|
|
Re: Matheology § 038
Posted:
Jun 18, 2012 1:42 PM
|
|
"WM" <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8be2e9ef-783b-46dd-b328-2aef1fdca1b3@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Jun., 13:23, Jürgen R. <jurg...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> schrieb im
>> Newsbeitragnews:b3594a79-0458-45c1-bea2-bc5c8c9d9fe4@e3g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 18 Jun., 12:38, J rgen R. <jurg...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>
>> >> 1, 1, 3, 7, 19, 51, 141, 393, 1107, 3139, 8953,
>> >> 25653, 73789, 212941, 616227, 1787607,
>> >> 5196627, 15134931, 44152809, 128996853,
>> >> 377379369, 1105350729, 3241135527, 9513228123,
>> >> 27948336381, 82176836301, 241813226151, etc.
>>
>> >> Is that better? No? Then you must be mentally
>> >> retarted. Obviously the law of formation is
>>
>> >> Central trinomial coefficients:
>> >> largest coefficient of (1+x+x^2)^n.
>>
>> > Next time you can write, in this context, the expression "1, 1, 3,
>> > 7, ..." and the readers of this post will recognize what you mean.
>> > That's how languages develop. Other examples are 3.14... and 2.718...
>> > No problem of understanding between mathematicians.
>>
>> You are priceless, M ckenheim, but I knew you would fall
>> into this trap.
>>
>> What can a real mathematician tell me about
>>
>> 1, 1, 3, 7, 19, 51, 141, 393, 1107, 3139, 8953,
>> 25653, 73745, etc
>>
>> paying particular attention to the last number,
>> which is not 73789.
>
> You wanted to abbreviate a sequence by a short cut.
Now hold on one frigging minute, Mücke - who wanted to do what?
It was your claim that the abbreviation can serve as a definiton,
not mine. Remember?
And the Euler example serves to demonstrate the absurdity of
your most recent nonsensical claim.
> Where's the
> problem. Shal the short cut now be applied to your original sequence
> or tho the new one?
>>
>> I warned you, M ckenheim - the thing has a history, as every
>> real mathematician knows.
>
> I have better things to do than to scrutinize your numbers.
> I don't believe that every mathematician knows everything from
> history. But be it as it may. Every real mathematician knows that he
> cannot well-order numbers that he cannot distinguish. That has to be
> brought to attention.
You missed the point completely, as usual.
>
> Regards, WM
|
|
