Recent content by Vahsek

a lot about myself and that some people, who I thought were stupid, are actually much smarter than me! :)

The new editions do give epsilon-delta proofs in the appendix, I believe.

Though Newton's laws are essential to learn physics, they are not needed in order to understand why centripetal acceleration = v2/r. This is simple kinematics and calculus (and geometry).

To me, it sounds more like he enjoys experimenting with the bug's reactions. No need to make him feel guilty about it; there are billions of bugs out there, and he's squashing less than 0.0001% of them. :-p:biggrin::smile:

Hello PF, I hope that I'm not repeating an old thread; I've searched for this thread in here, and could not find any. So, on to my problem then: I've been self-studying from a few math textbooks for a while now. But, the problem is that I quickly get bored while working through the...

Haha. Good one.

This doesn't work quite smoothly for division by real numbers or fractions in general. It's still a good perspective for natural numbers nevertheless.

If you are happy with your "meaning" of multiplication but not with the one for division, why don't you view division from a multiplication perspective? For example: x/y = k is the same as saying x = ky. That is x/y is that number by which you multiply y in order to get x.

Haha, true say!

For now, I find elementary number theory, counting, graph theory (introductory), and euclidean geometry extremely appealing, so yeah I guess I might have an inclination for combinatorics. In comparison, I am uncomfortable when dealing with any mathematical object that is too abstract; to...

Whoa that's a lot to digest. But anyway, I'll take it one step at a time and at the right time. For now, I'm going to continue with the reading, and I'll keep on exploring more about math. I really appreciated all of the pieces of advice that I got in this thread, and I am relieved that my...

I agree that I should be more patient; maybe it will all make sense once I learn much more math. Thanks PeroK.

@ IGU : I only find programming so and so, and I do not particularly enjoy it. But, thanks for the advice though. @ micromass : Reading up on the history and philosophy of mathematics sounds like exactly what I should be doing. Thanks a lot for this precious advice!

I apologize for the vague title, but I'll attempt to explain better what I mean here. First of all, my background: I've already completed all of my high school math courses including calculus, and I've been considering to pursue math at university/college starting in September. And yes I...

{} is a subset of every set, so it is a subset of s. Therefore, {} is an element of p(s). However, it is clear that {} is not in set d. Therefore, {} is not an element of the intersection of p(s) and d. Hope that answers your question.