Do you have any resource that you can point me to that speaks about the relationship of limiting constructions to irrational numbers? (Not being the usual/. snark, an honest question)
I guess that I ask the question because there are perfectly boring shapes that give rise to irrational numbers, like a the hypotenuse of a right triangle with two sides of length one.
There are also a lot of rational limits that converge to rational numbers.
I have just never heard of any explicit connection.
The average 17-year-old a hundred years ago was probably more mature in most ways than the average 27-year-old is today.
True but that 17 year old had a job that didn't require the same type of prerequisite education. Not all talents translate into the type of "book" intelligence that we expect of people in modern society. They had more "natural" talents at that age that translate well to the jobs of the day (like agriculture) I think that we forgot how "unnatural" abstract though is for most people.
Of course I think that we, mathematics teachers, often doom our students by having low expectations. I just am suspicious of what would occur when the beautiful curriculum hits the class. Thinking about material seems to run so contrary to their understanding of what learning and school is that when presented with this "new" approach many violently reject it. I know we need to find a balance that doesn't sacrifice the education of the "motivated" students (I teach at a community college where I have many very intelligent kids who were just so put off by the HS curriculum that they actually failed) but also doesn't just forget about the, I hesitate to use the word, bottom 3/4 of the class. How does one do this? I do not know, and it makes my head hurt. (which may be why I will leave this environment and get my PHD, much easier)
I applaud your general point, that people are generally lazy and prefer dogma to critical thought, but I have to disagree with your prescription for US mathematics education. (at least in practice) Having students attempt to have been exposed to Linear Algebra, DiffEq, Multivariate Calculus, etc... before the end of high school will have the opposite effect of the one that you desire. I have already seen where many of the better students have been pushed through single variable calculus in high school before they have really deeply learned the prerequisite material. Most of the students coming out of this system will have a MORE shallow and mechanical (dogmatic) understanding not less so. I think that a slower and deeper introduction (with a good foundation in mathematical logic) to the more fundamental portions of mathematics will result is a student that is more prepared to appreciate and understand the scientific material that they are being exposed to. *note that all of this requires children to be more mature then most prove to be, how do we deal with that? *
Actually I know the reflex is to think that the bush administraon and the genisis of all evil but on this issue they WANT illegal immigrants to keep comming over. In this administration profit is a larger motivation than the usuall xenophobia.
Sounds like a perfect plan to me. Let's get out of the buisness/enterprise market and sink all of our eggs into something more stable, like video games/consoles:)
The whole SUV-bashing thing is childish. Does anyone complain that a Corvette owner isn't trying to corner at 0.98g or whatever the current spec is?
actually, people did. It was just the silly balding midlife-crisis male that was the main target. The public is fairly fickle with their ire, next we will probably be bashing the compact car drivers mentioned in the article.:)
I can only speak about mathematics but I have always hated the complaint that mathematics never teaches "why things work". First many do not realize that many of the true ideas behind school mathematics are very profound and need quite a lot of work to even approach a "proof" that demonstrates a true meaning of the subject.(also some proofs obscure the true meaning) For many this would not explain "why" and was largely the complaint against the "old school" system of mathematics instruction.
Accepting that many ideas cannot be proved in the limited time that a teacher has with a student; then what would be an acceptable explanantion of "why" something works? (for some people basic physics is enough, for some it is pretty pictures, etc...)
Reasoning's code inspection service is based on a combination of proprietary technology and repeatable process.
Am I the only one who looks at reasoning's results with suspicion (even when I agree with them). Any analysis using methods that are not open and repeatable is not science. This just feels like marketing to me. (it is sad because the study of code quality is such a worthwhile pursuit)
you're right. Absolutley zero. The point is that in the analog copy process you have a definate loss in quality, not to mention the fact that large scale distribution of these shared copies was much more difficult. I think that is why compinies are taking digital piracy much more seriously now. The internet makes distribution of one copy to thousands of people almost trivial. That never used to be possible. The reason that I am jaded is because I myself have to fight my natural urge to download these songs. (in the good ol' napster days I for sure did this)
I don't see why I should lose my rights to fair use of their products
Exactly, this is what I fear. I just believe that it is our partially our communities fault for not doing a very good job of self regulation.
I share your fears but I think the real problem is not the theft of copyright material by the public from the corporations but the theft of democracy by the corporations from the people.
Right, I just believe that they are both problems. I'd even say that the stealing from corperations is assisting the corperations in gaining the moral ground to steal our democracy. The main thing is that they are selling to the public a story (that we are theives and pirates) that,through our actions, is largely true.
I think that you are giving humanity a little too much credit when it comes to the "anonymous" crimes. Especially when it is against some entity(sp) that well feel has evil profit motivations. You even weigthed you argument by using the projoritive "megolomainiac".
To be completley honest I fear where this is all heading either way. If the companies have their way then we will all own lobotomized machines instead of the wonderful general purpose machines that we see in front of us today (honestly, people from the early days probably even feel that these machines have been disabled for economic reasons)
If the people win there is a real possibility that piracy could destroy a few industries that do provide some use. One could argue that there could be a new P2P like move production/distribution scheme, but to tell you the honest truth, I don't have the time to wade through the crap that the average filmmaker would produce to get something worth watching. (I do not watch many theater movies, so maybe it's all crap now and the studios deserve to die)
One problem with slashdot (and people in general) is that we really cannot seem to honestly appraise the damage that we cause when it flies in the face of our immediate desires. Society has address this problem with our moral code and the immediate shunning of the criminal element. However this doesn't not exist in the cyberworld, the anonymous nature allows people to regress back to the theives and pirates that we seem to be. Really almost everybody in the forum have pirated some piece of software/digital media and have a completly clear conscious. Yet a far fewer number could ever muster up the courage to steal this directly from a store.
My main point is that both sides of this argument seems to ignore what the other side is losing. Inject some hair trigger politicians into this and you have reached a dangerous fork in the road where I feel we are screwed either way.
ps. I use mostly OSS software because it gives me the libertity of using my computers without having to become a theif or pirate.
whoa there. Following your logic I could go to an AA meeting of, say, 30 people and given a statistic that only 1% percent of the poplulation is an alcholic say that 29 of the people there are lying. You are assuming a level of popluation mixing that I just don't think happens. About Itunes, I really cannot say that I have done more than browse the catalogue, but this sounds like a oops feature that they never meant to be there is the first place.
At my little state university my mathematics classes are full of apathetic ex CS majors. Most think that they can just sail through a mathematics major and land a low paying but safe teaching job. However many start to fall off when they get to the upperdivision classes where being a calculating machine doesn't help much. Mathematics (like CS) are really hard majors that are now not really worth it if you do not love the subject matter. Still from speaking to other students, this direction is lacking in most students at this level.
The did do that, in reverse. The files are actually seem to be layed out the the "gobo" way with symlinks to the "traditional" directories. This is as far as I could tell from the faq.
It is times like this when I wish that Stallman et. al and linus didn't mess with *NIX. Really it seems that if you touch *NIX at all you are just waiting for a court battle.
Of course then "GNU's not Unix" wouldn't have such a ironic twist:)
ps. I love linux,bsd and really only use *NIX based systems, but it is really hard to find an organization that hasn't been sued over it's history with unix.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any resource that you can point me to that speaks about the relationship of limiting constructions to irrational numbers? (Not being the usual /. snark, an honest question)
I guess that I ask the question because there are perfectly boring shapes that give rise to irrational numbers, like a the hypotenuse of a right triangle with two sides of length one.
There are also a lot of rational limits that converge to rational numbers.
I have just never heard of any explicit connection.
The average 17-year-old a hundred years ago was probably more mature in most ways than the average 27-year-old is today.
True but that 17 year old had a job that didn't require the same type of prerequisite education. Not all talents translate into the type of "book" intelligence that we expect of people in modern society. They had more "natural" talents at that age that translate well to the jobs of the day (like agriculture) I think that we forgot how "unnatural" abstract though is for most people.
Of course I think that we, mathematics teachers, often doom our students by having low expectations. I just am suspicious of what would occur when the beautiful curriculum hits the class. Thinking about material seems to run so contrary to their understanding of what learning and school is that when presented with this "new" approach many violently reject it. I know we need to find a balance that doesn't sacrifice the education of the "motivated" students (I teach at a community college where I have many very intelligent kids who were just so put off by the HS curriculum that they actually failed) but also doesn't just forget about the, I hesitate to use the word, bottom 3/4 of the class. How does one do this? I do not know, and it makes my head hurt. (which may be why I will leave this environment and get my PHD, much easier)
I applaud your general point, that people are generally lazy and prefer dogma to critical thought, but I have to disagree with your prescription for US mathematics education. (at least in practice) Having students attempt to have been exposed to Linear Algebra, DiffEq, Multivariate Calculus, etc... before the end of high school will have the opposite effect of the one that you desire. I have already seen where many of the better students have been pushed through single variable calculus in high school before they have really deeply learned the prerequisite material. Most of the students coming out of this system will have a MORE shallow and mechanical (dogmatic) understanding not less so. I think that a slower and deeper introduction (with a good foundation in mathematical logic) to the more fundamental portions of mathematics will result is a student that is more prepared to appreciate and understand the scientific material that they are being exposed to. *note that all of this requires children to be more mature then most prove to be, how do we deal with that? *
Actually I know the reflex is to think that the bush administraon and the genisis of all evil but on this issue they WANT illegal immigrants to keep comming over. In this administration profit is a larger motivation than the usuall xenophobia.
but they can withhold funding if the school isn't doing what they want.
I don't really think it is that much contributed by the fed (mostly state) but scools are broke enough that they need every penny.
One honest question,
How can you tell if the library had been modified when it is statically linked?
It is still plagerism, which is the real issue.
Sounds like a perfect plan to me. Let's get out of the buisness/enterprise market and sink all of our eggs into something more stable, like video games/consoles
try here
You don't embed firefox, you embed gecko. (the rendering engine for mozilla, firefox, camino, etc..)
The whole SUV-bashing thing is childish. Does anyone complain that a Corvette owner isn't trying to corner at 0.98g or whatever the current spec is?
actually, people did. It was just the silly balding midlife-crisis male that was the main target. The public is fairly fickle with their ire, next we will probably be bashing the compact car drivers mentioned in the article.
I can only speak about mathematics but I have always hated the complaint that mathematics never teaches "why things work". First many do not realize that many of the true ideas behind school mathematics are very profound and need quite a lot of work to even approach a "proof" that demonstrates a true meaning of the subject.(also some proofs obscure the true meaning) For many this would not explain "why" and was largely the complaint against the "old school" system of mathematics instruction.
Accepting that many ideas cannot be proved in the limited time that a teacher has with a student; then what would be an acceptable explanantion of "why" something works? (for some people basic physics is enough, for some it is pretty pictures, etc...)
Am I the only one who looks at reasoning's results with suspicion (even when I agree with them). Any analysis using methods that are not open and repeatable is not science. This just feels like marketing to me. (it is sad because the study of code quality is such a worthwhile pursuit)
kde-cvs has window drop shadows. One can argue weather or not it's a hack.
Blackdown's VM is not opensource. Just free (beer) like sun's.
I think that I agree with you.
How much courage does a tape to tape copy take?you're right. Absolutley zero. The point is that in the analog copy process you have a definate loss in quality, not to mention the fact that large scale distribution of these shared copies was much more difficult. I think that is why compinies are taking digital piracy much more seriously now. The internet makes distribution of one copy to thousands of people almost trivial. That never used to be possible. The reason that I am jaded is because I myself have to fight my natural urge to download these songs. (in the good ol' napster days I for sure did this)
I don't see why I should lose my rights to fair use of their productsExactly, this is what I fear. I just believe that it is our partially our communities fault for not doing a very good job of self regulation.
I share your fears but I think the real problem is not the theft of copyright material by the public from the corporations but the theft of democracy by the corporations from the people.Right, I just believe that they are both problems. I'd even say that the stealing from corperations is assisting the corperations in gaining the moral ground to steal our democracy. The main thing is that they are selling to the public a story (that we are theives and pirates) that ,through our actions, is largely true.
I think that you are giving humanity a little too much credit when it comes to the "anonymous" crimes. Especially when it is against some entity(sp) that well feel has evil profit motivations. You even weigthed you argument by using the projoritive "megolomainiac".
To be completley honest I fear where this is all heading either way. If the companies have their way then we will all own lobotomized machines instead of the wonderful general purpose machines that we see in front of us today (honestly, people from the early days probably even feel that these machines have been disabled for economic reasons)
If the people win there is a real possibility that piracy could destroy a few industries that do provide some use. One could argue that there could be a new P2P like move production/distribution scheme, but to tell you the honest truth, I don't have the time to wade through the crap that the average filmmaker would produce to get something worth watching. (I do not watch many theater movies, so maybe it's all crap now and the studios deserve to die)
One problem with slashdot (and people in general) is that we really cannot seem to honestly appraise the damage that we cause when it flies in the face of our immediate desires. Society has address this problem with our moral code and the immediate shunning of the criminal element. However this doesn't not exist in the cyberworld, the anonymous nature allows people to regress back to the theives and pirates that we seem to be. Really almost everybody in the forum have pirated some piece of software/digital media and have a completly clear conscious. Yet a far fewer number could ever muster up the courage to steal this directly from a store.
My main point is that both sides of this argument seems to ignore what the other side is losing. Inject some hair trigger politicians into this and you have reached a dangerous fork in the road where I feel we are screwed either way.
ps. I use mostly OSS software because it gives me the libertity of using my computers without having to become a theif or pirate.
no, the open group will still own the name. all ibm will get is the sysv src code from which most commercial unicies are derived from. (i believe)
whoa there. Following your logic I could go to an AA meeting of, say, 30 people and given a statistic that only 1% percent of the poplulation is an alcholic say that 29 of the people there are lying. You are assuming a level of popluation mixing that I just don't think happens. About Itunes, I really cannot say that I have done more than browse the catalogue, but this sounds like a oops feature that they never meant to be there is the first place.
not really, I think most try to leverage what the feel are their strengths. I am sure that there are some but I have yet to hear of one.
At my little state university my mathematics classes are full of apathetic ex CS majors. Most think that they can just sail through a mathematics major and land a low paying but safe teaching job. However many start to fall off when they get to the upperdivision classes where being a calculating machine doesn't help much. Mathematics (like CS) are really hard majors that are now not really worth it if you do not love the subject matter. Still from speaking to other students, this direction is lacking in most students at this level.
slackware still uses the linux kernel which is what is in question. Not the init scripts, or directory structure.
The did do that, in reverse. The files are actually seem to be layed out the the "gobo" way with symlinks to the "traditional" directories. This is as far as I could tell from the faq.
ArXiv is only a searchable database of preprints. (mathematics preprints is what I knew ArXiv for)
Basically it consists of papers before they get published.
It is times like this when I wish that Stallman et. al and linus didn't mess with *NIX. Really it seems that if you touch *NIX at all you are just waiting for a court battle.
:)
Of course then "GNU's not Unix" wouldn't have such a ironic twist
ps. I love linux,bsd and really only use *NIX based systems, but it is really hard to find an organization that hasn't been sued over it's history with unix.