Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: Matheology � 261
Posted:
May 16, 2013 8:42 PM


"fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message news:XuWdnenVQ7aIiQnMnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 5/15/2013 5:40 PM, AMiews wrote: >> "WM" <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote in message >> news:2910c29a42ce4273893a8a16e2878804@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... >>> On 12 Mai, 23:03, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> The process by which you get any line is not independent of the prior >>>>>> lines having at one time been in existence, so all those prior lines >>>>>> once existed >>>> >>>>> But there is no difference for a line whether or not the preceding >>>>> lines continue to exist. >>>> >>>> Once it has come into existence, its continued existence may not be >>>> needed, but if it never had existed, neither could its successors. >>>> >>>> In a sane world the existence of 2 requires a prior existence of 1, and >>>> existence of any natural n + 1 requires a prior existence of n. >>> >>> So 3 + 4 is 16 because the predecessors of 3 and 4 claim their right? >>> >>> Regards, WM >> >> wrong, >> 3 + 4 = 10 base 7 >> or 3 + 4 = 11 base 6 >> or 3 + 4 = 12 base 5 >> >> So why you say 16 ? >> >> > > 1+2+3=6 > 1+2+3+4=10 > 10+6=16 > > "predecessors of 3 and 4 claim their right" > > "predecessors of n and k claim their right" = = Sum(0 to n) + Sum(0 to k) = = n*(n+1)/2+k*(k+1)/2 =
= (1/4 )* n*k*(n+1)*(k+1)
so what happened to these so called predcessors? and why is there only 1/4 of them ? and why are there preceeders ??



