303 reputation
16
bio website cs.le.ac.uk/people/sj175
location Leicester, United Kingdom
age 25
visits member for 2 years, 6 months
seen yesterday

PhD student at the university of Leicester.


Jan
26
awarded  Yearling
Nov
8
comment Deciding If A Relation On A Set Is An Equivalence Relation
For it to be transitive it has to satisfy $aRb \wedge bRc \Rightarrow aRc$ for ALL $a, b, c$ in the set that the relation $R$ is defined on. See if you can find one example where this isn't satisfied.
Nov
6
comment Understanding simplification of an algebra problem
$x^3 - 2x^2 = x^3(1 - \frac{2}{x})$ if you multiply the right hand side out you will end up with the left hand side.
Nov
6
revised Understanding simplification of an algebra problem
Added some latex
Nov
6
suggested suggested edit on Understanding simplification of an algebra problem
Oct
19
comment Successive Bounces of Ball Paradox
I think we'd need to figure out what assumptions we would be using, we obviously wouldn't be modelling real life if we allow the height of each bounce to be fixed so what are we doing, what assumptions do we have and what reasoning is valid. What axioms are we using? It's possible that those two assumptions (constant horizontal velocity and constant height for each bounce) would lead to a contradiction and that no meaningful answer could be obtained, if this were the case then it wouldn't be possible to resolve the paradox as in an inconsistent system every statement is true (or provable).
Oct
18
comment Successive Bounces of Ball Paradox
You could add the assumption that the height of each bounce is constant and it is only the frequency of each bounce which increases. I'm not sure what could be said about the ball's position after 2 seconds in that case, I'm not even sure that the question would make sense. I think the main point to this question and answer is that you have to think about what assumptions or restrictions you're putting on the problem and this problem appears difficult because not all the assumptions have been stated.
Oct
18
answered Successive Bounces of Ball Paradox
Oct
18
comment Successive Bounces of Ball Paradox
I think the problem is that the ball can't keep moving in the air beyond 2 seconds. Assume the velocity is 1m/s. After 1 second it has travelled 1m. Now the next bounce takes 0.5 seconds and it travels a further 0.5m, right? So after 2 seconds it has travelled 2m. But now the bounces are so small that it's rolling. Yes, the horizontal speed is still 1m/s but it's no longer covering that distance whilst in the air. So the total horizontal distance covered whilst in the air is 2m.
Oct
18
comment Successive Bounces of Ball Paradox
But, you believe (I assume, because you stated it) that the sum of the geometric series is finite. So you must believe that an infinite sum of finite numbers can be finite. So why do you think that method 2 is in any way correct? If I've understood your argument correctly then you are saying "An infinite sum of finite numbers must be infinite."
Oct
18
comment Successive Bounces of Ball Paradox
To start with, you only want to count the horizontal distance covered whilst the ball is in the air (you haven't explicitly said that, though). Secondly, the horizontal distance covered whilst the ball is in the air is bounded above by 2m and you can get arbitrarily close to this by measuring the distance covered over a longer time. This is just a rewording of this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes
Oct
5
answered How to show a certain map is surjective?
Aug
15
awarded  Commentator
Aug
15
comment What is a cyclic integral?
I had never heard of cyclic integrals either, so I used google and came up with this: sciforums.com/…
Jul
31
comment Does “nullity” have a potentially conflicting or confusing usage?
Who ever said mathematics had to be fair? :P
Jul
20
awarded  Critic
Jul
3
comment Last few digits of $n^{n^{n^{\cdot^{\cdot^{\cdot^n}}}}}$
Whilst this is true, I think the usual convention is that the brackets start from the top. So $x^{y^z}$ becomes $x^{(y^z)}$
Jun
25
comment Must a function that 'preserves r.e.-ness' be computable itself?
This is a very nice answer, do you have a reference for the result about the existence of cohesive sets?
May
29
revised Why is such an ideal ambiguous?
Fixed grammatical error in the title
May
29
suggested suggested edit on Why is such an ideal ambiguous?