418 reputation
316
bio website
location Berkeley, CA
age
visits member for 3 years, 5 months
seen 9 hours ago

Jan
15
comment Big list of “guided discovery” books
Shouldn't this be a CW?
Jan
11
revised solving for probability given odds
Added latex.
Jan
11
suggested approved edit on solving for probability given odds
Jan
9
revised Help Figuring out Period of Trig Function
Organized bulleted list and latexed equation.
Jan
9
suggested approved edit on Help Figuring out Period of Trig Function
Dec
11
comment What does non-zero integer mean?
-1, -2, 1, 3, 5, 7 are all examples of non-zero integers. 0 however is zero and not non-zero...
Dec
8
awarded  Caucus
Dec
7
awarded  Yearling
Dec
7
answered Is the term “telescoping product” well known?
Nov
25
awarded  Citizen Patrol
Nov
5
comment Unable to find the sum of a series
Beat me too it.
Sep
24
awarded  Autobiographer
Sep
6
comment Is 0.9 repeating = 1 disproved by asymptotes?
@MarcvanLeeuwen: Very true. Fortunately, I have yet to really meet any series that either interpretation really matters. Spivak also later mentions that it is a rather small technicality that is of little importance.
Sep
6
comment Is 0.9 repeating = 1 disproved by asymptotes?
LOL! I just commented about this on Hardy's answer!
Sep
6
comment Is 0.9 repeating = 1 disproved by asymptotes?
According to Spivak's Calculus: "This terminology is somewhat peculiar, because at best the symbol $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n$ denotes a number (so it can't "converge"), and it doesn't denote anything at all unless $\{a_n\}$ is summable. If I am interpreting Spivak correctly, you don't even need to worry about this whole "asymptotes" business, since when we put the = it is just defined that way. But, I could be very easily misunderstanding this.
Sep
4
comment Is this a valid proof technique regarding the divisibility of numbers?
I was thinking induction, but my discrete math skills are bleh, so I just throw things out there and hope something works haha. What ever works, works.
Sep
4
accepted Is this a valid proof technique regarding the divisibility of numbers?
Sep
4
comment Is this a valid proof technique regarding the divisibility of numbers?
@Jlamprong: Now I am lost...
Sep
4
comment Is this a valid proof technique regarding the divisibility of numbers?
@Jlamprong: It says the only numerical solution is 0... I'm just used to seeing True...
Sep
4
comment Is this a valid proof technique regarding the divisibility of numbers?
@Jlamprong: No, you're right?