Recent content by lostcauses10x

I see a mention of A/C, and steel or iron plows. Yet the dependence today of the technology is transportation of food and materials: Heavy equipment used in farming: and one thing I have not seen is refrigeration. Both are the reason the population of the world today can exist at all.

35 was a simple number easily factored even as a kid. It was an example. Again thanks for the time.

Well this was just some thing a small child learned a long time ago. 40 years +.. removed. It uses a number less than half the original. Thanks for looking, was just wondering if such had a name. edited due to this "This routine consists of dividing n by each integer m that is...

trust me this is trivial... As a kid I had a teacher fond of asking if numbers were prime. Of course at the time I had no calculator and did not have many primes remembered. I did not even know the less than square root. I came up with a method that made a simple chart of smaller than the...

Seems again the idea of numbers and what they are is in play here.

Legislation to force a mathematical concept into law.. Scary. Reminds me, that there was a time one did not go against the church for fear of torture and or death.

Interesting conversation. I know people with degrees that say they are. Yet I would never trust them to do. I also know people with degrees that do know and practice there stuff. So does the paper that says you are, when you can not do, worth what is says? I suspect the original poster knows...

It as a single prime, takes out the largest amount of numbers from being prime. 50% of them greater than 2. No other number unto itself can do that.

1MileCrash I do not know what to say to you. I really don't. I have encountered this before, and for some reason it just does not get across. (0+1i) does not = (0-1i). How do you come to the conclusion you have? Edited to remove shorthand.

dipole What is the relation to s in the first and only the first statement? It does not exist. Therefore it is a partial statement of the second one. It usually will be marked wrong.

Stuff to catch up on. A quick scan: I agree.

One statement is a partial of the other.

"b a real and positive integer" b a real integer yes. Not a problem in that statement. Yet it can be confusing due to it is a part of i. Simply put if b =1, and A= 1 then b still is not equal to b. a is only equal to b at (0,0) Yet the complex number is two sides, which is why I see the...

Back to the original question. Well how does it make sense to use the reals when the square root of 1 has two answers? (-1) squared= ?, and (1) squared equals what? Yet both -1 and 1 are two separate numbers. Oh and the thinking -i is the same as i is also a mistake. Yes squared...

First to have the ordered pairs, takes two sets of reals; not just one: with the rules as stated in this thread. The intersection of coarse is at (0,0) with one set vertical to the other. End result is that "i" is equivalent to (0,1) Which is why I referred to the link I posted. The...