Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
User Profile: billh0_@_ahoo.com
|
 |
|
|
User Profile for: billh0_@_ahoo.com
|
|
UserID:
|
851458
|
|
Name:
|
William Hale
|
|
Email:
|
|
|
Registered:
|
5/2/12
|
|
Total Posts:
|
48
|
|
Recent Messages
|
Discussion
|
Posted
|
|
1
|
Re: This is False. 0/0 {x | x ~e x} e {x | x ~e x} A single Principle to Resolve Several Paradoxes
|
sci.math.independent
|
Feb 4, 2013 2:33 PM
|
|
2
|
Re: Knuth lecture
|
sci.math.independent
|
Dec 20, 2012 11:53 PM
|
|
3
|
Re: How do you prove that 2+2=4? Is it enough to consider 2 objects, then 2 more then put them together and count them and get 4, or do you have to resort to fancy-schmancy methods?
|
sci.math.independent
|
Nov 18, 2012 7:45 PM
|
|
4
|
Re: How do you prove that 2+2=4? Is it enough to consider 2 objects, then 2 more then put them together and count them and get 4, or do you have to resort to fancy-schmancy methods?
|
sci.math.independent
|
Nov 16, 2012 1:05 AM
|
|
5
|
Re: How do you prove that 2+2=4? Is it enough to consider 2 objects, then 2 more then put them together and count them and get 4, or do you have to resort to fancy-schmancy methods?
|
sci.math.independent
|
Nov 16, 2012 12:33 AM
|
|
6
|
Re: Cantor's diagonal argument: Simplified
|
sci.math.independent
|
Nov 12, 2012 8:21 PM
|
|
7
|
Re: Cantor's diagonal argument: Simplified
|
sci.math.independent
|
Nov 12, 2012 8:17 PM
|
|
8
|
Re: Cantor's diagonal argument: Simplified
|
sci.math.independent
|
Nov 8, 2012 10:00 PM
|
|
9
|
Re: Cantor's diagonal argument: Simplified
|
sci.math.independent
|
Nov 8, 2012 4:40 PM
|
|
10
|
Re: Toward a Formal, Machine-Parsable Definition of a Category
|
sci.math.independent
|
Nov 2, 2012 2:43 PM
|
Show all user messages
|
|
