Our server costs ~\$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 20th November 2017, 07:43

Thread Rating:
• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
 The Mathematical Proof Thread Whateverist Keeper of the hounds & garden Religious Views: Meh .. people can believe whatever they've been trained to. Posts: 20755 Threads: 272 Joined: 25th June 2011 Reputation: 135 RE: The Mathematical Proof Thread 14th September 2016, 11:48 (14th September 2016, 11:40)RozKek Wrote: (14th September 2016, 11:38)Whateverist Wrote: That seems like more a matter of definitions and making conventions compatible. If you think of x^3: as 1•x•x•x and x^2 as: 1•x•x and x^1 as: 1•x then x^0 should be simply: 1 Note that 3 isn't a factor in x^3 any more than 2 is a factor in x^2.  So there is no reason 0 should be a factor in x^0, the usual worry.  Note that every factorization includes 1 trivially.  x^1 does too.  x^0 = 1 because there are no factors of x in it at all.  But every factorization includes 1, trivially. There are better justifications for this, but I found this way the most satisfying to students. heya, hoya, hoo, I'm not reading this until I give it some thought myself but thanks, I'll read this when I'm done crying My apologies.  I would have used hide tags but I didn't think of this as a proof. Suggestion:  Lets use hide tags after the statement of the proposition if we post any more proofs so that others can have a go at it first. Khem Wrote:If all you have is mere god meaning, then you don't have any super ultra mega ultimate meaning, so it's all meaningless. Cutting to the chase, the claim that apart from god there is no meaning is as ridiculous as claiming that unless you had Coke Zero you didn't have a soda. RozKek lurking Religious Views: - Posts: 1633 Threads: 33 Joined: 14th March 2016 Reputation: 22 RE: The Mathematical Proof Thread 14th September 2016, 12:04 (14th September 2016, 11:48)Whateverist Wrote: (14th September 2016, 11:40)RozKek Wrote: heya, hoya, hoo, I'm not reading this until I give it some thought myself but thanks, I'll read this when I'm done crying My apologies.  I would have used hide tags but I didn't think of this as a proof. Suggestion:  Lets use hide tags after the statement of the proposition if we post any more proofs so that others can have a go at it first. It's cool :p Kernel Sohcahtoa The Outsider Religious Views: non-religious and non-theist Posts: 837 Threads: 23 Joined: 5th September 2016 Reputation: 33 RE: The Mathematical Proof Thread 14th September 2016, 12:15 (This post was last modified: 14th September 2016, 12:16 by Kernel Sohcahtoa.) (14th September 2016, 00:04)Nymphadora Wrote: My kid is studying some stuff in her 8th grade advanced honors algebra class. I'll have to run this by her to see if she understands. Once you start throwing letters into a math equation, I get lost. Letters don't belong with numbers for us dumb folk. In high school and in college, I was actually not interested in math at all.  However, two years ago, I became interested in it and have taught myself (no classes or formal education; I'm simply an independent learner, nothing more) high school algebra, pre-calc, trig, calc I,II,III (I absolutely loved the u substitution), differential equations (odes w/ a brief intro to pdes), elementary linear algebra, and discrete math (I'm currently learning this). My point in making this recollection is that with the exception of basic linear algebra and discrete math, I was definitely more focused on the numerical and computational aspects of subjects, rather than gaining a true appreciation for the underlying theory. Hence, I was too grounded in computational thinking, and I can tell you that it is entirely normal to be thrown off by letters, as they represent a shift in thinking (from the specific to the general) which takes time to properly cultivate.   As a result, when studying proofs (at least in the beginning) it may be helpful to work out a few numerical examples just to see the concept being concretely illustrated. For example 2 is even because, 2=2*1 (one is an integer).  Likewise, 4 and 6 are even because they can be written as 4=2*2 and 6=2*3, 2 and 3 are integers.  Hence, this process can be extended to a more general understanding of even numbers: an integer n is even if n=2a for some integer a (the definition of an even number). Hence, all the letters do is acknowledge what we already know to be true in individual cases: it extends those known facts and connects them to a broader general theory.  Once you get more acclimated with proofs, then you can often do what we just did above in reverse: prove a theorem in more general terms via definitions, lemmas, or other theorems and then reinforce that general understanding with specific examples and cases in order to gain a complete understanding of the mathematical concepts. "I'm fearful when I see people substituting fear for reason." Klaatu, from The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) robvalue Chainsaw of logic Religious Views: Order of Kittencornz Posts: 26869 Threads: 187 Joined: 9th August 2014 Reputation: 140 RE: The Mathematical Proof Thread 14th September 2016, 12:18 Another way of looking at why x^0 = 1 From the rules of powers, x^(m-n) = x^m / x^n for example 8 = 2^3 = 2^(5-2) = 2^5 / 2^2 = 32/4 = 8 x^0 = x^(1-1) = x^1 / x^1 = 1 Feel free to send me a private message. Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists. RozKek lurking Religious Views: - Posts: 1633 Threads: 33 Joined: 14th March 2016 Reputation: 22 RE: The Mathematical Proof Thread 14th September 2016, 13:13 (This post was last modified: 14th September 2016, 13:13 by RozKek.) (14th September 2016, 12:15)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: (14th September 2016, 00:04)Nymphadora Wrote: My kid is studying some stuff in her 8th grade advanced honors algebra class. I'll have to run this by her to see if she understands. Once you start throwing letters into a math equation, I get lost. Letters don't belong with numbers for us dumb folk. In high school and in college, I was actually not interested in math at all.  However, two years ago, I became interested in it and have taught myself (no classes or formal education; I'm simply an independent learner, nothing more) high school algebra, pre-calc, trig, calc I,II,III (I absolutely loved the u substitution), differential equations (odes w/ a brief intro to pdes), elementary linear algebra, and discrete math (I'm currently learning this). My point in making this recollection is that with the exception of basic linear algebra and discrete math, I was definitely more focused on the numerical and computational aspects of subjects, rather than gaining a true appreciation for the underlying theory. Hence, I was too grounded in computational thinking, and I can tell you that it is entirely normal to be thrown off by letters, as they represent a shift in thinking (from the specific to the general) which takes time to properly cultivate.   As a result, when studying proofs (at least in the beginning) it may be helpful to work out a few numerical examples just to see the concept being concretely illustrated. For example 2 is even because, 2=2*1 (one is an integer).  Likewise, 4 and 6 are even because they can be written as 4=2*2 and 6=2*3, 2 and 3 are integers.  Hence, this process can be extended to a more general understanding of even numbers: an integer n is even if n=2a for some integer a (the definition of an even number). Hence, all the letters do is acknowledge what we already know to be true in individual cases: it extends those known facts and connects them to a broader general theory.  Once you get more acclimated with proofs, then you can often do what we just did above in reverse: prove a theorem in more general terms via definitions, lemmas, or other theorems and then reinforce that general understanding with specific examples and cases in order to gain a complete understanding of the mathematical concepts. You taught yourself so much in two years? That's quite awesome, damn. A Handmaid Junior Dismemberment Religious Views: Someone Hates It Posts: 152 Threads: 5 Joined: 2nd July 2016 Reputation: 3 RE: The Mathematical Proof Thread 14th September 2016, 15:44 (14th September 2016, 12:15)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: In high school and in college, I was actually not interested in math at all.  However, two years ago, I became interested in it and have taught myself (no classes or formal education; I'm simply an independent learner, nothing more) high school algebra, pre-calc, trig, calc I,II,III (I absolutely loved the u substitution), differential equations (odes w/ a brief intro to pdes), elementary linear algebra, and discrete math (I'm currently learning this). My point in making this recollection is that with the exception of basic linear algebra and discrete math, I was definitely more focused on the numerical and computational aspects of subjects, rather than gaining a true appreciation for the underlying theory. Hence, I was too grounded in computational thinking, and I can tell you that it is entirely normal to be thrown off by letters, as they represent a shift in thinking (from the specific to the general) which takes time to properly cultivate.   Could you tell me what material you used to learn Calc II and III and differential equations? A Handmaid Junior Dismemberment Religious Views: Someone Hates It Posts: 152 Threads: 5 Joined: 2nd July 2016 Reputation: 3 RE: The Mathematical Proof Thread 14th September 2016, 16:00 Also, the proof that an irrational number to an irrational number can equal a rational number is one of my favorites. Proof: Consider A=sqrt(2)^sqrt(2).  If A is rational, we are done.  If A is irrational,  A^sqrt(2)=(sqrt(2)^sqrt(2))^sqrt(2)                      (x^y)^z=x^(y*z) A^sqrt(2)=sqrt(2)^(sqrt(2)*sqrt(2)) A^sqrt(2)=sqrt(2)^2 A^sqrt(2)=2 And we are done. Kernel Sohcahtoa The Outsider Religious Views: non-religious and non-theist Posts: 837 Threads: 23 Joined: 5th September 2016 Reputation: 33 RE: The Mathematical Proof Thread 14th September 2016, 17:24 (This post was last modified: 14th September 2016, 17:40 by Kernel Sohcahtoa.) (14th September 2016, 15:44)A Handmaid Wrote: (14th September 2016, 12:15)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: In high school and in college, I was actually not interested in math at all.  However, two years ago, I became interested in it and have taught myself (no classes or formal education; I'm simply an independent learner, nothing more) high school algebra, pre-calc, trig, calc I,II,III (I absolutely loved the u substitution), differential equations (odes w/ a brief intro to pdes), elementary linear algebra, and discrete math (I'm currently learning this). My point in making this recollection is that with the exception of basic linear algebra and discrete math, I was definitely more focused on the numerical and computational aspects of subjects, rather than gaining a true appreciation for the underlying theory. Hence, I was too grounded in computational thinking, and I can tell you that it is entirely normal to be thrown off by letters, as they represent a shift in thinking (from the specific to the general) which takes time to properly cultivate.   Could you tell me what material you used to learn Calc II and III and differential equations? Yes, sir.  For the entire calculus sequence, I used Calculus 10th edition by Ron Larson and Bruce Edwards.  This book also has a supplemental website called calcchat.com, which elaborates on all of the odd exercises (this was very useful).  This text book covers differential calculus through and including multi-variable and vector calculus.  However, a lot of the credit goes to the website Paul's Online notes.  Paul's notes provided an outstanding instructional template for learning calculus, as he goes into the details and thoroughly works the problems along with providing many practice problems (he explains these very well too).  Paul's notes was invaluable for Calc II.  The series and sequences chapter in the Larson text was a bit sparse, but Paul's notes did a great job of explaining index shifts and clearly explained why all the various tests of convergence and divergence worked.  In addition, the following resources were also useful: mathispower4u Professorrobbob Krista King In addition, I also used Paul's notes to learn differential equations . However, Paul only has the example problems in his notes (which were still amazing and extremely useful) and no additional practice problems like he had for calculus.  As a supplemental aid for working more problems, I purchased a Schaum's differential equations outline 4th edition by Richard Bronson and Gabriel B. Costa.  Hence, Paul's notes made the desire to learn differential equations a reality (I loved Laplace transforms).  I hope these resources may be of use to you Handmaid. Thanks for your inquiry. Live long and prosper "I'm fearful when I see people substituting fear for reason." Klaatu, from The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) Kernel Sohcahtoa The Outsider Religious Views: non-religious and non-theist Posts: 837 Threads: 23 Joined: 5th September 2016 Reputation: 33 RE: The Mathematical Proof Thread 14th September 2016, 20:11 Handmaid, for differential equations, I found that this video explained the concept of a phase portrait very well.  IMO, she explained this more clearly than Paul did in his notes. Good luck with your intellectual endeavors, sir, and thank you for posting your beautiful proof "I'm fearful when I see people substituting fear for reason." Klaatu, from The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) bennyboy Posting Freak Religious Views: agnostic Posts: 7205 Threads: 61 Joined: 22nd May 2013 Reputation: 43 RE: The Mathematical Proof Thread 14th September 2016, 21:03 (14th September 2016, 04:13)Alex K Wrote: (14th September 2016, 04:08)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Cleary, the odds are 1:1.  I assert this, can't prove it. Boru Well, it's easily proven. It could be true, or not, so it's clearly fifty fifty. . . . how X-tians see the BOP. « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 Possibly Related Threads... Thread Author Replies Views Last Post Million Dollar Prize for Math proof of NP problems emilynghiem 6 2061 22nd February 2015, 00:47 Last Post: vorlon13 "Gödel's ontological proof" proves existence of God Belac Enrobso 41 8986 9th February 2015, 03:22 Last Post: Alex K Mathematical proof.. lifesagift 20 4153 26th September 2014, 17:01 Last Post: lifesagift My proof for de morgans law LogicMaster 17 2697 29th May 2014, 19:55 Last Post: Cyberman Mathematician Claims Proof of Connection between Prime Numbers KichigaiNeko 10 4922 26th September 2012, 03:18 Last Post: Categories+Sheaves Need a proof (real analysis) CliveStaples 8 4023 2nd August 2012, 22:11 Last Post: CliveStaples Mathematical proof of the existence of God JudgeDracoAmunRa 20 9254 30th March 2012, 11:43 Last Post: JudgeDracoAmunRa Spot the Mathematical Fallacy Tiberius 16 5960 25th March 2010, 06:57 Last Post: Violet Mathematical claims of 'Bible Codes'...is there any truth in the maths? CoxRox 12 5878 9th January 2009, 17:23 Last Post: Tiberius

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)