EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

TheGeniusOfCork wrote:

Well you know trying to navigate multiple parallel universes is easy compared with here. Is there any type of multivariate simplicity. I used to think I knew about computers but now I must admit I don't. I started off today deep down in the world of Gaelic quarks. Does anyone know how to tie all these groups and blogs together. The other day I was reading a help about transferring a post from one blog to another, it's just crazy. Maybe I should have called my self Boots . Any way if you want to chat about anything mathematical I suggest you go down to the Simple Sums Café, in Google Groups. Its best to talk with the Barrista in Chief first as he likes to know who comes in. You will have to be nice to him though if you want to go there regularly and get your own table

So are you going to keep talking shite or answer the question.

Why can't the square slicing problem, in your opinion, be mathematically resolved ?

Is this another recipe? The last one for pie came out really well.

I promised Seathrún I'd make some of these sliced squares...

One simple reason is that 5/7 is an infinitely repeating decimal therefore the mathematicians keep repeating the same thing over and over again, but the never actually make the simple observation that if they knew the value of 5/7, the rule has only unit tick marks, and they transpose the problem from the block of wood, to the rule. If they try to use another method they will again transpose the problem onto the other method. This is an an example of infinite recursive descent, and by the time they have exhausted themselves the could properly be called The Geniuses Of Nothing. If eventually one of them wakes up and notices that you have to turn the rule, they may then realise that you cannot resolve higher dimensional computational process using lower dimensional computational processes. You have to stand on a height to see the full picture. The mathematicians are not even in flat land they are in line land, whereas we lofty few occupy a real world, maybe. I'm off now for a few days, So see you.

Is this a 'solution' to pi? It always was a fairly non-problem in my book - something I always believed was that it has to do with the measurement rather than the physical object. Or maybe it has - maybe it's the low-tech way of finding the Heisenberg Uncertainty effect.

cactus flower wrote:

Is this another recipe? The last one for pie came out really well.

I promised Seathrún I'd make some of these sliced squares...

I wonder if there is an ideal number of blackberries in the blackberries pie. Sometimes I just avoid the problem by adding whipped cream on top, but I won't be able to do that all my life, I suppose I must grow up.

I wonder whether, if I showed a picture of blackberry pie with whipped cream to CF, she would stop thinking immediately or she would develop supernatural math skills due to superior envy.

I don't know. I like teasing CF, anyway.

By the way, does pi apply to the circumference of blackberries pies?

TheGeniusOfCork wrote:

One simple reason is that 5/7 is an infinitely repeating decimal therefore the mathematicians keep repeating the same thing over and over again, but the never actually make the simple observation that if they knew the value of 5/7, the rule has only unit tick marks, and they transpose the problem from the block of wood, to the rule. If they try to use another method they will again transpose the problem onto the other method. This is an an example of infinite recursive descent, and by the time they have exhausted themselves the could properly be called The Geniuses Of Nothing. If eventually one of them wakes up and notices that you have to turn the rule, they may then realise that you cannot resolve higher dimensional computational process using lower dimensional computational processes. You have to stand on a height to see the full picture. The mathematicians are not even in flat land they are in line land, whereas we lofty few occupy a real world, maybe. I'm off now for a few days, So see you.

Is this the theory that in order to tie two objects in the dimension n together, you have to use dimension n+1?

You think about that when you tie two objects together? Scary.

I'm not trading onions with you.

arnaudherve wrote:

You think about that when you tie two objects together? Scary.

I'm not trading onions with you.

Aside from all this I have a question! I write in both eeenglish and iiiiiiiiiirish is there any way to marry the two dictionaries, and produce one that doesn't mind what i say. not like ye lot. that reminds me once i did a little

TheGeniusOfCork wrote:

Aside from all this I have a question! I write in both eeenglish and iiiiiiiiiirish is there any way to marry the two dictionaries, and produce one that doesn't mind what i say. not like ye lot. that reminds me once i did a little

Writing and reading in Irish and English is allowed here TG0C.

Oh its Moghroth from the old country.

Mochen éimh do thecht sonn.

riadach wrote:

Oh its Moghroth from the old country.

Mochen éimh do thecht sonn.

An bhfuil aithne agat ar mo dhuine?

Níl, a chonacas ceann nó dhó dá bpoist san áit thall. Fear suimiúil fisice is matamaitice é, má chuireann tú suim sna rudaí sin.

riadach wrote:

Níl, a chonacas ceann nó dhó dá bpoist san áit thall. Fear suimiúil fisice is matamaitice é, má chuireann tú suim sna rudaí sin.

Nach ag spocadh atá sé? Oifigí siamsaíocta do chúpla lá ar a laghad. Foinse comhrá difriúil go díreach

And saying that this is the 'I can't stop laughing' the beach volleyball commentator ob bbc one just said "what a pair they are".................refering to the Brazilian team I presume

And now there's a British long jumper on that's allergic to sand.........curiouser and curiouser

Well since no one is interested in my maths I might as well be out of here, however I have one question, cad is brí le tobar áillse.

TheGeniusOfCork wrote:

Well since no one is interested in my maths I might as well be out of here, however I have one question, cad is brí le tobar áillse.

Shíl mé gur fhág tú cheana féín ...ciallaíonn 'tobar áillse' sciorr sa leanúnachas spáis/ama..

Ní hólfainn as.

riadach wrote:

Ní hólfainn as.

....ná mise ach oiread

Bhfuel anois leads tá bonn againne. Yipee .

TheGeniusOfCork wrote:

Well since no one is interested in my maths I might as well be out of here, however I have one question, cad is brí le tobar áillse.

I asked you the same question twice, and you didn't answer. What's so special about recurring decimals, 5/7 or indeed 22/7 ?

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

TheGeniusOfCork wrote:

Well since no one is interested in my maths I might as well be out of here, however I have one question, cad is brí le tobar áillse.

I asked you the same question twice, and you didn't answer. What's so special about recurring decimals, 5/7 or indeed 22/7 ?

That's a very long story but their computation exposes some very interesting facts. For instance the recurring decimal for 5/7 begins with 7, then 1, then 4, then 2, then 8, then 5, then 7, ..... so it would be written as 714285, with the underscore signifying that the digits are repeated. We can ignore the decimal point as it is the pattern in the digits which is of interest. It is possible to represent this pattern on what i call a ten circle, where the path from one digit to the next represents very interesting patterns. Also when represented in this way the infinity of the repetition is bounded along the path. Also the digits have a reflection property, in that the sums of the first and fourth, the second and fifth, and the third and sixth are all nine. This is a general property of recurring decimals and points towards a technique called osculation, allowing very rapid mental calculations, which are good to brighten the mind. 22/7 is equivalent to 1/7 in respect of it's recurring digit pattern. Why don't you work out the decimals and see what you find, while I go and have my dinner.

TheGeniusOfCork wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

TheGeniusOfCork wrote:

Well since no one is interested in my maths I might as well be out of here, however I have one question, cad is brí le tobar áillse.

I asked you the same question twice, and you didn't answer. What's so special about recurring decimals, 5/7 or indeed 22/7 ?

That's a very long story but their computation exposes some very interesting facts. For instance the recurring decimal for 5/7 begins with 7, then 1, then 4, then 2, then 8, then 5, then 7, ..... so it would be written as 714285, with the underscore signifying that the digits are repeated. We can ignore the decimal point as it is the pattern in the digits which is of interest. It is possible to represent this pattern on what i call a ten circle, where the path from one digit to the next represents very interesting patterns. Also when represented in this way the infinity of the repetition is bounded along the path. Also the digits have a reflection property, in that the sums of the first and fourth, the second and fifth, and the third and sixth are all nine. This is a general property of recurring decimals and points towards a technique called osculation, allowing very rapid mental calculations, which are good to brighten the mind. 22/7 is equivalent to 1/7 in respect of it's recurring digit pattern. Why don't you work out the decimals and see what you find, while I go and have my dinner.

So apart from 5/7 decimalised being a sinister pattern does it have any effect on the price of spuds?

Not really, but this is not the right place to talk about the price of spuds. Any way I think our medal is a much more interesting topic for discussion. YUP GO PADDY GO.

TheGeniusOfCork wrote:

Not really, but this is not the right place to talk about the price of spuds. Any way I think our medal is a much more interesting topic for discussion. YUP GO PADDY GO.

It's been the place for everything else. Check out the Olympic thread here