You are not logged in.
Why not? I know many people who play, so I might want to play against them. Not for money, of course.
That seems very tedious.
So, what do we need to know to be good at p?
So, what happens when. Have a straight in hearts and you have a straight in clubs with the same values?
How do the suits rank?
Definitions
1. The first letter of this word is P.
2. The second letter of this word is O.
3. The third letter of this word is K.
4. The fourth letter of this word is E.
5. The fifth letter of this word is R.Theorem: you cannot post the word.
Yes, I remember establishing that when I tried to post it in This or that. We thought the forum was trying to ban me. ![]()
According to your definition, the zero sphere is in R.
I'd rather have the zero sphere to be the trivial sphere {0} in {0} and 1-sphere in R.
Well, I guess you'll have to readjust to this definition. It makes more sense when you look at it this way: The 1-sphere is a curved line with only 1 "dimension". The 2-sphere is a surface with 2 "dimensions".
But if the 0-sphere is in a space of dimension 1, then shouldn't an n-sphere be in a space of dimension n+1?
That's a mighty fine geogebra demonstration Agnishom. I am well impressed!
Stefy wrote:An n-sphere is the set of all points in n+1 dimensional space
So a 1-sphere is in 2-D space.
Bob
Yes.
Because there are no non-trivial circles in the trivial space {0}.
I don't think there exists a notion of an n-point.
An n-sphere is the set of all points in n+1 dimensional space with a defined measure for which the distance from 0 is equal.
1-sphere, sorry.
Sorry, confused it with the nomenclature 1-circle.
Also, if looked at as a vector space with the operation being multiplication, it really is a 1-dimensional space.
Sorry to be picky, but a soft rubber ball is 3 dimensional and his shapes are 2-D. Have you got a 2-D soft rubber ball by any chance ?
Bob
Sorry to be picky, but his shapes are 1-D ![]()
Math is a subject that is totally based on formulas there are thousands of formulas used in maths, it is not possible to remember all of those formulas you can take help from some apps like Math formulas and Physics formulas.
I don't exactly agree with that. I think it's more about ideas than exact formulas.
'cardinality' is fine, but I think it limits you to {counting numbers}. Number theory is for {reals}
But either definition is good. Can you prove that each implies the other ?
Bob
You can construct it both ways and it would be the same (up to an isomorphism
).
Also, zero isn't defined as the cardinality of {}. It's defined as the empty set itself.
Well, this guys name is August. ![]()
I think it needs to satisfy both.
anonimnystefy wrote:It's a circle, but the inside is not fully collored.
What is the point?
point
n.
1. A sharp or tapered end: the point of a knife; the point of the antenna; EDIT: the point of the head.
Is this what you mean?
One by one? So that is where I have been going wrong.
Not literally. Maybe a phrase would be inside out.
Commands are actually not that hard to read, as long as you go one by one and figure out what every bit does.
It's a circle, but the inside is not fully collored.
Have you tried using the rules of differentiation?
I've learned that there is a very interesting and somewhat natural measure of graph connectedness which also has some nice algebraic properties.
Also, I'm looking to better myself in the study of non-standard analysis, so I've been learning about that a bit too.
No problemo. Did you do the other one?
Today I learned that you can very effectively use linear algebra to solve some combinatorics problems.