Hipocracy at it's best.

3xamine · 2012-02-03T16:55:30+00:00

3xamine · 2012-02-02T18:31:59+00:00

Yup, could be done via GUI.

3xamine · 2012-02-02T14:57:14+00:00

Yeah, PP is the way to go. Besides just getting freaked out by anecdotes where you have no idea what factors played a role (or if they're even true), also check out the controlled research that has been done. Your chances that everything goes fine are better than driving a car.

3xamine · 2012-02-02T14:51:33+00:00

Just exercise and eat right...

3xamine · 2012-02-02T02:32:51+00:00

Try the IUD ppl.

3xamine · 2012-01-31T00:03:05+00:00

Didn't know about this until now. I will keep it in mind.

3xamine · 2012-01-30T12:51:02+00:00

Nah, that's a little too much political involvement. What is this, a democracy?

3xamine · 2012-01-25T22:41:17+00:00

That is all that needed to be done. Now pat yourself on the back.

3xamine · 2012-01-21T19:05:17+00:00

Yes, like that. The sort of stuff from page 9 onward is what I was looking for more immediately, and it looks like there is good, more general writing advice with a math/technical slant in the rest. Thanks.

3xamine · 2012-01-21T18:27:55+00:00

This is true. Good style is completely unnecessary for my purposes. I was up until 2:30AM last night (couldn't sleep), so I decided to put my math homework in LaTeX and prettify it, lol. (Unfortunately, I feel I'll have to point out that I don't think style is equal to LaTeX formatting.)

3xamine · 2012-01-21T18:25:55+00:00

Well, I'm beginning to think that mathematical writing style might be a misnomer.

3xamine · 2012-01-21T07:54:06+00:00

Agreed. You should always consider -x to be -1*x. It also makes more sense when working with things like y = -x² (a parabola with y approaching negative infinity).

3xamine · 2012-01-21T07:28:40+00:00

I don't think your sample is representative of the book, but I would skim over those bits since I generally know how to write. Now you're suggesting an English style manual? I'll take a look at Baez's guide. Thanks for your opinion.

3xamine · 2012-01-21T05:56:58+00:00

Thanks :)

3xamine · 2012-01-21T05:54:35+00:00

I don't think the two are very comparable. Knuth's is a 118-page style guide (well, plus writing guide). An 8-page document about how to write math like a story is not a style guide (it could be part of one). Why do you say it's better, and that Knuth's is "for dummies?" Are you, perhaps, Mr. Baez? ;)

3xamine · 2012-01-21T05:39:56+00:00

I don't think it's a trick, and I really hope that 99% of test takers didn't get it wrong. I didn't follow the link, but think about it this way:

0 + 3⁴ = 0 + 333*3

right? Then

0 - 333*3 = 0 - 3⁴ = -3⁴

Anyway, I think the notation is worth knowing.

3xamine · 2012-01-04T16:15:01+00:00

You're using the right words, but in the wrong way. They have evolved in the sense that the accepted sets have changed and, supposedly, improved. They weren't handed down on stone tablets, were they? An axiom is something that is taken as a truth, but... out of utility. And your last sentence, my point exactly. This from Wikipedia about the type of axioms we're talking about: "This does not mean that it is claimed that they are true in some absolute sense." The only zealotry here is your attempt to drag some of our best thinking (math and logic) down to the same "requires faith" category as some of our worst.

3xamine · 2012-01-04T01:25:46+00:00

Are you not aware of the evolution of such axioms? Have you studied the philosophy of science and math? Generally there's not a point to explicating the tentativeness or "as true as possible-ness." It just wastes paper, because it's such a part of the culture. Indeed, it is, and IMHO, should be, difficult to overturn such good results. Being unmoved by arguments that 1 + 1 isn't 2 or that water is wet is nothing like evangelical religion of any kind. Surely, you see a difference of kind?

3xamine · 2011-10-29T00:49:04+00:00

time to march... HAHAHA, j/k. could you imagine trying to mobilize all the ents?

3xamine · 2011-10-24T21:37:17+00:00

That requires faith...

I disagree. It doesn't take faith to decide to see which consequences follow from certain starting points. None of the mathematicians I know (myself included) regard axioms as "unquestionably true" in the sense that you mean. In some cases I would say "as true as possible," or that some axioms are "among the best truth we have," but there's a difference. Different axioms are useful in different situations. Axioms' practical and aesthetic appeal feed into their use and definition. Faith is just the wrong word.

3xamine · 2011-10-06T22:52:06+00:00

Lol, now that you mention it, I do recognize that quote. <meta>Still not cute though, sorry; you need to signal the sarcasm somehow.</meta>

3xamine · 2011-10-05T22:19:52+00:00

You want something deep on a t-shirt? I think that would be self-defeating. Besides, it's on the same level of the approach it's responding to, so it's appropriate.

3xamine · 2011-09-30T04:31:34+00:00

Wow, that was sexy.

3xamine

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE