WSH is quite an achivement and not getting the recognition it deserves.
I came across it when i was thinking to myself that the main flaw in Excel was that to do anything sophisticated you had to resort to Visual Basic, instead of a real scripting language. But as I discovered, you can use WSH to enable almost ANY scripting language for excel (and many other applications) now, once some bindings are implemented of course. For example you can use both python and perl as excel scripting languages almost out of the box.
Even that is not enough. They code might require the use of Microsofts compiler.
True example, the famous hole in cc, that whenever it noticed that it was compiling "login.c" would introduce a backdoor. Not only that but whenever it noticed it was compiling itself would reintroduce the same code, so that even by inspecting the compiler source you couldnt find the exploit.
one of the things about the riemann hypothesis is that even to understand the problem requires a lot of study. compare that to fermats last theorem which is accessible to any high school graduate (well, most high schools...)...
but the fact that it is *really hard* makes it such worthwhile study.
it is funny. i'm not sure if Hardy was actually a religous guy, i guess he was having a dig at all the guys who die claiming to have proven something and thus cant be completely refuted -- witness Fermat, who almost every professional mathematician is certain did not prove his last theorem and almost every amateur mathematician is certain did and that the proof can easily be replicated in their margin...
notwithstanding my other post, numerical evidence of a non-critical-line zero would rapidly lead to an analytic proof. anyway my point was that computing proofs arent (usually) acceptable, 4-color theorem perhaps an exception.
not my intention at all, just trying to convey thoughts that might help or encourage someone to understand it. I've spent a few years studying the zeta function (not my usual area of mathematics) and i have found it an amazing if difficult field of study, but i think if you want to understand it "as a layman" its not going to be of interest to you.
i disagree with your statement that if you cant teach something then you dont really understand it; not everything worth knowing comes from reading a slashdot post.
just so many words ("where are the zeroes on the critical line?")
of course that should be "are the zeroes on the critical line". Preview, dammit, preview!
Re:Forget bigger numbers, how about smaller words?
on
More on Riemann Hypothesis
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
sort of avoiding your question (which you could answer using google) but...
with these sort of mathematical questions, a proof really means understanding the question. The question really is just so many words ("where are the zeroes on the critical line?") but the reason a proof is important is that it tells you why the question was worth asking in the first place.
Phrasing the question in english just doesnt get the point across.... thats what makes mathematics so incredible. take the time to read up on it, even if you dont feel so confident with the maths, it is well worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
WSH is quite an achivement and not getting the recognition it deserves.
I came across it when i was thinking to myself that the main flaw in Excel was that to do anything sophisticated you had to resort to Visual Basic, instead of a real scripting language. But as I discovered, you can use WSH to enable almost ANY scripting language for excel (and many other applications) now, once some bindings are implemented of course. For example you can use both python and perl as excel scripting languages almost out of the box.
Dont substitute enthusiasm for ignorance.
There isn't any technological barrier to physically stealing the PC either.
Even that is not enough. They code might require the use of Microsofts compiler.
True example, the famous hole in cc, that whenever it noticed that it was compiling "login.c" would introduce a backdoor. Not only that but whenever it noticed it was compiling itself would reintroduce the same code, so that even by inspecting the compiler source you couldnt find the exploit.
Details can be found on google.
Neither can Microsoft
640 Kb/s should be enough for anybody.
yes, a very clear description, kudos.
one of the things about the riemann hypothesis is that even to understand the problem requires a lot of study. compare that to fermats last theorem which is accessible to any high school graduate (well, most high schools...)...
but the fact that it is *really hard* makes it such worthwhile study.
move to japan -- no problem.
it is funny. i'm not sure if Hardy was actually a religous guy, i guess he was having a dig at all the guys who die claiming to have proven something and thus cant be completely refuted -- witness Fermat, who almost every professional mathematician is certain did not prove his last theorem and almost every amateur mathematician is certain did and that the proof can easily be replicated in their margin...
notwithstanding my other post, numerical evidence of a non-critical-line zero would rapidly lead to an analytic proof. anyway my point was that computing proofs arent (usually) acceptable, 4-color theorem perhaps an exception.
not my intention at all, just trying to convey thoughts that might help or encourage someone to understand it. I've spent a few years studying the zeta function (not my usual area of mathematics) and i have found it an amazing if difficult field of study, but i think if you want to understand it "as a layman" its not going to be of interest to you.
i disagree with your statement that if you cant teach something then you dont really understand it; not everything worth knowing comes from reading a slashdot post.
yes. could you please take it a bit slower for me. start by explaining why a prime is useful at this stage of the problem.
is it really that easy to refute it ? how many zeroes after the decimal point would you need to be happy with ?
just so many words ("where are the zeroes on the critical line?")
of course that should be "are the zeroes on the critical line".
Preview, dammit, preview!
sort of avoiding your question (which you could answer using google) but ...
with these sort of mathematical questions, a proof really means understanding the question. The question really is just so many words ("where are the zeroes on the critical line?") but the reason a proof is important is that it tells you why the question was worth asking in the first place.
Phrasing the question in english just doesnt get the point across.... thats what makes mathematics so incredible. take the time to read up on it, even if you dont feel so confident with the maths, it is well worth it.
Wasnt a patent granted on suid bits ? Simplicity is the mark of a good invention.
Except when there are huge barriers to market entry (such as when laying of cables, etc, are required).
Since you imply Gore voted for himself, presumably you have counted your vote for Gates...
Hmmm. Actually, you don't have to. You are free to wait until such a game comes out .....