609 reputation
29
bio website
location
age
visits member for 1 year, 9 months
seen Aug 22 at 22:46

I am a software engineer at Beckman Couleter, Inc. I enjoy reading, playing piano, and dancing.


Aug
20
comment Can the distance between 2 non-empty sets be infinite?
Please add the definition of "distance between sets" to the question. I'd do it myself, but you've got the lovely TeX all ready to go in your comment.
Aug
4
comment Find the point where the function $C(t) = 0.24t/(t^2 + 5t +4)$ attends its maximum
Sure it can; $-2$ just means "two hours before the drug was administered." What you mean (probably) is that the model is not accurate for any time prior to the administration of the drug.
Aug
4
comment Find the point where the function $C(t) = 0.24t/(t^2 + 5t +4)$ attends its maximum
@mixedmath Your username is so perfect for that question that at first I thought you might be some sort of bot designed to help clarify poorly-tagged questions.
Jun
11
comment Use of the word “solve”?
I tend to think that "compute" applies only to definite integrals, but that may just be me. "Evaluate" seems like the correct choice for finding a non-integral expression of an integral.
May
30
comment How can Zeno's dichotomy paradox be disproved using mathematics?
Moreover, mathematics resolves the paradox in both discrete and non-discrete models of the world, so it's unnecessary to make a philosophical choice of which model is more "correct" in order to address the issue.
May
30
comment How can Zeno's dichotomy paradox be disproved using mathematics?
All applications of mathematics to the real world require crossing a philosophical bridge, but we apply mathematics to the real world anyway because we assume that we can do so (though there are cases where we can't, and in particular I don't believe that anything in the "real world" resembles the mathematical continuum, largely because of the Banach-Tarski paradox and similar). By asking for a mathematical explanation of why the paradox fails, it seems to me that OP is asking for something like (the first two paragraphs of) Robert Mastragostino's answer, which requires no bridge-crossing.
May
8
comment How big is a particular n!?
@Goos True, the end of the e/pi witchcraft is just the start of a whole new breed of witchcraft.
May
7
comment How big is a particular n!?
@Goos Alternatively, there is an immediate end to the witchcraft once you understand the relationship between exponents and angles.
Apr
28
comment How can I write the numbers 5 and 7 as some sequence of operations on three 9s?
I love a good proof by exhaustion.
Apr
25
comment How can I write the numbers 5 and 7 as some sequence of operations on three 9s?
@PhD Note "using exactly three copies of the number 9." The question may be ill-defined in other respects, but it's at least clear in that regard.
Apr
25
comment Does 17% have to be equal to 0.17?
I believe you can jog for 0.17 of a mile, but that's more of a question for English.SE.
Apr
21
comment If there are obvious things, why should we prove them?
Several comments imply that truly obvious things should be provable. This is only true of non-axiomatic principles. @TimS.'s comment is more accurate--the alternative to proving the obvious is not to accept it without proof, but to accept it as an axiom. (Also, OP, CompuChip's comment on RH is a joke.)
Apr
16
comment Is it possible that “A counter-example exists but it cannot be found”
Hm, I think I just got confused by the re-iteration of (intentionally false) premises and mistook them for (incorrect) statements of fact. Sorry.
Apr
16
comment Is it possible that “A counter-example exists but it cannot be found”
Your assumption is simply incorrect. Have you read Turing’s Entscheidungsproblem paper?
Apr
16
comment Is it possible that “A counter-example exists but it cannot be found”
Alex: That wasn't the part I was confused about. You can't algorithmically check whether a program terminates. @Loki: Turing shows we can't perform such a test algorithmically in a finite number of steps.
Apr
16
comment Is it possible that “A counter-example exists but it cannot be found”
@dani_s I meant ZF, of course. Yes, the axiom of infinity is independent from the other axioms of ZF, but it's still part of ZF. The axiom of choice is much less universally accepted than the axiom of infinity (see, for instance, the work done with the axiom of determinacy). But you're still ignoring the larger point that the Vitali sets aren't actually "constructed"; their "construction" is merely a proof that they exist, but it fails to characterize a single set.
Apr
15
comment Is it possible that “A counter-example exists but it cannot be found”
@Alex I'm a bit lost now. "... you spend alternating steps checking whether the program terminates" already contradicts the halting principle.
Apr
15
comment Is it possible that “A counter-example exists but it cannot be found”
In any case, the "construction" of the Vitali sets doesn't actually allow you to uniquely specify one single Vitali set in such a way that you could determine, for every real number in the unit interval, whether or not that number is in the set. Thus you aren't really "constructing" anything, and in fact you haven't even uniquely defined a particular subset of the reals.
Apr
15
comment Is it possible that “A counter-example exists but it cannot be found”
@dani_s Er...it's not? It's proven to be independent from ZFC. That's pretty "special."
Apr
15
comment Is it possible that “A counter-example exists but it cannot be found”
@Loki: the number of programs is necessarily countable, since a program in a Turing-complete language is equivalent to a finite sequence of characters. Alex: one cannot check for the existence of a proof by checking the set of "all possible proofs"; if such a proof does not exist, then this "proof-checking" program is non-terminating.