Reputation
441
Top tag
Next privilege 500 Rep.
Access review queues
Badges
2 13
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~7k people reached

Mar
16
answered The number of real roots of $x^5 + 2x^3 + x^2 + 2 = 0 $ is
Mar
12
comment The Third Derivative
@probablyme Point taken. I guess I was just surprised that you didn't learn about this particular application when you learned about derivatives in Calculus, because in my Calc. classes we did a fair amount of applications to different things.
Mar
10
awarded  Yearling
Mar
10
comment The Third Derivative
@probablyme You're an applied math major but you can't vouch for an elementary property of the derivative?
Mar
10
awarded  Talkative
Mar
10
comment The Third Derivative
@1089 If you can explain what is confusing I will try to clarify.
Mar
10
answered The Third Derivative
Feb
1
awarded  Popular Question
Oct
15
comment Completion of rational numbers via Cauchy sequences
What do you mean "maybe"? Is this property somehow equivalent to transitivity as I stated above?
Oct
15
comment Completion of rational numbers via Cauchy sequences
Why is Definition 1 property 1 called transitivity? Doesn't transitivity mean that $\forall x,y,z \in K : (x \leq y \land y \leq z) \implies x \leq z$?
Sep
24
awarded  Autobiographer
Aug
25
awarded  Informed
Aug
19
awarded  Tumbleweed
Feb
4
comment Russell's Paradox in *Naive Set Theory* by Paul Halmos
@GME: that helps me understand somewhat. However, I still can't see how we know that we can't assume $B \notin A$ and then contrive some other contradiction. Help?
Jan
26
revised Russell's Paradox in *Naive Set Theory* by Paul Halmos
deleted 36 characters in body
Jan
26
asked Russell's Paradox in *Naive Set Theory* by Paul Halmos
Jan
9
revised Can we always construct an element not on a list?
added 97 characters in body
Jan
9
asked Can we always construct an element not on a list?
Jan
7
comment The language of abstract algebra in $ab=a, ab=b$ implies $a=b$
I have no trouble applying this principle to objects which are somehow explicitly constructed. However, in this case, $a$, $b$, and $ab$ do not seem to me to be explicitly constructed and so I have trouble applying the principle.
Jan
7
comment The language of abstract algebra in $ab=a, ab=b$ implies $a=b$
So you are referring to the ambiguity between a function and the category theoretic notion of a morphism? I haven't studied category theory yet, but maybe it would help me with this problem?