• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

2005 Q8 (1 Viewer)

who_loves_maths

I wanna be a nebula too!!
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
600
Location
somewhere amidst the nebulaic cloud of your heart
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Originally Posted by velox
jeez wlm what school do u go to?
haha... why should that matter? the point is we are all maths enthuthiasts here isn't it :)?

like both Templar and withoutaface, i'm just trying to learn more about maths myself via discussion here. Everyone here, including us, are all deeply inadequate and ignorant over many of the intricacies of mathematics, but it's good to see that it takes a discussion like this to stimulate our interest ;)
 

who_loves_maths

I wanna be a nebula too!!
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
600
Location
somewhere amidst the nebulaic cloud of your heart
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
^ no, not really. but i try my best.
eg. the thing about equation vs. expression is, as i said, taught to us in year 10, and that's certainly not beyond the syllabus.
plus, i usually fail any maths outside the syllabus - like the Westpac Aust. Maths Comps, etc... lol
 

lucifel

narcissitic angel
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
83
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2005
Templar said:
A number that is not algebraic

or

A number that is not the root of any polynomial with integer coefficients.

The meaning isn't hard, just that it takes a lot of working and effort to prove it.

deary me, i must've come across as not knowing what a transcendental number is. I do. My point was it is out of syllabus, but that is of little concern at the moment.
 

Templar

P vs NP
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
1,979
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
lucifel said:
deary me, i must've come across as not knowing what a transcendental number is. I do. My point was it is out of syllabus, but that is of little concern at the moment.
If I somehow said something that gave that view, I'm sorry. I didn't assume what you know, I just tried to show it can be describe in a line. However, I think all of us overreacted at some point in this thread bearing in mind the original quote was a joke.
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
David Easdown said:
hi justin,

it doesn't matter, both definitions are equivalent

clearly a polynomial with integer coefficients has rational
coefficients

conversely, if a polynomial has rational coefficients, you
multiply through by a common denominator to get integer
coefficients, without changing the set of roots

best wishes, david
Wholovesmaths, you were wrong in correcting Templar.
 

lucifel

narcissitic angel
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
83
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2005
Templar said:
If I somehow said something that gave that view, I'm sorry. I didn't assume what you know, I just tried to show it can be describe in a line. However, I think all of us overreacted at some point in this thread bearing in mind the original quote was a joke.
haha, no hard feelings, and yes this has been de-railed, Oh well, it happesn in the Ext 2 forum a lot, with Who loves maths strutting around...
 

Templar

P vs NP
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
1,979
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
SeDaTeD said:
David Easdown is da man.
Well said. I think I might start turning up to his lectures now, although he doesn't seem to care.
 

who_loves_maths

I wanna be a nebula too!!
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
600
Location
somewhere amidst the nebulaic cloud of your heart
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Originally Posted by withoutaface
hi justin,

it doesn't matter, both definitions are equivalent

clearly a polynomial with integer coefficients has rational
coefficients

conversely, if a polynomial has rational coefficients, you
multiply through by a common denominator to get integer
coefficients, without changing the set of roots

best wishes, david
Thanks for asking him about this problem withoutaface, appreciate it :uhhuh:

however, he has said exactly what you have said - which is why it's not surprising that i still do NOT agree with him, or you.

in addition, plz be mindful that his words:
it doesn't matter, both definitions are equivalent
is NOT an implication that i am wrong. the statement "both definitions are equivalent" works both ways.


and plz correct me if i am wrong here, but i am assuming you simply asked him along the lines of whether "integer polynomial" or "rational polynomial" is the correct phrasing for a definition of transcendentalism?
if this is true, then, like i said, i am not surprised that his immediate response would be that "it doesn't matter".

perhaps if you'd have shown him or told him about my argument, then he might have been able to provide a 'deeper' response to this problem...


However, thankyou again for asking him :)
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
who_loves_maths said:
Thanks for asking him about this problem withoutaface, appreciate it :uhhuh:

however, he has said exactly what you have said - which is why it's not surprising that i still do NOT agree with him, or you.

in addition, plz be mindful that his words:

is NOT an implication that i am wrong. the statement "both definitions are equivalent" works both ways.


and plz correct me if i am wrong here, but i am assuming you simply asked him along the lines of whether "integer polynomial" or "rational polynomial" is the correct phrasing for a definition of transcendentalism?
if this is true, then, like i said, i am not surprised that his immediate response would be that "it doesn't matter".

perhaps if you'd have shown him or told him about my argument, then he might have been able to provide a 'deeper' response to this problem...


However, thankyou again for asking him :)
Let's do some inequalities shall we?

Let your definition be p, and Templar's be q.

You corrected Templar, and claimed that p>q.

It has been since pointed out by David that p=q.

By logical deduction, p cannot both be greater than q and equal to q at the same time, and as such your initial assertion was wrong.
 

who_loves_maths

I wanna be a nebula too!!
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
600
Location
somewhere amidst the nebulaic cloud of your heart
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
^ you quoted me in that post, but clearly you didn't read what i said...

yes it's been pointed out that 'p = q' by David... but under what circumstance??? David said that "they are equivalent", but his assumption was based on a polynomial equation, not expression. and i have already asserted that when talking about equations, i agree that you can "multiply all you want" to get integer coefficients...
so that still doesn't address the issue of polynomial expressions...

basically, i get the feeling that you have not understood anything i have argued about so far, either because 1) you lack logic, or, 2) you refuse to let yourself see my point (after i have seen and agreed with your point about polynomial equations).

and like i said in my last post, i suspect you did not present my argument or view to David about polynomial expressions. Perhaps if you did, then he would have given a more comprehension explanation than simply "they are equivalent" {which is applicable to polynomial equations, not expressions...}.
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
The propositions were:
a) A number that is not the root of any polynomial with integer coefficients.
b) A number that is not the root of any polynomial with rational coefficients.

Any polynomial indicates any polynomial; equation, expression or otherwise.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top