|
On February 02 2012 00:20 fabiano wrote:
I found:
1 - 0,195 = 0.805 = 80,5%
2007 -> 225.400 - (225.400 x 0,195) = 181.447 NOK
2006 -> 280.000 - (280.000 x 0,195) = 225.400 NOK
2005 -> 280.000 NOK
2004 -> (280.000 x 0,195) + 280.000 = 334.600 NOK
2003 -> (334.600 x 0,195) + 334.600 = 399.847 NOK
1.a) 80,5%
1.b) 181.477 NOK
1.c) 399.847 NOK
What did I do wrong? oO
Switch the bolded ones with 0.805 and try again.
Also, 1a = 0.805, yes you could write it like you did, but it's not answering the question.
|
On February 02 2012 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:OP, your 2a is wrong as I explained before. Conditional probability doesn't work in that way because the two events are independent. The second event isn't conditioned on the first. It's like saying, "I have a six-sided die and a coin. If I roll a 4 first, what's the chance of me flipping heads?" It's still 1/2. It doesn't change just because you roll the die in a certain way. You didn't ask what the chance of Tor not going to a meeting *and* Nadia going to meeting is simultaneously (in that case, you would carry out the calculation the same way you did). The wording (particularly the "If") makes it a different question. Nadia's probability of going to a meeting is independent of Tor, so whether or not Tor goes is irrelevant when deciding if Nadia goes. Therefore, Nadia's chances of going is still the established 70%. You don't need to include Tor's chance of not going, because- as was explicitly written in the instructions- the two events (Tor going and Nadia going) are independent events. If it was slightly reworded as "What's the chance of Tor not going *and* Nadia going to the same meeting", then it would be .4 * .3 = .12. Hope that helps 
Oops, I'm so bad at writing these kinds of questions in english, thanks for telling me
But the bolded part should be .7 because it's the probability of Nadia going is 70%=0.7, or am I being stupid now?
|
On February 02 2012 00:03 achristes wrote:That statement makes no sense to me, because if you use numbers to find other number I call it math.
Mathematicians are constantly delving into supremely abstract realms to try to discover new theorems, corrollaries, etc. (mathematician's statements of truth) about extremely complicated situations. Some theorists work in areas that realistically may only be useful in practical ways to certain branches of physics. Mathematicians are creative thinkers, critical thinkers and problem solvers.
The OP is primarily concerned with questions of interpretation and execution of equations. Don't see the difference?
A problem for a mathematician goes something more like this:
The 'flea and comb space' is a topological space defined by a subspace of the two-dimensional coordinate plane which contains the point (0,1), all points (x,0), and all points (1/n,y), where n is any positive integer, and x and y are any real numbers between 0 and 1. Additionally, say that a point is "dense" (calling it "dense" because I actually don't remember the real term off hand) in the flea and comb set if it has points which are in the flea and comb set which are infinitely close to it, i.e. for any given arbitrarily small number, there is a point within that distance whcih is in the set. Prove that every point in this space is "dense" in the space, but that it is not the case that every point which is "dense" in the set is necessarily in the set.
The above is a relatively simple and straightforward math problem. More complicated problems may require a day or more of thought and reflection, experimentation and failure to resolve. This is the reason mathematicians bristle at the idea that saying 70% of $50 is $35 is "math" in the same sense. Math requires much more thought and effort.
|
On February 02 2012 00:31 achristes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:OP, your 2a is wrong as I explained before. Conditional probability doesn't work in that way because the two events are independent. The second event isn't conditioned on the first. It's like saying, "I have a six-sided die and a coin. If I roll a 4 first, what's the chance of me flipping heads?" It's still 1/2. It doesn't change just because you roll the die in a certain way. You didn't ask what the chance of Tor not going to a meeting *and* Nadia going to meeting is simultaneously (in that case, you would carry out the calculation the same way you did). The wording (particularly the "If") makes it a different question. Nadia's probability of going to a meeting is independent of Tor, so whether or not Tor goes is irrelevant when deciding if Nadia goes. Therefore, Nadia's chances of going is still the established 70%. You don't need to include Tor's chance of not going, because- as was explicitly written in the instructions- the two events (Tor going and Nadia going) are independent events. If it was slightly reworded as "What's the chance of Tor not going *and* Nadia going to the same meeting", then it would be .4 * .3 = .12. Hope that helps Oops, I'm so bad at writing these kinds of questions in english, thanks for telling me But the bolded part should be .7 because it's the probability of Nadia going is 70%=0.7, or am I being stupid now?
I messed up the ending part to my previous post (should be ".4 * .7 = .28.") Edited it ^^
.4 = 1-.6 is P(Tor not going)
.7 is P(Nadia going)
If it were worded differently.
|
On February 02 2012 00:31 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 00:03 achristes wrote:On February 01 2012 23:39 Caller wrote:
This isn't math this is arithmetic That statement makes no sense to me, because if you use numbers to find other number I call it math. Mathematicians are constantly delving into supremely abstract realms to try to discover new theorems, corrollaries, etc. (mathematician's statements of truth) about extremely complicated situations. Some theorists work in areas that realistically may only be useful in practical ways to certain branches of physics. Mathematicians are creative thinkers, critical thinkers and problem solvers. The OP is primarily concerned with questions of interpretation and execution of equations. Don't see the difference? A problem for a mathematician goes something more like this: The 'flea and comb space' is a topological space defined by a subspace of the two-dimensional coordinate plane which contains the point (0,1), all points (x,0), and all points (1/n,y), where n is any positive integer, and x and y are any real numbers between 0 and 1. Additionally, say that a point is "dense" (calling it "dense" because I actually don't remember the real term off hand) in the flea and comb set if it has points which are in the flea and comb set which are infinitely close to it, i.e. for any given arbitrarily small number, there is a point within that distance whcih is in the set. Prove that every point in this space is "dense" in the space, but that it is not the case that every point which is "dense" in the set is necessarily in the set. The above is a relatively simple and straightforward math problem. More complicated problems may require a day or more of thought and reflection, experimentation and failure to resolve. This is the reason mathematicians bristle at the idea that saying 70% of $50 is $35 is "math" in the same sense. Math requires much more thought and effort.
So what you are saying is that mathematicians don't like that "normal" people say that the simpler parts of math is math?
I can understand it if that is the case though, but what am I supposed to call it then? ^^
|
On February 02 2012 00:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 00:31 achristes wrote:On February 02 2012 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:OP, your 2a is wrong as I explained before. Conditional probability doesn't work in that way because the two events are independent. The second event isn't conditioned on the first. It's like saying, "I have a six-sided die and a coin. If I roll a 4 first, what's the chance of me flipping heads?" It's still 1/2. It doesn't change just because you roll the die in a certain way. You didn't ask what the chance of Tor not going to a meeting *and* Nadia going to meeting is simultaneously (in that case, you would carry out the calculation the same way you did). The wording (particularly the "If") makes it a different question. Nadia's probability of going to a meeting is independent of Tor, so whether or not Tor goes is irrelevant when deciding if Nadia goes. Therefore, Nadia's chances of going is still the established 70%. You don't need to include Tor's chance of not going, because- as was explicitly written in the instructions- the two events (Tor going and Nadia going) are independent events. If it was slightly reworded as "What's the chance of Tor not going *and* Nadia going to the same meeting", then it would be .4 * .3 = .12. Hope that helps Oops, I'm so bad at writing these kinds of questions in english, thanks for telling me But the bolded part should be .7 because it's the probability of Nadia going is 70%=0.7, or am I being stupid now? I messed up the ending part to my previous post (should be ".4 * .7 = .28.") Edited it ^^ .4 for 1-.6 P(Tor not going) .7 for P(Nadia going) If it were worded differently.
It is now, mind checking for mistakes? ^^
|
nvm. Going to read the blog. You people confuse me .
|
On February 01 2012 23:25 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 23:21 ETisME wrote:
maths is fun until you get to a certain level where you starts to have questions that would get illogical (or basically you are required to abandon understanding the theory and learn to just DO maths), first one in my mind was sin, cos and tan.
If you like these kind of maths, stats are more to your taste to be honest sin, cos and tan make perfect sense 
Never wondered by those three are actually doing what they were meant to do?
(giving the ratio in a triangle with one 90° angle)
Well, back then, I did not. But now I am wondering why that question never came into my mind.
|
On February 02 2012 00:36 achristes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 00:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2012 00:31 achristes wrote:On February 02 2012 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:OP, your 2a is wrong as I explained before. Conditional probability doesn't work in that way because the two events are independent. The second event isn't conditioned on the first. It's like saying, "I have a six-sided die and a coin. If I roll a 4 first, what's the chance of me flipping heads?" It's still 1/2. It doesn't change just because you roll the die in a certain way. You didn't ask what the chance of Tor not going to a meeting *and* Nadia going to meeting is simultaneously (in that case, you would carry out the calculation the same way you did). The wording (particularly the "If") makes it a different question. Nadia's probability of going to a meeting is independent of Tor, so whether or not Tor goes is irrelevant when deciding if Nadia goes. Therefore, Nadia's chances of going is still the established 70%. You don't need to include Tor's chance of not going, because- as was explicitly written in the instructions- the two events (Tor going and Nadia going) are independent events. If it was slightly reworded as "What's the chance of Tor not going *and* Nadia going to the same meeting", then it would be .4 * .3 = .12. Hope that helps Oops, I'm so bad at writing these kinds of questions in english, thanks for telling me But the bolded part should be .7 because it's the probability of Nadia going is 70%=0.7, or am I being stupid now? I messed up the ending part to my previous post (should be ".4 * .7 = .28.") Edited it ^^ .4 for 1-.6 P(Tor not going) .7 for P(Nadia going) If it were worded differently. It is now, mind checking for mistakes? ^^
If you want your answer to 2a to be correct (with the same explanation that you have written in your OP), I would recommend changing the question from
"If Tor doesn't go to one of the meetings, what is the probability of Nadia going to the same meeting?"
to
"What's the chance of Nadia going to a meeting that Tor doesn't go to?"
This explicitly shows that you need to multiply the probability that Tor doesn't go to a meeting with the probability that Nadia does go
Otherwise, it'll stay at 70% for the reasons explained before.
|
On February 02 2012 00:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 00:36 achristes wrote:On February 02 2012 00:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2012 00:31 achristes wrote:On February 02 2012 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:OP, your 2a is wrong as I explained before. Conditional probability doesn't work in that way because the two events are independent. The second event isn't conditioned on the first. It's like saying, "I have a six-sided die and a coin. If I roll a 4 first, what's the chance of me flipping heads?" It's still 1/2. It doesn't change just because you roll the die in a certain way. You didn't ask what the chance of Tor not going to a meeting *and* Nadia going to meeting is simultaneously (in that case, you would carry out the calculation the same way you did). The wording (particularly the "If") makes it a different question. Nadia's probability of going to a meeting is independent of Tor, so whether or not Tor goes is irrelevant when deciding if Nadia goes. Therefore, Nadia's chances of going is still the established 70%. You don't need to include Tor's chance of not going, because- as was explicitly written in the instructions- the two events (Tor going and Nadia going) are independent events. If it was slightly reworded as "What's the chance of Tor not going *and* Nadia going to the same meeting", then it would be .4 * .3 = .12. Hope that helps Oops, I'm so bad at writing these kinds of questions in english, thanks for telling me But the bolded part should be .7 because it's the probability of Nadia going is 70%=0.7, or am I being stupid now? I messed up the ending part to my previous post (should be ".4 * .7 = .28.") Edited it ^^ .4 for 1-.6 P(Tor not going) .7 for P(Nadia going) If it were worded differently. It is now, mind checking for mistakes? ^^ If you want your answer to 2a to be correct (with the same explanation that you have written in your OP), I would recommend changing the question from "If Tor doesn't go to one of the meetings, what is the probability of Nadia going to the same meeting?" to "What's the chance of Nadia going to a meeting that Tor doesn't go to?" This explicitly shows that you need to multiply the probability that Tor doesn't go to a meeting with the probability that Nadia does go Otherwise, it'll stay at 70% for the reasons explained before.
Thank you, I will PM you if I decide to make another one
|
On February 02 2012 00:36 achristes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 00:31 Treehead wrote:On February 02 2012 00:03 achristes wrote:On February 01 2012 23:39 Caller wrote:
This isn't math this is arithmetic That statement makes no sense to me, because if you use numbers to find other number I call it math. Mathematicians are constantly delving into supremely abstract realms to try to discover new theorems, corrollaries, etc. (mathematician's statements of truth) about extremely complicated situations. Some theorists work in areas that realistically may only be useful in practical ways to certain branches of physics. Mathematicians are creative thinkers, critical thinkers and problem solvers. The OP is primarily concerned with questions of interpretation and execution of equations. Don't see the difference? A problem for a mathematician goes something more like this: The 'flea and comb space' is a topological space defined by a subspace of the two-dimensional coordinate plane which contains the point (0,1), all points (x,0), and all points (1/n,y), where n is any positive integer, and x and y are any real numbers between 0 and 1. Additionally, say that a point is "dense" (calling it "dense" because I actually don't remember the real term off hand) in the flea and comb set if it has points which are in the flea and comb set which are infinitely close to it, i.e. for any given arbitrarily small number, there is a point within that distance whcih is in the set. Prove that every point in this space is "dense" in the space, but that it is not the case that every point which is "dense" in the set is necessarily in the set. The above is a relatively simple and straightforward math problem. More complicated problems may require a day or more of thought and reflection, experimentation and failure to resolve. This is the reason mathematicians bristle at the idea that saying 70% of $50 is $35 is "math" in the same sense. Math requires much more thought and effort. So what you are saying is that mathematicians don't like that "normal" people say that the simpler parts of math is math? I can understand it if that is the case though, but what am I supposed to call it then? ^^
That's why Caller's saying that it's arithmetic, not math.
@Treehead: I think the word you want is limit point?
|
On February 02 2012 00:45 achristes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 00:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2012 00:36 achristes wrote:On February 02 2012 00:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2012 00:31 achristes wrote:On February 02 2012 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:OP, your 2a is wrong as I explained before. Conditional probability doesn't work in that way because the two events are independent. The second event isn't conditioned on the first. It's like saying, "I have a six-sided die and a coin. If I roll a 4 first, what's the chance of me flipping heads?" It's still 1/2. It doesn't change just because you roll the die in a certain way. You didn't ask what the chance of Tor not going to a meeting *and* Nadia going to meeting is simultaneously (in that case, you would carry out the calculation the same way you did). The wording (particularly the "If") makes it a different question. Nadia's probability of going to a meeting is independent of Tor, so whether or not Tor goes is irrelevant when deciding if Nadia goes. Therefore, Nadia's chances of going is still the established 70%. You don't need to include Tor's chance of not going, because- as was explicitly written in the instructions- the two events (Tor going and Nadia going) are independent events. If it was slightly reworded as "What's the chance of Tor not going *and* Nadia going to the same meeting", then it would be .4 * .3 = .12. Hope that helps Oops, I'm so bad at writing these kinds of questions in english, thanks for telling me But the bolded part should be .7 because it's the probability of Nadia going is 70%=0.7, or am I being stupid now? I messed up the ending part to my previous post (should be ".4 * .7 = .28.") Edited it ^^ .4 for 1-.6 P(Tor not going) .7 for P(Nadia going) If it were worded differently. It is now, mind checking for mistakes? ^^ If you want your answer to 2a to be correct (with the same explanation that you have written in your OP), I would recommend changing the question from "If Tor doesn't go to one of the meetings, what is the probability of Nadia going to the same meeting?" to "What's the chance of Nadia going to a meeting that Tor doesn't go to?" This explicitly shows that you need to multiply the probability that Tor doesn't go to a meeting with the probability that Nadia does go Otherwise, it'll stay at 70% for the reasons explained before. Thank you, I will PM you if I decide to make another one
Glad I could help The other ones look worded correctly ^^
EDIT: I haven't checked any other answers though.
|
2d seems wrong to me. You probably didnt fill in the complete answer or something.
Both going to 3 consecutive meeting would be
(0,6*0,7) ^ 3 = 7,4%
|
On February 02 2012 00:36 achristes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 00:31 Treehead wrote:On February 02 2012 00:03 achristes wrote:On February 01 2012 23:39 Caller wrote:
This isn't math this is arithmetic That statement makes no sense to me, because if you use numbers to find other number I call it math. Mathematicians are constantly delving into supremely abstract realms to try to discover new theorems, corrollaries, etc. (mathematician's statements of truth) about extremely complicated situations. Some theorists work in areas that realistically may only be useful in practical ways to certain branches of physics. Mathematicians are creative thinkers, critical thinkers and problem solvers. The OP is primarily concerned with questions of interpretation and execution of equations. Don't see the difference? A problem for a mathematician goes something more like this: The 'flea and comb space' is a topological space defined by a subspace of the two-dimensional coordinate plane which contains the point (0,1), all points (x,0), and all points (1/n,y), where n is any positive integer, and x and y are any real numbers between 0 and 1. Additionally, say that a point is "dense" (calling it "dense" because I actually don't remember the real term off hand) in the flea and comb set if it has points which are in the flea and comb set which are infinitely close to it, i.e. for any given arbitrarily small number, there is a point within that distance whcih is in the set. Prove that every point in this space is "dense" in the space, but that it is not the case that every point which is "dense" in the set is necessarily in the set. The above is a relatively simple and straightforward math problem. More complicated problems may require a day or more of thought and reflection, experimentation and failure to resolve. This is the reason mathematicians bristle at the idea that saying 70% of $50 is $35 is "math" in the same sense. Math requires much more thought and effort. So what you are saying is that mathematicians don't like that "normal" people say that the simpler parts of math is math? I can understand it if that is the case though, but what am I supposed to call it then? ^^
No. What he's saying is that mathematicians know what math is, and most people think that what they learned in high school is basically all there is to mathematics, with some additional complexity tacked on.
Addition and division and calculus and all the other parts of math that are routine calculations are lumped together as arithmetic because they are to math as paint-by-numbers is to watercolor painting. Sure, it's the same thing in a technical sense -- you have some brushes, and some water, and some paint, and you put paint and water on the brushes and make parts of the paper turn different colors, but it's not the same thing in a meaningful sense, as one is Art and the other is decidely not. THAT'S what people mean when they say that something which is clearly a mathematical statement or problem is "not real math". The beginnings of math is just about calculating some quantity. That's what people mean by arithmetic. The rest of math bears some resemblance to arithmetic, in that it involves formal symbolic manipulations to draw conclusions about the properties of certain abstract objects based on properties of other related objects, but that's about as far as the resemblance goes. (Unless you're in applied math, in which case I'm not talking to you).
|
3c is also wrong.
10.000 + 120 * x = 200 * x (x = the amount of attendees)
x = 50 + 0,6 x
0,4 x = 50
x = 125
So the answer is 125 students
EDIT: I am going home now, I might check the other ones when I get home .
|
Korea (South)497 Posts
On February 01 2012 23:21 ETisME wrote:
maths is fun until you get to a certain level where you starts to have questions that would get illogical (or basically you are required to abandon understanding the theory and learn to just DO maths), first one in my mind was sin, cos and tan.
If you like these kind of maths, stats are more to your taste to be honest
..... math is always pure logic. If you're getting to a point where math seems illogical, that means you don't have a logical understanding of the concepts.
|
On February 02 2012 00:49 Koshi wrote:
2d seems wrong to me. You probably didnt fill in the complete answer or something.
Both going to 3 consecutive meeting would be
(0,6*0,7) ^ 3 = 7,4%
I agree with this.
P(Nadia going) * P(Tor going) = P(Nadia and Tor going to the same)
to the third power, for three meetings.
|
On February 02 2012 01:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 00:49 Koshi wrote:
2d seems wrong to me. You probably didnt fill in the complete answer or something.
Both going to 3 consecutive meeting would be
(0,6*0,7) ^ 3 = 7,4% I agree with this. P(Nadia going) * P(Tor going) = P(Nadia and Tor going to the same) to the third power, for three meetings.
Sorry, my bad.
|
On February 02 2012 01:06 achristes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 01:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2012 00:49 Koshi wrote:
2d seems wrong to me. You probably didnt fill in the complete answer or something.
Both going to 3 consecutive meeting would be
(0,6*0,7) ^ 3 = 7,4% I agree with this. P(Nadia going) * P(Tor going) = P(Nadia and Tor going to the same) to the third power, for three meetings. Sorry, my bad.
No worries. Are these questions you got wrong on a test? Or questions you got correct but just mis-translated into English? Or something else? Your OP says they were on your last math test, so are you looking to see if you got the answers right? Or are testing us?
|
On February 02 2012 00:36 achristes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 00:31 Treehead wrote:On February 02 2012 00:03 achristes wrote:On February 01 2012 23:39 Caller wrote:
This isn't math this is arithmetic That statement makes no sense to me, because if you use numbers to find other number I call it math. Mathematicians are constantly delving into supremely abstract realms to try to discover new theorems, corrollaries, etc. (mathematician's statements of truth) about extremely complicated situations. Some theorists work in areas that realistically may only be useful in practical ways to certain branches of physics. Mathematicians are creative thinkers, critical thinkers and problem solvers. The OP is primarily concerned with questions of interpretation and execution of equations. Don't see the difference? A problem for a mathematician goes something more like this: The 'flea and comb space' is a topological space defined by a subspace of the two-dimensional coordinate plane which contains the point (0,1), all points (x,0), and all points (1/n,y), where n is any positive integer, and x and y are any real numbers between 0 and 1. Additionally, say that a point is "dense" (calling it "dense" because I actually don't remember the real term off hand) in the flea and comb set if it has points which are in the flea and comb set which are infinitely close to it, i.e. for any given arbitrarily small number, there is a point within that distance whcih is in the set. Prove that every point in this space is "dense" in the space, but that it is not the case that every point which is "dense" in the set is necessarily in the set. The above is a relatively simple and straightforward math problem. More complicated problems may require a day or more of thought and reflection, experimentation and failure to resolve. This is the reason mathematicians bristle at the idea that saying 70% of $50 is $35 is "math" in the same sense. Math requires much more thought and effort. So what you are saying is that mathematicians don't like that "normal" people say that the simpler parts of math is math? I can understand it if that is the case though, but what am I supposed to call it then? ^^
Let me put it in SC2 terms. Let's say I have a simulator which I have programmed to simulate an SC2 game for one player with clear goals in mind - the computer makes building choices based on a priority list I determined for it before the game. We assume a certain rush distance and a few other assumptions, but there's no map, no micro and the units just kind of attack each other simulatedly when the decision to attack comes up.
I wrote the priority list. I told it what it would need to attack. The units are SC2 units. Am I playing SC2? I could say that I'm playing SC2 but making it easier, but you'd tell me I missed the point of the game completely (I hope).
Math is about being creative, then being critical, then putting your work out on paper, the last step of which is the easiest, and the only one involved in arithmetic - that you write the numbers on the paper in the right order and remember how they go together. Nothing is being created, nothing is being critiqued, nothing is being improvised - it's rote. Math is far from being rote.
On February 02 2012 00:46 Nehsb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 00:36 achristes wrote:On February 02 2012 00:31 Treehead wrote:On February 02 2012 00:03 achristes wrote:On February 01 2012 23:39 Caller wrote:
This isn't math this is arithmetic That statement makes no sense to me, because if you use numbers to find other number I call it math. Mathematicians are constantly delving into supremely abstract realms to try to discover new theorems, corrollaries, etc. (mathematician's statements of truth) about extremely complicated situations. Some theorists work in areas that realistically may only be useful in practical ways to certain branches of physics. Mathematicians are creative thinkers, critical thinkers and problem solvers. The OP is primarily concerned with questions of interpretation and execution of equations. Don't see the difference? A problem for a mathematician goes something more like this: The 'flea and comb space' is a topological space defined by a subspace of the two-dimensional coordinate plane which contains the point (0,1), all points (x,0), and all points (1/n,y), where n is any positive integer, and x and y are any real numbers between 0 and 1. Additionally, say that a point is "dense" (calling it "dense" because I actually don't remember the real term off hand) in the flea and comb set if it has points which are in the flea and comb set which are infinitely close to it, i.e. for any given arbitrarily small number, there is a point within that distance whcih is in the set. Prove that every point in this space is "dense" in the space, but that it is not the case that every point which is "dense" in the set is necessarily in the set. The above is a relatively simple and straightforward math problem. More complicated problems may require a day or more of thought and reflection, experimentation and failure to resolve. This is the reason mathematicians bristle at the idea that saying 70% of $50 is $35 is "math" in the same sense. Math requires much more thought and effort. So what you are saying is that mathematicians don't like that "normal" people say that the simpler parts of math is math? I can understand it if that is the case though, but what am I supposed to call it then? ^^ That's why Caller's saying that it's arithmetic, not math. @Treehead: I think the word you want is limit point?
Yeah, I tried to google "sequence of points approaching" and it gave me "limit", but somehow I thought there was another word for it in topology. Like a set which is closed contains its'... "boundary"? Maybe that's the right word. Idk - it's been at least 5 years since I did topology, and honestly I'm not sure why that's the problem that came to mind when I picked one out of my graduate career.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
