|
|
sneakattack
on 2005-01-30 22:25 [#01482447]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker
|
|
your comment on my induction was incorrect by the way. I don't have to use a different index for the induction than the theorem utilizes. Furthermore the bounds you gave were ass.
a thread just for you.
|
|
bryce_berny
from chronno (Canada) on 2005-01-30 22:29 [#01482449]
Points: 1568 Status: Lurker
|
|
when you're trying to prove induction on n, you can't use the variable n in your inductive step, thats like ignoring scope while coding
thanks for being angry about it though
|
|
sneakattack
on 2005-01-30 22:40 [#01482451]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker | Followup to bryce_berny: #01482449
|
|
what?! coding was the wrong example to bring up. When you have an identical variable name in a nested scope, that usage shadows the one above.
It's pretty standard to do induction that way.
For example
Thm: for all n in Z^+, (a - b) | (a^n - b ^ n)
proof by induction on n.
.. base cases..
inductive hypothesis: theorem holds for a given n inductive step: proves n + 1 works using IH
..
|
|
sneakattack
on 2005-01-30 22:41 [#01482452]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker
|
|
I'm not angry about it, simply it's good to be accurate about formal languages. I think there is no ambiguity in using the same variable, and moreover it binds the index clearly to what it is in the theorem.
|
|
bryce_berny
from chronno (Canada) on 2005-01-30 22:46 [#01482453]
Points: 1568 Status: Lurker | Followup to sneakattack: #01482452
|
|
I have always been taught to use a new variable, say i, and prove for i+1 when using simple induction, or introduce i and j and prove for somethinginduction
I believe it's important, but if you don't think so, thats also fine
I was just trying to be smart is all, ppl have to do that sometimes
|
|
sneakattack
on 2005-01-30 22:48 [#01482454]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker | Followup to bryce_berny: #01482453
|
|
I think it's very clean because the index obviously has the same domain as the variable you're doing induction over, so step by step you prove the validity of the variable for that value in the domain. It's that correspondence which I find sweet. I don't see it as aiding clarity to make them separate, because I view them as identical.
I might read this thread in one year and think "I'm a fucking idiot"
sorry I love this kind of debate, I hope you like it too.
|
|
bryce_berny
from chronno (Canada) on 2005-01-30 22:48 [#01482455]
Points: 1568 Status: Lurker | Followup to bryce_berny: #01482453
|
|
sorry, thats something < i < j, prove for j ... damn tags
|
|
bryce_berny
from chronno (Canada) on 2005-01-30 22:49 [#01482456]
Points: 1568 Status: Lurker
|
|
Yea I am initerested in mathematical syntax debates for sure, this debate could get heavily involved in set theory if you wanted to go there, but I don't know much about it so I wouldnt have very good arguments
|
|
sneakattack
on 2005-01-30 22:57 [#01482459]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker | Followup to bryce_berny: #01482456
|
|
let's talk about tits some time too. I started agonizing over bitches recently; it's awful.
|
|
bryce_berny
from chronno (Canada) on 2005-01-30 23:03 [#01482465]
Points: 1568 Status: Lurker
|
|
man I love a good pair of tits, a natty 36C makes me quiver with delight
|
|
sneakattack
on 2005-01-30 23:13 [#01482468]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker | Followup to bryce_berny: #01482465
|
|
I feel sorry for big tits (some C and all of D). They have glory for 5 years and are a burden thereafter. While fucking up that sentence I went through a succession of important female characteristics and somehow came to the conclusion that we need robotic concubines. the end.
|
|
big
from lsg on 2005-01-31 05:32 [#01482619]
Points: 23746 Status: Addict | Show recordbag
|
|
hello :)
|
|
sneakattack
on 2005-01-31 22:45 [#01483756]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker
|
|
Bump for baron. I don't think she's as bored as I am.
|
|
sneakattack
on 2005-01-31 22:45 [#01483757]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker
|
|
OH SHIT I BUMPED THE WRONG THREAD. I AM DICKLESS, MANGINALESS
|
|
xf
from Australia on 2005-01-31 23:20 [#01483774]
Points: 2952 Status: Lurker
|
|
how the fuck do you go from having a mathematical debate to discussing tits?
|
|
sneakattack
on 2005-01-31 23:58 [#01483780]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker | Followup to xf: #01483774
|
|
how the fuck do you bring up a mathematical debate after one day of silence on the topic, and without any goal other than socialization?
boredom.
|
|
Zephyr Twin
from ΔΔΔ on 2005-02-01 00:03 [#01483782]
Points: 16982 Status: Regular | Show recordbag
|
|
score:
sneak attack - 1
xf - 0
|
|
bryce_berny
from chronno (Canada) on 2005-02-01 00:09 [#01483786]
Points: 1568 Status: Lurker
|
|
bewwp!
|
|
sneakattack
on 2005-02-01 00:11 [#01483788]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker | Followup to bryce_berny: #01483786
|
|
Given the definition of 'breathalizer', I think all males implicitly have a 'breastalizer' function. Immmm stupid! gnight.
|
|
bryce_berny
from chronno (Canada) on 2005-02-01 00:14 [#01483791]
Points: 1568 Status: Lurker
|
|
mmm
|
|
sneakattack
on 2005-02-01 01:37 [#01483848]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker
|
|
Breasts!!!!1
|
|
JAroen
from the pineal gland on 2005-02-01 01:37 [#01483849]
Points: 16065 Status: Regular | Followup to sneakattack: #01483848
|
|
quiet, you.
|
|
sneakattack
on 2005-02-01 01:38 [#01483850]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker
|
|
No. No breasts =(
|
|
JAroen
from the pineal gland on 2005-02-01 01:49 [#01483864]
Points: 16065 Status: Regular | Followup to sneakattack: #01483850
|
|
4am, 3624 posts, class tomorrow, retarded!
|
|
bryce_berny
from chronno (Canada) on 2005-02-01 02:07 [#01483872]
Points: 1568 Status: Lurker
|
|
I have an assignment due tomorrow, time to stay up all night working on it
toot toot
|
|
bryce_berny
from chronno (Canada) on 2005-02-01 04:07 [#01483968]
Points: 1568 Status: Lurker
|
|
I broke 1000 points in 3 years last night!
GO ME!
love, me
|
|
Messageboard index
|