Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Mathematics
General TopicsResearchOperations ResearchStatisticsMathematical LogicNumerical AnalysisUndergraduate MathAlgebra HelpRecreational Math
Math Software
MapleMathematicaMATLABScilabSASSPSS

Math Forum / Mathematics / Mathematical Logic / September 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

ThreadLast Post  Replies
Classical Modal Logic, Semantics30 Sep 2006 18:40 GMT4
Any suggestion about
"Relational Model for Classical Modal Logic"?
The Tractatus and Logic today30 Sep 2006 15:07 GMT10
The author of the Tractatus intended it to be a mystical document that,
by annexing logical discourse, allowed mysticism to triumph over the
best that a logico-materialist view of the world had to offer against
the mystical vision. This is why it makes uncanny reading. For
THE FIELD, THE PARTICLES AND THE DEATH OF PHYSICS29 Sep 2006 22:52 GMT5
At the end of his career (in 1954) Einstein predicts a possible death
of physics:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field
concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains
EINSTEIN: THE GENIUS AMONG GENIUSES WHO KILLED PHYSICS29 Sep 2006 18:51 GMT136
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a
twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles,
THE EHRENFEST PARADOX29 Sep 2006 17:04 GMT27
By the end of Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" Einstein claims that
measuring rods laid out along the rim of a rotating disc are Lorentz
contracted whereas those laid out along the radius are not and
therefore the ratio of the circumference and the diameter, as judged by
phrase search29 Sep 2006 16:36 GMT1
Not mathematician, could someone explains to me in plain words what
this pseudo code means.  If you provide an example it would be very
appreciated. I understand the first part.
Many thanks
Question on Counterfactual Conditionals28 Sep 2006 11:42 GMT23
I have recently read "Useful Counterfactuals" by Costello and McCarthy,
1999, and have a question about an example there -- the Skiing Problem. (
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/counterfactuals.pdf ) Its "real world"
scenario is as follows:
ASSIGNMENT FOR CLEVER EINSTEINIANS28 Sep 2006 11:10 GMT13
Clever Einsteinians should reconsider the problem in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4
by applying Einstein's 1911 formula:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
Mathematical SOAP Operas27 Sep 2006 23:29 GMT406
Mathematical SOAP Operas
                                      ~v~~
The difficulty with definitions drafted in the form of "set of all
points . . ." (SOAP) is that we're still left with a bunch of points
Mathematical strings27 Sep 2006 11:38 GMT14
A mathematical string is a pictogram, a synthesis of geometry,
mathematics and human intentions. The human intention is to create
start and end, so that elements in a string can be counted. To create
'start' and 'finish', start and finish are conflated with the
ORDINAL NUMBERS #127 Sep 2006 02:46 GMT12
This is the first of several posts based on some
handwritten notes I wrote about ordinals numbers
in 1991. Corrections and/or additions, if any,
will be posted in this thread, and later posts
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT AND EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT27 Sep 2006 01:36 GMT4
The main concern of Einstein's hypnotists is to camouflage the fact
that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source
and therefore Einstein's theory (and modern physics in general) is just
a farce. The camouflage involves even simulated fights among
Three Turing machines26 Sep 2006 23:44 GMT4
Are there any enthusiasts for playing around with Turing machines out
there? :-)
I'm finishing writing something at the moment, and one (short) chapter
introduces the idea of a Turing machine and describes, as examples,
Question about Frege's Theorem26 Sep 2006 11:19 GMT29
By Frege's Theorem, I mean the result that second-logic plus Hume's
Principle is sufficient to prove second-order arithmetic.  Hume's
Principle is the intuitively true statement that the number of a
predicate or concept F is equal to the number of the concept G iff
No complete set of reals?  Absurd, but proven here...26 Sep 2006 06:16 GMT11
The set of all reals, R, is said to be uncountable and therefore
unlistable: but it is not necessary to list the set to construct a
Cantorian diagonal-type number from its members; it is only necessary
that its members be distinguishable and that one is free to choose from
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 August, 2006
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.