To infinity and beyond. Does "beyond" exist ?

[o_e_l_e_o]

And yes, I have walked out on a date where she refused to solve math problems.

You sure it wasn't her that was doing the "walking out"?

Algebra. The most potent of aphrodisiacs.

[1714738695]

1714738695

[1714738695]

1714738695

[1714738695]

1714738695

[jackg]

And yes, I have walked out on a date where she refused to solve math problems.

You sure it wasn't her that was doing the "walking out"?

Algebra. The most potent of aphrodisiacs.

they probably assumed it was a joke oeleo.
@jvan, are you single? I’m thinking you must be but maybe you found someone?

I’d like the problem to be translated into reverse Polish notation also, then we can do away with out the brackets and it becomes more clear what you want as you could well be a bot.

[jvanname]

And yes, I have walked out on a date where she refused to solve math problems.

You sure it wasn't her that was doing the "walking out"?

Algebra. The most potent of aphrodisiacs.

Does it matter if she was the one walking out? If someone is not intelligent enough to solve a math problem, then it does not deserve my attention.

[jvanname]

And yes, I have walked out on a date where she refused to solve math problems.

You sure it wasn't her that was doing the "walking out"?

Algebra. The most potent of aphrodisiacs.

they probably assumed it was a joke oeleo.
@jvan, are you single? I’m thinking you must be but maybe you found someone?

I’d like the problem to be translated into reverse Polish notation also, then we can do away with out the brackets and it becomes more clear what you want as you could well be a bot.

I am not going to tell you if I am single or not because your name is JACK which means that you are a dude and I am not interested in dudes. I will only reveal my status if the person asking is female has demonstrated interest by solving one of the math problems that I give her.

As for the reverse polish notation, here it is: w1+w2*3+*w7*16+*. Since you asked for reverse Polish notation, I suppose that you want to solve the problem? And why do you want to solve a problem in reverse Polish notation when the operations in question are both associative and where you are a human and not a calculator?

Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord, Savior, and Saviour?

[jackg]

I am not going to tell you if I am single or not because your name is JACK which means that you are a dude and I am not interested in dudes. I will only reveal my status if the person asking is female has demonstrated interest by solving one of the math problems that I give her.

1. It also says it on my profile.
2. Good because I wasn't asking you (and neither am I).

As for the reverse polish notation, here it is: w1+w2*3+*w7*16+*. Since you asked for reverse Polish notation, I suppose that you want to solve the problem? And why do you want to solve a problem in reverse Polish notation when the operations in question are both associative and where you are a human and not a calculator?

Reverse polish looks a lot nice, furthermore it means I can do this.
1. Type error with context of ordinals due to mixture of variables, running exception statements
2. Add w to stack
3. Add 1 to stack
4. Pop them and add 1+w to the stack (not how it would be represented but humour me)
5. Add w to the stack
6. Add 2 to the stack.
7. Pop them and multiply the outputs to the stack (2w).
8. Pop last item and add 3
9. POP AND MULTIPLY!!!!!
10. Add w to the stack
11. Add 7 to the stack
12. POP AND MULTIPLY
13. pop and add 16
14. Multiply (oh fuck) 14w³+67w²+101w+48

(Sorry, I appear to have had more of a fiddle then I'd intended to. Anything more I can help you with?

dy/dx = 42w²+134w+101
d2y/dx2 = 84w+134
d3y/dx3 = 84
d4y/dx4 = 0
first integral = 3.5w⁴+22.333...w³+50.5w²+48w
second integral = 0.5w⁵+5.583325w⁴+16.833...w³+24w²

Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord, Savior, and Saviour?

You're a turing machine with a stuck tape? Is that what you mean to tell us. It might be a flipflop issue with the head maybe you should get someone to check it out?

[jvanname]

Jack. Nice try with the multiplication (I give you an 'F-' for eFFort) . . . except for a couple things.

1. Ordinal addition and multiplication are not commutative. For example 1+w=w but w+1>w and 2*w=w but w*2>w. As written, your answer would simplify to w^3+w^2+w+48.*

2. Ordinal arithmetic does not satisfy two sided distributivity. Ordinal arithmetic satisfies the distributivity law a*(b+c)=a*b+a*c, but
(w+1)*2=w+1+w+1=w+w+1=w*2+1 but w*2+1*2=w*2+2, so (w+1)*2<w*2+1*2. *

3. Taking derivatives of ordinals does not make any sense since ordinals are not polynomials.

4. Taking integrals of ordinals does not make any sense either since ordinals are not polynomials.

5. You need to capitalize the letter 'T' in Turing.

6. In ordinal arithmetic, there are no fractions or decimals. 3.5 does not make any sense in ordinal arithmetic.**

*-Actually, there are operations on the collection of ordinals which are called natural addition and natural multiplication. Natural addition and natural multiplication form a semiring. In other words, these operations are associative, commutative, and they satisfy the two-sided distributivity property x*(y+z)=x*y+x*z. Because having only one kind of ordinal addition and multiplication is not enough.

**-If you use the natural operations on ordinal arithmetic, then you can extend the class sized semiring of all ordinals to a field called the field of surreal numbers which contains all real numbers, ordinals, and other critters. The point is that in the field of surreal numbers, you actually can multiply ordinals by real numbers.

[jackg]

You’ve managed to somewhat confuse the terms ordinal and discrete into a horrible fashion. Maybe take a look, at that?

A question answered badly is one which was asked badly when the questioner is less intelligent than the answered such as in this case.



Checking google,
Ordinal ::= {x = N /\ 0<x<11}

[jvanname]

You’ve managed to somewhat confuse the terms ordinal and discrete into a horrible fashion. Maybe take a look, at that?

A question answered badly is one which was asked badly when the questioner is less intelligent than the answered such as in this case.

You clearly do not know what ordinals are. I asked a perfectly reasonable question, but your mathematical knowledge is deficient. That is very sad. It is a greater tragedy than Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid" (I am not talking about the Disney version. You can tell that the Disney version of The Little Mermaid is watered down because you never see nipples on the mermaids because their breasts are covered with seashells). You need Jesus.

[paxmao]

My conclusion reading this thread is that there are three types of users: Those who can count and those who can´t.

[Stedsm]

It's not necessary what we see is always true, because behind every "presented" truth, there is a possibly different reality. Just like that, IMHO, nobody in this world can define infinity as well as its limits (because it's unlimited, and if it's not, then it's not infinity). So basically, if something that doesn't have any limits, how could there be something "beyond" it? I'm talking out of the box as I'm nowhere interested into talking math here.

My conclusion reading this thread is that there are three types of users: Those who can count and those who can´t.

Which one are the type 3? 

[odolvlobo]

You’ve managed to somewhat confuse the terms ordinal and discrete into a horrible fashion. Maybe take a look, at that?
A question answered badly is one which was asked badly when the questioner is less intelligent than the answered such as in this case.

You clearly do not know what ordinals are. I asked a perfectly reasonable question, but your mathematical knowledge is deficient. That is very sad. It is a greater tragedy than Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid" (I am not talking about the Disney version. You can tell that the Disney version of The Little Mermaid is watered down because you never see nipples on the mermaids because their breasts are covered with seashells). You need Jesus.

oooooh, a nerd pissing match. This is gonna get good!

[jvanname]

You’ve managed to somewhat confuse the terms ordinal and discrete into a horrible fashion. Maybe take a look, at that?
A question answered badly is one which was asked badly when the questioner is less intelligent than the answered such as in this case.

You clearly do not know what ordinals are. I asked a perfectly reasonable question, but your mathematical knowledge is deficient. That is very sad. It is a greater tragedy than Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid" (I am not talking about the Disney version. You can tell that the Disney version of The Little Mermaid is watered down because you never see nipples on the mermaids because their breasts are covered with seashells). You need Jesus.

oooooh, a nerd pissing match. This is gonna get good!

Could you do me a favor and solve this math problem before you get out the popcorn so that you have demonstrated that you have the intellectual capacity to appreciate what I have to say (the other people commenting on this thread are simply blathering nonsensical utterances)? Using ultrafilters, prove that for each function f:[N]^2-->2 where N denotes the set of natural numbers, there exists an infinite subset A of N where f is constant on [A]^2 (here [X]^2 denotes the set of all ordered pairs (x,y) where both x and y belong to X). Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord, Savior, and Saviour? Because you certainly act like you hate God.

[jackg]

Sure. Give the next guy the easier maths problem...

[jvanname]

Sure. Give the next guy the easier maths problem...

Go solve this problem: Show that if there exists a rank-into-rank cardinal, then the free self-distributive algebra on any number of generators can be embedded into an infinite product of finite self-distributive algebras.

[paxmao]

My conclusion reading this thread is that there are three types of users: Those who can count and those who can´t.

Which one are the type 3? 

I don´t know, I am on the second group.

[odolvlobo]

You’ve managed to somewhat confuse the terms ordinal and discrete into a horrible fashion. Maybe take a look, at that?
A question answered badly is one which was asked badly when the questioner is less intelligent than the answered such as in this case.

You clearly do not know what ordinals are. I asked a perfectly reasonable question, but your mathematical knowledge is deficient. That is very sad. It is a greater tragedy than Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid" (I am not talking about the Disney version. You can tell that the Disney version of The Little Mermaid is watered down because you never see nipples on the mermaids because their breasts are covered with seashells). You need Jesus.

oooooh, a nerd pissing match. This is gonna get good!

Could you do me a favor and solve this math problem before you get out the popcorn so that you have demonstrated that you have the intellectual capacity to appreciate what I have to say (the other people commenting on this thread are simply blathering nonsensical utterances)? Using ultrafilters, prove that for each function f:[N]^2-->2 where N denotes the set of natural numbers, there exists an infinite subset A of N where f is constant on [A]^2 (here [X]^2 denotes the set of all ordered pairs (x,y) where both x and y belong to X). Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord, Savior, and Saviour? Because you certainly act like you hate God.

I have the intellectual capacity to appreciate that nobody here cares about your math problem or your mathematical abilities or your religious superstitions.

[jvanname]

You’ve managed to somewhat confuse the terms ordinal and discrete into a horrible fashion. Maybe take a look, at that?
A question answered badly is one which was asked badly when the questioner is less intelligent than the answered such as in this case.

You clearly do not know what ordinals are. I asked a perfectly reasonable question, but your mathematical knowledge is deficient. That is very sad. It is a greater tragedy than Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid" (I am not talking about the Disney version. You can tell that the Disney version of The Little Mermaid is watered down because you never see nipples on the mermaids because their breasts are covered with seashells). You need Jesus.

oooooh, a nerd pissing match. This is gonna get good!

Could you do me a favor and solve this math problem before you get out the popcorn so that you have demonstrated that you have the intellectual capacity to appreciate what I have to say (the other people commenting on this thread are simply blathering nonsensical utterances)? Using ultrafilters, prove that for each function f:[N]^2-->2 where N denotes the set of natural numbers, there exists an infinite subset A of N where f is constant on [A]^2 (here [X]^2 denotes the set of all ordered pairs (x,y) where both x and y belong to X). Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord, Savior, and Saviour? Because you certainly act like you hate God.

I have the intellectual capacity to appreciate that nobody here cares about your math problem or your mathematical abilities or your religious superstitions.

I hope you know that your comment demonstrates that you have neither the intelligence that comes with mathematics nor the moral virtues that come by accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as your own personal Lord, Savior, and Saviour. That is sad. Please accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord, Savior, and Saviour, and please pick up a mathematics book, read it, and do some problems. You are pathetic. I thought atheists were smart. It looks like there are exceptions though. I am thankful that my fellow Republicans created cigarettes to get rid of atheists.