Search results

ma=mg-kmv a=g-kv Term vel when a=o ie V=g/k Now a=g(1-(k/g)v)=g(1-v/V) implying Va=g(V-v) Va+vg=Vg integrating wrt t yields Vv+xg=Vgt (C=0) g may of course depend upon a varying G

I notice that you have not closed up your quotes around the numbers in the Gardner ref above! What does the reference actually say? It is of course true that the numbers are equal to 4 decimal places!

Wow You really are keen to stop people discussing mathematical concepts aren't you! Look at all the lovely mathematics in this thread ? We have students solving equations in ingenious ways, considering quite deeply what it means for reals to be rational and irrational, comparing...

Apologies for the previous post log laws are OK BUT all you've done is rewrite the question! Clearly [ln(pi +1) -2]/(1 - ln(pi))=4 It is perfectly possible for the ln of an irrational to be rational! Think of ln(e^2)! When asked to calculate ln(e^(.75)) to 20 significant figs...

Here's a nice argument using the above spurious logic: Let x=1/(sqrt(10001)-100 and y=sqrt(10001)+100 Then correct to 12 significant figures: x= 200.005000125 and y=200.004999875 Thus x>200.005 and y<200.0049999 Therefore x>y implying 1/(sqrt(10001)-100>sqrt(10001)+100...

Oh I get it now Together you are saying that 403.428785960133422981798452810123327605718818306624 (exactly) =403.42879308396500147612667658990386685186886530139770 4704 (exactly) Exactly what form of exactly are you exactly using? This is my point exactly The only way of dealing with...

3.141592664^4 = 97.40909182902901737436094415467536 (maybe) As has already been pointed out simple division is questionable on any machine let alone exponentiation! I have already displayed how two identical numbers can appear differently on a computer. I agree wholeheartedly with...

1/(√(10001)-100)=200.00499987500624960940234489433 √(10001)+100=200.00499987500624960940234169938 Therefore 1/(√(10001)-100) is not equal to √(10001)+100 It's simple really ....but hang on?? They are equal! You cannot trust your machines...that is a simple truth. What could...

It was sad from the start

And how pray tell does a computer raise a large integer to a power? These are just calculations they prove nothing. You may as well try to prove the result using a toaster! Goldbach conjecture?? No worries I'll use the hair-dryer! Poincaré Conjecture...that one's easy I'll use the electric...

You want to censor me just because you can't provide a rigorous proof of a result?? I am amazed! Instead of feverishly punching the buttons on your calculator maybe you should have been considering properties of the function f(x)=ln(x^4+x^5)?? A little bit of calculus a shift in coordinates...

The intel chip can't even be trusted to divide rational numbers properly let alone raise to the sixth power!If you want to convince me I'm afraid it will have to be mathematics...remember that stuff? "The Pentium microprocessor is the CPU (central processing unit) for what are now possibly...

iT HAPPENED ONCE SO IT CAN HAPPEN AGAIN!

Pretty scary isn't it. The two numbers above look totally different on a machine yet they are the same! Just to make matters worse there is no garantee that answers from a computer are even correct! You can stop fussing about error bounds...the calculations themselves are flawed...

in maths many things may look like they are correct but we must remember that they are only correct when there is a proper mathematical proof backing them up I couldn't agree more!! So where is the proof that π4 + π5 is not equal to e6 ?? Please don't say that you checked it on a...

Disproof? What disproof? Punching keys on a caculator will never prove anything! What has happened to you Tywebb? First of all a test for POI that can't even deal with sin(x) at x=0 and now serving as an apologist for computer scientists pretending to be mathematicians. Oh well what more...

"However, because part of the proof consisted of an exhaustive analysis of many discrete cases by a computer, some mathematicians do not accept it." "logic program Coq" ?? a program is not a proof Susequent attempts mentioned in the article are all still computer based and unverifiiable...

I believe it's 4 colour conjecture NOT 4 colour theorem! No proof has as yet been offered although certain cases have been verified by computer. Proof by computer is not valid I'm afraid and significant work is still being undertaken to establish a proof. Please don't get worked up Tywebb...

Surely you are not suggesting that putting numbers into a calculator could ever constitute a proof? Pleeeeassse It should be also pointed out that being approximately equal does not preclude things from also being equal! Many approximations in the literature are later refined to equality...

You must therefore also conclude that 1/(sqrt(10001)-100) is not equal to sqrt(10001)+100 You cannot prove facts about irrationals using a calculator. Calculators only deal with rationals!