Recent content by pbuk

I hadn't planned to buy this book but I was browsing for Christmas presents in our local bookshop in the UK and I couldn't resist (I am happy to spend money here on things I wouldn't otherwise buy, or buy cheaper online, to support this community resource). First impressions: It is very short...

It was published on 27 October, the day before you posted this.

You forgot to multiply by 6 (Case 1 + Case 2 = 81,285,120). That is an elegant solution - was it inspired by @PeroK's (or @anuttarasammyak's frankly unfathomable) approach?

LMGTFY This is wrong. Target Language as a foreign language is taught in a country where Target Language is a foreign language i.e. is not a language spoken by the majority or a significant minority of residents (e.g. teaching English in Spain). Target Language as a second language is taught...

Yes, 487,710,720 verified by computation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorling_Kindersley Edit: many of their books are aimed at younger readers, however the "Simply..." series is aimed at a wider audience. Although it is difficult to judge without its context, this does look like very poor writing and editing.

Read the OP again. It is true that the OP has gone about this problem in a strange way, but your criticisms are invalid.

Maybe so, however you seem surprised by something (I am still not sure what) an AI has done. Is it possible that the AI is not as familiar with this context as you are?

I don't think that is true. Can you point to such a claim?

I thought you played guitar - or have you got a bass that looks like this: and sometimes this: and even this: ?!!!

It is not clear where your proof ends and "all hell breaking loose" starts, but it does seem to me that the words "not equal to a constant almost everywhere" in the lemma can be interpreted in two ways: "[not equal to a constant] almost everywhere" (which is what I think you meant) and "not...

Only in the sense that the fact that we cannot assign a value to ## \frac10 ## is a "limitation" of algebraic field theory. But the non-existence of a multiplicative inverse of 0 is necessary to provide consistency to ## \mathbb R ## and ## \mathbb C ##. It tells us that the word...

That's pretty lazy :-p Verified: https://leodemoura.github.io/blog/2026-8-1-postmortem-for-kernel-soundness-bug-14576/

Is rotational energy the only thing that has changed? Did you see the advice I gave to the OP: ?

More work than what? Walking in the other direction? If this were true, what do you think would happen to the oceans? Google "geoid",