2005 Q8 (2 Viewers)

[who_loves_maths]

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

 

[velox]

Just wondering since you seem to have such a deep knowledge of mathematics compared to the syllabus.

 

[who_loves_maths]

^ 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]

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]

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.

 

[SeDaTeD]

*reads and dies*

 

[ogmzergrush]

*reads and dies*

Chalk another one up for the good guys!

 

[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

Wholovesmaths, you were wrong in correcting Templar.

 

[SeDaTeD]

David Easdown is da man.

 

[acmilan]

David Easdown is da man.

rofl @ logs

 

[lucifel]

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...

 

[yrtherenonames]

wlm:1
Wolfram:0

 

[Templar]

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.

 

[SeDaTeD]

wlm:1
Wolfram:0

I think not.

 

[acmilan]

wlm:1
Wolfram:0

Where did that come from?

 

[who_loves_maths]

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

 

[Captain pi]

Complex numbers and polynomials.

Mark my words.

 

[withoutaface]

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]

^ 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]

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.