Okey. We have as an assumption "X implies Y". That means that either (1) X is false and Y is false, (2) X is false and Y is true, or (3) X is true and Y is true (because "X implies Y" is false if and only if X is true and Y is false). "[T]he disjunction of X or Y" (this is phrased a little...
Yes. You have just given a sound argument why the author's views should be rejected. You have used valid rules of logical inference to derive results from true premises. Compare that with Janus's reply, which was to assert that the author is wrong because, if his views were right, they would...
Just to get things straight, HORSE and HEAD are one-place predicates, and HAS is a two-place predicate, right?
I think what you want is (Ax)[HORSEx --> (Ey)[HEADy & HASxy]].
This is an unsound argument; be careful with this kind of thing. In 1904 one might have asserted that the speed of light cannot be constant on similar grounds: It's so simple, if it were the case, science would have figured it out a long time ago. Of course, one would have been wrong.
My concern with that response is that gravitons are (alleged to be) real, and not virtual, particles. Even in a nonperturbative treatment we'd be facing an infinitely dense sea of gravitons, wouldn't we?
And speaking more generally, aren't gravitons irreconcilably at odds with background...
This wouldn't matter, because you'd still have an infinite number of gravitons.
Yes, that's a possibility, but then the graviton would have to have some special property that makes it immune to the effects of gravitation (unlike, say, the photon).
Not what I said. You're right that...
Well, it seems like if the graviton account of gravitation is correct, then there must be an infinite number of gravitons (G1, G2, . . ., Ginf), which is absurd.
Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the follow observation (if anything)?
(1) The graviton (putatively) mediates the force of gravity. The phenomenology of masses moving toward each other is due to an exchange of gravitons. Call these gravitons G1.
(2) The G1 are themselves, as massless...
You are claiming something false. I do not understand why so many people on this board are snarky--and, worse, unhelpful.
I just need to solve the integral. My request is extremely simple to understand (high school calculus should be sufficient), even if not to answer. A solution given in...
You are the first to use a pejorative word (viz. "ass"). I try to be rigorous in both my mathematics and my language. What other posters say, mean, or confuse is irrelevant, and it is not fair to ascribe their mistakes--or their strengths--to me.
This is semantically false. If I knew how to...
Gib Z, I do not require a "nice analytical solution". But I do require a non-trivial one.
And I do not want to know the definite integral. Had I wanted the definite integral, I would have asked for it. When I say, 'What is A?', I want to know what A is--not what B is.
HallsofIvy's "solution" is in fact worse than incorrect, because it is useless.
Antiderivative.
Thanks; I'll take a look at the arXiv. Any other suggestions along these lines would be appreciated.
Jokes aside, again: It need not be in "simple form"--however such a term is defined in detail--but it must be a solution (in the sense that it must help me calculate, in principle at least, the integral).