Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Permalink
View Article Stats      (5 comments)

Rove isn't a "genius". He's just an evil pig who fights dirty

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan   -- Page 3 of 3 page(s)

opednews.com

(2.) What happens when you try to find the indefinite integral for the pdf (probability density function) of the normal random variable?  Note, the graph of this pdf is the famous bell shaped curve.

(3.) The quadratic equation has the quadratic formula for its closed for solution. Does the fifth degree (quintic) polynomial also have a closed from solution? If not, why not?

(4.) Fermat’s Last Theorem argued that x^n = y^n + z^n (sorry about the carrot notation for exponents) was true only if n = 2.  For example if n is a counting number greater than 2, it would  always be false.  This was undecided for hundreds of years, but fairly recently a proof was found.  Did the proof confirm or deny Fermat’s conjecture?

********************************************************************************

 Ok Karl, here’s the dope;

(1.) Absolutely not.  Indeed confusing mathematics with its symbology may well be the most common misunderstanding of mathematics.  Math is what the notation is “about”, not mathematics itself, almost exactly like musical notation which is itself not music, but “directions” that tell you what to do to make music.  Now of course math music is intellectual, but it can still be exceedingly beautiful.

(2.) Nothing happens because the normal pdf is a transcendental function without a corresponding indefinite integral.  Said differently, there IS NO function whose derivative is that pdf.  So, April Fool, not all functions can be integrated.

(3.) No, there is no closed form solution (even though there is for linear, quadratic, cubic, and quartic polynomials).  The “why” question was a dirty trick, since this discovery helped to open up a vast area of abstract math called modern algebra (VERY different from ordinary algebra).

(4.) Yes, it was proved to be true a few years ago, but take a deep breath before you look at the proof, because it is a very long, convoluted monster of subtlety.

********************************************************************************

What do you think, folks? Did “genius” Karl Rove answer even one question? 

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

A liberal American, PhD mathematician, bipedal Earthling.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Follow Me on Twitter

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Bill, Bill, Bill... by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 8:50:24 PM
inertial motion by W. Christopher Epler (Bill) on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 9:18:50 PM
Karl Rove is a crook. by John Hanks on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:43:30 AM
great image by W. Christopher Epler (Bill) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:42:56 PM
Rove is no genius by Bryan Emmel on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:24:02 AM