Recent content by DanielMB

It is not, are geometric considerations expressed in the language of maths, it is about the physical universe, all our formulae where Pi appears mean "Pi is a constant 3,14... in Euclidean space"

Yes, but if you do that you are using geometric considerations, "Pi" like "e" are derived from geometry and geometry is affected by the stress-energy tensor in GRT, except if you define you are living in a manifold and locally you see "flatland" and in flatland (yes) Pi = 3.14.., and all our...

It is hard to say :sorry:, but that number Pi is not a geometrical constant … being still the same number we observe affecting our lives (equations): Fourier Series, Fourier Transforms, Leibniz Pi Series, Euler Identity, Gauss Law, Buffon’s Needle problem, Madhava-Leibniz series for Pi...

"...I won't insist on any formal definition of 'cause' and will even admit that I have never seen anything in the life sciences that resembles the 'necessary and sufficient' conditions for causation that are so beloved of logicians..." Bill Shipley (Cause and Correlation in Biology, Cambridge...

Y You are right, it could be traced to the proceedings of a 1994 conference in Adelaide, Australia, but I couldn't find its publication in a journal

Just google "The Schrödinger equation from three postulates, Jones"

Few days ago, I read an article "Half-life" in the page askamathematician.com. An extremely simple explanation of the phenomena Please tell me if I am proceeding in a wrong way giving the link ... Daniel

@pbuk The whole diagram is allowed (green) but it is not posible, since A is a subset of B, so A determines B value

Yes, you are right, it doesn't appear represented in the diagram 3 (A implies B) In the diagram 4 (A implies B) each line in the truth table has its own representation

Thanks pbuk, I tried to identify for both cases the accomplishing or not for the related rows in the truth table "A ⇒ B" Diagram #1 : (1, 2 , nothing, nothing) ⇒ OK Diagram #2 : (1, 2, 3, 4) ⇒ OK Diagram #3 : (1, not 2, 3, 4) ⇒ Not according with the truth table !? Diagram #4 : (1, 2, 3, 4) ⇒...

Thanks Justin, I'll watch the videos @fresh_42 Well, you can say that: if A(1) ⇒B(1) is also certain that B(0) ⇒ A(0) I understand your example Please, look at the "if and only if" image, specifically the diagram #2 (green parts are according to boolean expression), I can't assert that x ∈ A...

Thanks fresh_42, In the case of "A implies B" Boolean expression "-A + B" includes Venn diagrams 1, 3 and 5, Why those diagrams do not accomplish the truth table? Is that the Boolean expression is not equivalent to "A implies B"?

Hello, I’m having difficulties understanding logical relations “A implies B” and “A if and only if” using Boolean expressions and Venn diagrams, there is something where I’m wrong, but I could not find it out. Please, be benevolent and tell me where I’m wrong. Thanks Note : Obviously I’m...

I've found this : https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01140

Fritz Zwicky were once inviting some graduate students for dinner. As the group was ringing the door bell, Zwicki's wife Dorothea opened and called into the house without intending to joke: "Fritz, the bastards are here!".