Re:What do you mean by unknown?
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
Except that e^(i*x)=cos(x) + i*sin(x) (Euler, I believe). Replacing the x's with pi's yields e^(i*pi)=cos(pi) + i*sin(pi). As cos(pi)=-1 and sin(pi)=0, we obtain e^(i*pi)=-1, or e^(i*pi)=-1. The problem with taking the natural log of both sides is that the natural exponential function is not one-to-one on the complexes (we also have that e^(3i*pi)=-1). If we restrict the natural exponential function to part of the complex plane, say where the complex part is greater than or equal to zero and less than 2*pi, then we take the natural log of each side of e^(i*pi) and get i*pi=ln(-1). Dividing each side by i yields pi=(ln(-1))/i.
Re:Phi is more irrational than either pi or e.
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
But phi is algebraic (a root to x^2-x-1), whereas pi and e are both transcendental, i. e. neither is a root of a polynomial with integer coefficients.
But even if China skews its currency, it still will have problems maintaining its "positive" balance of trade. The costs of manufacturing are not just monetary, but involve d the opportunity costs, that is, the foregone use of resources. So the costs of producing cars in China includes the foregone opportunity to produce computers.
David Ricardo argued along a similar line in his theory of comparative advantage. Suppose the Chinese can produce cars at half the cost of American cars and can produce computers at one-third the cost of American computers. If they attempt to produce both to the exclusion of American imports, they will not be able to produce as many of them if they specialized in computers and imported cars from America.
And in the mean time, very few have noticed that one of Microsoft's published future plans is to dumb down IT to the point where any idiot can do it with the right software support. This may or may not be a major threat, but once they figure out how to build an operating system that actually works, you had better watch out.
Isn't Microsoft's figuring out how to build an operating system that actually works a sign of the apocalypse?
It would be VERY interesting if some of these hotspots offered a 'wired' solution also. Wouldn't take much more in the way of hardware to implement, and the peace of mind is worth it.
If you don't mind having your favorite coffee shop littered with cat5 cable. Also, would the hotspot or the customer bring the cable?
Hey, the screen on my laptop would go out (laptop still running, just couldn't see the display). I was able to see it by plugging in a monitor to the VGA port.
Then my question is how many such customers are there in relation to Microsoft's market share? Or are they even numerous with respect to Linux's adoption?
What this could do however, is keep some Windows shops from bringing in Unix boxes. The scenario could go like this: A Windows shop hires a Unix/Linux person to build some sort of system they need. This person makes a case for bringing in a couple of Linux boxes. Rather than giving in to this, the Windows shop can set up some Windows servers with this crap and get away with it because it's close enough to Linux
First, no one would care about the internet if DOS didn't bring computers into companies and more importantly, homes. No one was buying Unix on PCs when DOS was around.
True, Unix was too large (or PC's were too small). But it wasn't DOS that brought PC's into companies, it was IBM's imprimatur.
NAT will solve the problems, but why live with that when we can actually come up with a viable solution- IPv6? It will be expensive to implement because, like always, past engineers haven't planned for their 1970s technologies to ever go out of date, and whiny slashdotters will finally have to upgrade their windows boxes to Vista because XP has 1990s networking support (read that pdf if you don't believe me).
And I thought that whiny Slashdotters used Linux or BSD.
I realize that eval() is dangerous, as naive use of it could allow users to execute malicious code. I wanted to use it in mathematics, allowing the user to enter a mathematical expression and get some response. I would have limited the functions to those in the math library and limited the variable (for the one-variable case)tobe "$x".
Slashdot Mirror
Except that e^(i*x)=cos(x) + i*sin(x) (Euler, I believe). Replacing the x's with pi's yields e^(i*pi)=cos(pi) + i*sin(pi). As cos(pi)=-1 and sin(pi)=0, we obtain e^(i*pi)=-1, or e^(i*pi)=-1. The problem with taking the natural log of both sides is that the natural exponential function is not one-to-one on the complexes (we also have that e^(3i*pi)=-1).
If we restrict the natural exponential function to part of the complex plane, say where the complex part is greater than or equal to zero and less than 2*pi, then we take the natural log of each side of e^(i*pi) and get i*pi=ln(-1). Dividing each side by i yields pi=(ln(-1))/i.
But phi is algebraic (a root to x^2-x-1), whereas pi and e are both transcendental, i. e. neither is a root of a polynomial with integer coefficients.
But even if China skews its currency, it still will have problems maintaining its "positive" balance of trade. The costs of manufacturing are not just monetary, but involve d the opportunity costs, that is, the foregone use of resources. So the costs of producing cars in China includes the foregone opportunity to produce computers.
David Ricardo argued along a similar line in his theory of comparative advantage. Suppose the Chinese can produce cars at half the cost of American cars and can produce computers at one-third the cost of American computers. If they attempt to produce both to the exclusion of American imports, they will not be able to produce as many of them if they specialized in computers and imported cars from America.
I wasn't blaming China. I'm perfectly willing to blame the US government.
3. Raise education standards
It's easy to raise education standards. The hard part is to improve education.
And how much of this deficit is due to the Chinese lending money to us to support our budget deficit?
And in the mean time, very few have noticed that one of Microsoft's published future plans is to dumb down IT to the point where any idiot can do it with the right software support. This may or may not be a major threat, but once they figure out how to build an operating system that actually works, you had better watch out.
Isn't Microsoft's figuring out how to build an operating system that actually works a sign of the apocalypse?
It would be VERY interesting if some of these hotspots offered a 'wired' solution also.
Wouldn't take much more in the way of hardware to implement, and the peace of mind is worth it.
If you don't mind having your favorite coffee shop littered with cat5 cable. Also, would the hotspot or the customer bring the cable?
But will the Battle of Eton be won in the classrooms of Waterloo?
As much of OS X is based on BSD, isn't there some conflict here?
Serves him right
Hey, the screen on my laptop would go out (laptop still running, just couldn't see the display). I was able to see it by plugging in a monitor to the VGA port.
Can't he afford a lightweight laptop with decent battery life, as well as a mobile broadband plan?
Then my question is how many such customers are there in relation to Microsoft's market share? Or are they even numerous with respect to Linux's adoption?
But would they be much better at running a unixified version of MS Windows?
Tove Torvalds might be better. I've read that she was a Finnish karate champion.
What this could do however, is keep some Windows shops from bringing in Unix boxes. The scenario could go like this: A Windows shop hires a Unix/Linux person to build some sort of system they need. This person makes a case for bringing in a couple of Linux boxes. Rather than giving in to this, the Windows shop can set up some Windows servers with this crap and get away with it because it's close enough to Linux
But is it close enough to Linux in price?
First, no one would care about the internet if DOS didn't bring computers into companies and more importantly, homes. No one was buying Unix on PCs when DOS was around.
True, Unix was too large (or PC's were too small). But it wasn't DOS that brought PC's into companies, it was IBM's imprimatur.
NAT will solve the problems, but why live with that when we can actually come up with a viable solution- IPv6? It will be expensive to implement because, like always, past engineers haven't planned for their 1970s technologies to ever go out of date, and whiny slashdotters will finally have to upgrade their windows boxes to Vista because XP has 1990s networking support (read that pdf if you don't believe me).
And I thought that whiny Slashdotters used Linux or BSD.
Our three main weapons are surprise, chocolate, sprouts, and waffles!
You don't need a DTD, nor do you need to link it to W3C.
But wouldn't you access ascii porn by means of a submit button instead, or perhaps using DOM?
Or you could do what I do, and simply download the DTD, install it on your system,
and use that instead.
Gates isn't an IT geek, he's a marketing geek. Even if his programming counts for something, it isn't IT.
I realize that eval() is dangerous, as naive use of it could allow users to execute malicious code. I wanted to use it in mathematics, allowing the user to enter a mathematical expression and get some response. I would have limited the functions to those in the math library and limited the variable (for the one-variable case)tobe "$x".
Thanks