathematician can figger this out. Too bad
you can't do it.

Well, Euler's Formula tells us that e^(i*t) = cos(t)+i*sin(t), and in
this case t = 1, so we can integrate this from minus infinity to
positive infinity as well. WolframAlpha can do this for us...

That's pretty good. You actually understand some of this. But that
is simple algebra. The link you posted didn't work.

Now take e raised to i*dt * dx and integrate it from minus infinity to
positive infinity.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 12:48:40 PM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:

That's pretty good. You actually understand some of this. But that
is simple algebra. The link you posted didn't work.

Works fine for me... go here

http://www.wolframalpha.com/

.... and then, in the box with the yellow line around it enter this...

integrate cos(1)+i*sin(1) dx from x=-infinity to + infinity

Now take e raised to i*dt * dx and integrate it from minus infinity to
positive infinity.

This makes little sense...

No, you made the claim, let's see your step-by-step solution on how you prove that i = 1/2

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 8:29:38 AM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:

Are you kidding me? I was a math major. I have more math in my
little finger than you have in your whole hand. I know the difference
between a variable and a constant.

If that is the case, then you must be trolling.

John Savard