before i go into slumber for one more year i just wanted to say that i look forward to jacking off on your forehead again and i wish nothing but pestilence and discomfort on you and your whole family again.
missing you.. missing me..btw, the slashdotter that got laid was your mother when i bare-backed her. DAMN, i love busting a PETER NORTH in a hoe's vagina/mouth. love you baby, return my calls, k?
why, old friend, dost though not acknowledge me? you can call me jesus, allah, whatever. you owe your EXISTENCE to me, and only me. The afterlife, skullfucked you will be, if you do not acknowledge.
I saw in the current (April 1996) issue of SIAM News an article on metrology that contains unsolved problems regarding uncertainty. This looks like an invitation for interval methods...
The exact reference is
V. Srinivasan, How tall is the pyramid of Cheops?... and other problems in computational metrology, SIAM News, Vol. 29/No.3, April 1996, pp. 8,9,17.
On p. 17, Srinivasan says:
``All current implementations of computational metrology algorithms ignore uncertainties in input data and attempt to solve deterministic versions of the problems. Most, if not all, of them use floating-point arithmetic and therefore are subject to the vagaries of round-off errors. Even in these deterministic versions, therefore, currently available software cannot promise solutions of guaranteed precision. In some cases, attempts have been made to apply inverse error analysis; that is, the output can be provably claimed to be the exact solution to some perturbed input. This, of course, does not solve the problems in which we know the input uncertainties and want to know the output uncertainties.''
``It is sometimes possible, taking input uncertainties into account, to give bounds for the uncertainties of the output. It is important to remember, however, that for practical reasons loose bounds are not very useful. A loose estimate for measurement uncertainty may underestimate real variations in actual parts. It may also lead to overspecification of the required capabilities of manufacturing processes. Both outcomes are clearly undesirable.''
``In summary, CMM software has improved considerably in the past ten years. Interesting theoretical solutions to some of the deterministic problems in computational metrology have been proposed, although the really important problems involving measurement uncertainties have remained unsolved.''
Thus far the quotation. The author stresses the importance of providing guaranteed results that are not too loose in the sense of providing bounds that strictly covers the worst case and is not far away from this worst case.
Thus simple techniques like approximate linearization or the use of centered forms are probably not sufficient. Ultimately, in my opinion, the problems seem to reduce to relaxed global optimization problems, namely finding enclosures for certain (not very complicated) functions of inputs restricted by interval or ellipsoidal bounds, that have a guaranteed limit for the overestimation in the final width, of perhaps 5 percent or so; the location of the inputs leading to the extreme cases need not be computed. Since the accuracy demanded depends on both lower and upper bounds for the range, this is a little different from standard global optimization problems and requires some extra thought.
Nondeterministic assumptions about the noise can probably be replaced by ellipsoidal bounds on the input uncertainty \eps defined by
\eps^T C^{-1} \eps = s^2,
for s=1, s=2, s=3 in turn, where C is the covariance matrix of the input. Using a Cholesky factor L of C and A=L^{-1}, this can be written in the form
||A\eps||^2 = s^2,
more useful from a computational point of view when C is not diagonal.
This didn't make mention of the huge (and renewed) debate as to whether 1 or 0 is a prime number or not.
At the conference for applied and new mathematics in Melbourne last year there was a huge fervor over this as new evidence came to light.
Basically, from I gather, it's like this:
Technically, neither 1 nor zero is a prime number. It is easiest to see why zero isn't: since a prime number is only divisible by one and itself, let's find all the divisors of zero.
Well, since 0 x 1 = 0, and 0 x 2 = 0, and 0 x 3 = 0, and so on, all these numbers divide zero, i.e. zero is divisible by every positive integer. So it isn't a prime number.
As for 1, you might want to call it a prime number, since it really _is_ divisible by only one and itself. But then you run into some problems. For instance, you may know that every positive integer can be factored into the product of prime numbers, and that there's only one way to do it for every number. For instance, 280 = 2x2x2x5x7, and there's only one way to factor 280 into prime numbers. But if you let 1 be a prime, then you can get the following factorizations: 1x1x1x2x2x2x5x7, 1x2x2x2x5x7, and so on. The factorization is no longer unique.
Furthermore, there are a whole bunch of theorems in Number Theory that tell you something about prime numbers. But most of these theorems just flat out ain't true for the number 1. So in light of these facts, we just declare the number 1 to not be a prime.
So that's why we don't WANT 1 to be a prime. Mathematicians have summarized this in a nice neat definition: a prime number is a positive integer which has exactly 2 different positive integers that divide it evenly - no more and no fewer.
Slashdot Mirror
did u miss me boo.
can't wait to send you some xmas greetings. i used to do this every year but i was lost in space the last 7 years
hey BLACK Parrot, did you have a merry xmas? why the cold shoulder over the xmas break?
the dildo.
Hello, blackparrot.
I am wishing your christmas be full of malice and discontent. I hope your presents got stolen and you slip and fall into dog shit.
before i go into slumber for one more year i just wanted to say that i look forward to jacking off on your forehead again and i wish nothing but pestilence and discomfort on you and your whole family again.
hate,
RAMBO, JOHN J.
missing you.. missing me..btw, the slashdotter that got laid was your mother when i bare-backed her. DAMN, i love busting a PETER NORTH in a hoe's vagina/mouth. love you baby, return my calls, k?
why, old friend, dost though not acknowledge me? you can call me jesus, allah, whatever. you owe your EXISTENCE to me, and only me. The afterlife, skullfucked you will be, if you do not acknowledge.
eat shit and die, asshole. I HAVE RISEN.
merry christmas asshole! I have arisen from slumber. miss me?
but they would let you pour the astroglide and whip cream on your spanish boyfriend? not fair!
hello my pretty.. i'm back again and i wishy wishy you a shitty shitty chrismy chrismy!
goodbye, Black Parrot. i will be hibernating again and wake up around next Christmas time.
It was filed under "Pornography, Gay Nigger"
yo my balls they do itch. what, you didnt forget about me did you?
Black Parrot... My time for this season is over... like the past year, the new year is upon us.
What does this mean?
This means I will hibernate throughout the year.. and come back to you during the hannakah/christmas season next year.
Until then, good buddy, live long and prosper. You shall hear from me again next year!
his email address is michael@slashdot.org
i was there on mars too, waiting to give you a reach around
bush to ban cell phone usage for black people - crime expected to drop 50%, film at 11.
easier to track niggers. cell phones and baseball bats. niggers.
ah.. i think there is a line where someone mentions the swiss, and he gets corrected that they are norwegian.
it was actually a SWISS base next to the americans. and the guy in the plane was shooting at a dog, that got away before he blew himself up.
that american base has about 3 days to figure this one out.
does this mean black people are going to be allowed to use SpamCop now?
I think it's that quaint old idea that people shouldn't use italyics to whore out karma points.
I saw in the current (April 1996) issue of SIAM News an article on metrology that contains unsolved problems regarding uncertainty. This looks like an invitation for interval methods...
The exact reference is
V. Srinivasan,
How tall is the pyramid of Cheops?... and other problems in computational metrology,
SIAM News, Vol. 29/No.3, April 1996, pp. 8,9,17.
On p. 17, Srinivasan says:
``All current implementations of computational metrology algorithms ignore uncertainties in input data and attempt to solve deterministic versions of the problems. Most, if not all, of them use floating-point arithmetic and therefore are subject to the vagaries of round-off errors. Even in these deterministic versions, therefore, currently available software cannot promise solutions of guaranteed precision. In some cases, attempts have been made to apply inverse error analysis; that is, the output can be provably claimed to be the exact solution to some perturbed input. This, of course, does not solve the problems in which we know the input uncertainties and want to know the output uncertainties.''
``It is sometimes possible, taking input uncertainties into account, to give bounds for the uncertainties of the output. It is important to remember, however, that for practical reasons loose bounds are not very useful. A loose estimate for measurement uncertainty may underestimate real variations in actual parts. It may also lead to overspecification of the required capabilities of manufacturing processes. Both outcomes are clearly undesirable.''
``In summary, CMM software has improved considerably in the past ten years. Interesting theoretical solutions to some of the deterministic problems in computational metrology have been proposed, although the really important problems involving measurement uncertainties have remained unsolved.''
Thus far the quotation. The author stresses the importance of providing guaranteed results that are not too loose in the sense of providing bounds that strictly covers the worst case and is not far away from this worst case.
Thus simple techniques like approximate linearization or the use of centered forms are probably not sufficient. Ultimately, in my opinion, the problems seem to reduce to relaxed global optimization problems, namely finding enclosures for certain (not very complicated) functions of inputs restricted by interval or ellipsoidal bounds, that have a guaranteed limit for the overestimation in the final width, of perhaps 5 percent or so; the location of the inputs leading to the extreme cases need not be computed. Since the accuracy demanded depends on both lower and upper bounds for the range, this is a little different from standard global optimization problems and requires some extra thought.
Nondeterministic assumptions about the noise can probably be replaced by ellipsoidal bounds on the input uncertainty \eps defined by
\eps^T C^{-1} \eps = s^2,
for s=1, s=2, s=3 in turn, where C is the covariance matrix of the input. Using a Cholesky factor L of C and A=L^{-1}, this can be written in the form
||A\eps||^2 = s^2,
more useful from a computational point of view when C is not diagonal.
This didn't make mention of the huge (and renewed) debate as to whether 1 or 0 is a prime number or not.
At the conference for applied and new mathematics in Melbourne last year there was a huge fervor over this as new evidence came to light.
Basically, from I gather, it's like this:
Technically, neither 1 nor zero is a prime number. It is easiest to see why zero isn't: since a prime number is only divisible by one and itself,
let's find all the divisors of zero.
Well, since 0 x 1 = 0, and 0 x 2 = 0, and 0 x 3 = 0, and so on, all these numbers divide zero, i.e. zero is divisible by every positive integer. So
it isn't a prime number.
As for 1, you might want to call it a prime number, since it really _is_ divisible by only one and itself. But then you run into some problems.
For instance, you may know that every positive integer can be factored into the product of prime numbers, and that there's only one way to do
it for every number. For instance, 280 = 2x2x2x5x7, and there's only one way to factor 280 into prime numbers. But if you let 1 be a prime,
then you can get the following factorizations: 1x1x1x2x2x2x5x7, 1x2x2x2x5x7, and so on. The factorization is no longer unique.
Furthermore, there are a whole bunch of theorems in Number Theory that tell you something about prime numbers. But most of these theorems just flat out ain't true for the number 1. So in light of these facts, we just declare the number 1 to not be a prime.
So that's why we don't WANT 1 to be a prime. Mathematicians have summarized this in a nice neat definition: a prime number is a positive integer which has exactly 2 different positive integers that divide it evenly - no more and no fewer.