| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
<Arafangion> astrolabe_: Maybe it's because it's 2am and I cant' think, but my change of base matrixes _are_ the new bases? That right? (THe source is elementary)
<ichor> 8:00 PM (ChicagoLocal time) what is that in GMT/UTC ?
<Safrole> GMT is +7 hours
<Tirlas> 2000h + 5 -> 1am
<Safrole> It's 2 am
<ichor> ugh, that's 3 am here.
<ichor> (where i live)
<Safrole> It's 10 PM for me :)
<Tirlas> Chicago is CDT right?
<Safrole> Central Time
<Safrole> Yes
<Safrole> -7 GMT
<Tirlas> daytlight time...
<ichor> 3 am in the morning is not a good time to learn math. I hope someone'll log it.
<Arafangion> Oh well, it's only 2:36 am :)
<sloof3> go trapezoidal matrices
<sloof3> ok, they are rectangular but the values are stored in a trapezoidal fashion
<eXistenZ> how can I prove that if k(k+1) divides by 2, then 2k+1 divides by 3 for sure?
<Killer666> k(k+1) divides always by 2 if k is natural number
<eXistenZ> so how can I prove that 2k+1 divides by 3 ?
<Safrole> so that the product is divisible by 6
<doomie> it doesnt.. use k = 8 ... 8 * (8+1) = 8*9 = 72. But 2*8 + 1 = 17..
<Killer666> 2*2+1=5 is not divisible by 3
<doomie> :
<Tirlas> 2*2+1 = 5 ...
<doomie> :)
<Safrole> 2k+1 is a function for an odd number
<Safrole> where k is any integer
<Safrole> 3 does not divide every odd integer
<ods15> eXistenZ: k*(k+1) is obvious cause always one of them is even...
<eXistenZ> yeppers
<ods15> oh, wait, that wasnt what you were asking
<eXistenZ> I know this one
<ods15> well, 2k+1 DOESNT divide by 3 :)
<eXistenZ> I want to prove that k(k+1)(2k+1) divides by 12, I'm not sure how to do this.
<ods15> heh interestingsly '2k+1' is the derivative of k(k+1) :)
<ods15> try induction
<eXistenZ> other alternative?
<Killer666> induction
<ods15> lol
<Arafangion> ods15: 2k+1 can divide by 3.
<ods15> Arafangion: can, but not always
<Arafangion> ods15: True
<PerfectBell> hello can it be that there is a function that is computable but not while computable ?
<ods15> PerfectBell: but not what?
<Arafangion> PerfectBell: That question makes zero sense.
<PerfectBell> fN->N
<ods15> ?
<Plareplane> maybe while means while loop?
<ods15> heh
<JorisSlob> Hmm... I think logic dictates that a function either has a property or not... not both
<Arafangion> Maybe he's got logics inthere.
<PerfectBell> you now the ackermann func showed that it is not LOOP computable
<Arafangion> What is LOOP?
<toad-> JorisSlob: maybe his function transcends dualities
<PerfectBell> but it is WHILE computable
<JorisSlob> ahh... 'while computable'
<JorisSlob> then I will shut up.. because I have no clue
<Killer666> akerman function uses recursion
<PerfectBell> yeah it grows faster than any LOOP programm
<PerfectBell> but it can be computed with a WHILE program, or there exist such progs as we know
<Killer666> every recursion can be written without recursion call by using a stack?
<PerfectBell> right
<PerfectBell> a computer actuall yusese a stack
<PerfectBell> call stack
<PerfectBell> but my q was if there can be a function
Return to math
or
Go to some related
logs:
roma
wow
|
|