User talk:Fuzzyeric

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Fuzzyeric, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I was delighted to see your responses at the (mathematics) reference desk; We do not have too many regulars there with enough knowledge to tackle the harder questions. I do hope you will create a user page, and more importantly, to see you contributing to articles as well as the RefDesk. When you do, you may find the following pages useful:

And let's not forget the hub of the mathematics community:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page.

Again, welcome! -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Msin(i)

Thank you for this response. I offer Msin(i) as a redlink, if you'd like to create an article (your first maybe?). Cheers, Marskell 04:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a really, really bad idea. Msin(i) is just the mass times the sine of i. What's next, an article about gcos(θ)? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Fuzzyeric 20:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, sorry. Marskell 20:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nine lemma

Would you happen to know of any interesting applications of the nine lemma? --HappyCamper 04:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of anything better than the link User:John Baez found. -- Fuzzyeric 05:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
(copied to Talk:Nine lemma) -- Fuzzyeric 05:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invalid division proposition

I don't understand what you mean by "Using the proposed inference form". In general, to show that a universal implication of the form P(x) ⇒ Q(x) is invalid, you have to be able to give a value x in the domain of the implied quantification such that P(x) is true, while Q(x) is false. I defy you to produce a value x such that x3 − x2 = 0 but x2 − x ≠ 0.

Here is a proof of the implication you are challenging:

Either x = 0 or x ≠ 0.
Case A: x = 0. Then x2 − x = 0, so, a fortiori:
x3 − x2 = 0 ⇒ x2 − x = 0.
Case B: x ≠ 0. Then we may divide both sides of an equation (even according to Fuzzyeric) by x, giving us:
x3 − x2 = 0 ⇒ x2 − x = 0.
Conclusion: for all possible values of x, it is the case that x3 − x2 = 0 ⇒ x2 − x = 0.

 --LambiamTalk 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't get what you are trying to say. You write something on my talk page of the form:

"your claim that P is justified by Q.
  1. I did not claim any such thing.
  2. In what you wrote, both P and Q are true statements.
  3. I gave a proof of Q only because I understood from what you wrote that you challenged the validity of Q, not to justify P.
  4. It is easy enough to give an independent proof of P; you do not need the validity of Q for that.
  5. Don't you really see that there is a difference between \implies and \Longleftarrow?
  6. Try to avoid insulting terms like "gibberish", please. Maybe you should first look closer to home for the cause of your lack of ability to understand. -- --LambiamTalk 00:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not understand because you wish not to understand. But in any case, please stop posting incoherent strings of statements on my talk page. I give up.  --LambiamTalk 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/u/z/User_talk%7EFuzzyeric_8b6f.html"