QUOTE(Vahn @ Sep 26 2010, 10:00 AM)
Whether typing letters or making sounds, I'm still sharing my thoughts and feelings with people. As long as they respond to me, I don't care if they hear my voice. Just recognizing me is enough. I only have about three friends I trust as much as the people here anyway.
Strongly disagree. You can't hide as much on the phone as you can by AIM, and you can't hide as much in person as you can on the phone. It's more real. And there's also the whole thing with the multitasking.
QUOTE(Vahn @ Sep 29 2010, 07:05 PM)
Why the hell are people like this allowed to have jobs involving other people? Everybody hates him, even the teachers who are too nice or respectful talk about how he's a very... Unagreeable person.
Because people don't complain. You'll have to have, like, a petition or something. Tell people to complain.
QUOTE(Elnendil @ Sep 30 2010, 02:29 AM)
There was a story I heard in which a student complained that another class of his has a "cheat sheet" or something and she wanted the class she was in to have one, and he denied at first, but granted it later. Then he made the test harder, because he generally asks for definitions and proofs etc, so if you just have a cheat sheet whats the point if the answers are right next to you? Doesn't really test knowledge.
I'd rather have a test on understanding than knowledge. I can't memorize, because I can't study.
I can't just figure out the definitions of 50 technical terms without any context. Dang, yo.
QUOTE(Elnendil @ Sep 30 2010, 11:11 PM)
Not exactly amazing to some of you, but I thought it was cool. In Calculus II we went over for about five minutes on how to divide polynomials because the professor was wanting to go through the proof to help people get used to higher mathematics etc. Well, about two sections back in Number Theory, finding the Greatest Common Divisor and Least Common Multiple for two or more numbers was brought up. And I thought that well, couldn't you figure out those two numbers for all numbers in a polynomial? Well i've only gotten to consecutive numbers, but it seems to hold true.
The problem is that this is the theorem behind the Euclidean algorithm:
"Given nonnegative integers b and c, there exists unique nonnegative integers q and r, with r<c such that b = qc+r."
The proof for that requires the axiom of induction for the natural numbers, which puts a total order on integers. Polynomials have no such order.
There's something similar to that, though.
"Given integer-coef'd polynomials f and g, there exists integer-coef'd polynomials q and r, with deg®<deg(g), such that f = qg + r."
This isn't right at all (I would have to figure out what's right), but you get the idea.
Also of interest is the Sturm Theorem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturm%27s_theoremAnd this would probably have the right theorem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_algorithm#PolynomialsQUOTE(Elnendil)
So by using the Euclidean Algorithm, we find out that the greatest common divisor is one, which suggests that there isn't one (which is pretty easy to show as examples, as there's no way 1000 and 1001 can divide into each other evenly (don't say ten, as it would then be 100 and 100.1, and 100.1 isn't an integer). You can't get 1 and 2 out of this though, but honestly, thats a no brainer. Aside from that, from 2|3, 3|4 etc, it holds true.
1 can be a GCD.
Also, you can use the Euclidean Algorithm to prove that two consecutive integers have a common divisor of 1.
Also also, by the time I came back to this, I have no idea what you're claiming up there.
QUOTE(Hayate @ Sep 26 2010, 03:44 PM)
Oh coding. I love it, and yet I hate it. DX Anybody know any Java?
Yo
QUOTE(Dr Sturm @ Sep 29 2010, 07:12 AM)
I feel it's very limiting - most people don't specialize until they get to grad school, because it's at that point that most people are dead certain about what they want to do.
You don't need grad school for game design, no?
QUOTE(Elnendil @ Sep 28 2010, 03:45 PM)
Doing some Discrete Mathematics work, did a few random logic problems with Sara too. I'll just throw one out of the book for fun for people who haven't taken this sort of thing:
The famous detective Battler was called in to solve a baffling murder mystery. He determined the following facts:
1) Kinzo, the murdered man, was killed in a fire. (just go with this for now, I know he wasn't)
2) Either Jessica or Eva were in the dining room at the time of the murder.
3) If Gohda was in the kitchen at the time of the murder, then George killed Kinzo with a stake
4) If Jessica was in the dining room at the time of the murder, then Shannon killed Kinzo.
5) If Gohda was not in the kitchen at the time of the murder, then Eva was not in the dining room when the murder was committed.
6) If Eva was in the dining room at the time the murder was committed, then Kumasawa killed Kinzo
Is it possible for the detective to deduce the identity of the culprit? If so who is it?
Yes.
That was pretty linear. Unless you consider the fact that you can kill someone with a steak in a fire.
(This is where you say, "Well done.")