Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ughaibu last won the day on July 6 2008

ughaibu had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About ughaibu

  • Rank
  1. Well, as you apparently didn't understand anything I wrote, my time too has been wasted. Kindly stay out of this thread.
  2. Yes, I know, and thanks for your patient and thoughtful input. Without worrying about this, consider the following alternative scenario: if I have some formula which generates x for all n such that n>1 and is an integer, if I can prove that for the base case of n=2 then x=1, is the establishment of (n/n-1)>x>(n-1/n) sufficient to conclude that x=1 for all cases?
  3. Sure, as a general statement it's obviously false. The situation here is that a/b=1 by examination for the base case, and both the larger and smaller terms tend to 1 in higher cases. However, the inequality was generated by assuming that a/b isn't equal to 1.
  4. Dont worry about it, I suspected that I didn't have enough and Lawcat convinced me. I think I've found a different way to do it.
  5. I see. Thank you for that, I'll think about it some more.
  6. If I have some fraction, a/b, and an inequality stating that this is bigger than x and smaller than 1/x, and if in my base case a/b=1 and both x and 1/x approach 1 as cases become higher from the base case, do I have sufficient to state that by induction a/b=1 for all cases? The complication being that I arrived at this inequality by assuming that a/b<1, in a word, do I have enough here to say that my assumption that a/b<1 is false?
  7. My point was that this exemplified confusion about dimensions. The limit has no two dimensional component and the one dimensional component, ie the perimeters, were never the same. Archimedes employed a similar construction in proposition 2 of The Method, without the confusion and in a more radical way. The Method hadn't been recovered at the time of Galileo. Were there only two great minds who thought somewhat alike on this matter? And only one discovered a wonderful analogic method that generated exact results.
  8. There's a nice proof, due to Galileo, that all circles have the same circumference. Do you accept that proposition?
  9. Those using a japanese keyboard might take issue with this, when I tried experimenting with Latex I found very little correspondence between the instructions and the output.
  10. Could somebody explain the basic mechanism of Papakyriakopoulos' tower argument please.
  11. In such a case zero divided by zero would equal the set of all possible numbers. What happens then?
  12. If endosymbiotic innovations are common and if endosymbiotic innovations regularly lead to new life forms, then one would expect new life forms to arise regularly. Anyway, on this apparent doubt that you have about all life arising from single celled organisms, you claim to be non-religious, so presumably your brand of intelligent design doesn't involve any supernatural craftsmen who can produce multi-cellular life out of the blue. How does your theory account for the existence of multi-cellular life?
  13. Thanks for the lengthy reply. If I understand it, you seem to be saying that "created" amounts to "artificial", "fake", "incorrect", etc, is that the gist?
  14. You're aware of endosymbiosis(?)
  • Create New...