Jonathan Peterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Chris Ball wrote:
> >So, another maths exercise. I'll award a pint at the January social
> >meet for the first correct post with the next number in the sequence,
> >and another for an explanation of the sequence itself.
> >
> > 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 2
On Monday, December 09, 2002 10:11 AM, Jonathan Peterson
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
>
> Chris Ball wrote:
> > So, another maths exercise. I'll award a pint at the January social
> > meet for the first correct post with the next number in the sequence,
> > and another for an explanation o
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:37:51PM -0500, Chris Devers wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Mark Fowler wrote:
>
> > I don't know, showing this to a load of Perl coders. Of course we're
> > not going to try and work it out, we're going to try and hack the
> > system. This is such an incitement for a scr
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Chris Devers wrote:
> Consider the word wored 'chewed'. It has two personal pronouns in it --
> 'he' and 'we'. Can you find a six letter word that has six pronouns it it?
I figured out 'ushers' for myself, with the list provided from kake's
link. Then I tried a few other thin
Chris Ball wrote:
So, another maths exercise. I'll award a pint at the January social
meet for the first correct post with the next number in the sequence,
and another for an explanation of the sequence itself.
2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 60
The next number is 61, then
On Sun 08 Dec 2002, Chris Devers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Consider the word wored 'chewed'. It has two personal pronouns in it --
> 'he' and 'we'. Can you find a six letter word that has six pronouns it it?
You utter, utter bastard. Look what you made me do:
http://the.earth.li/~kake/code/p
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Mark Fowler wrote:
> I don't know, showing this to a load of Perl coders. Of course we're
> not going to try and work it out, we're going to try and hack the
> system. This is such an incitement for a script that sends all the
> numbers from one to hundred thousand to the lis
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Chris Ball wrote:
> So, another maths exercise. I'll award a pint at the January social
> meet for the first correct post with the next number in the sequence,
> and another for an explanation of the sequence itself.
New rule: no random guessing
I don't know, showing this
So, another maths exercise. I'll award a pint at the January social
meet for the first correct post with the next number in the sequence,
and another for an explanation of the sequence itself.
2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 60
Good luck, :-)
- Chris.
--
$a="printf.net"; Ch
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Chris Ball wrote:
> >> On 2002-12-02 21:40:47, Paul Makepeace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> I should point out I was shooting for "first post" to get it in
>> before Shevek, Tony, Chris et al rather than any real attempt at
>> technical accuracy :-) :-)
>
> Why,
: assume two numbers a & b, where a = b.
:
: step 1: a = b
: step 2: a2 = ab [ after you multiply both sides by a ]
pffft
but it did confuse me for about 10 minutes.
--cal
** For great Emap magazine subscription & gift offers visit
http://www.emapmagazines.co.uk **
---
>> On 2002-12-02 21:40:47, Paul Makepeace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I should point out I was shooting for "first post" to get it in
> before Shevek, Tony, Chris et al rather than any real attempt at
> technical accuracy :-) :-)
Why, I'm honoured to be included with such eminent mathema
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 09:31:46PM +, Earle Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 09:18:45PM +, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> > This is totally spurious.
>
> /me sends this back to where he got the thing from in the first place. :)
I should point out I was shooting for "first post" to get it
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 09:18:45PM +, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> This is totally spurious.
/me sends this back to where he got the thing from in the first place. :)
--
alarm in tree
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 08:46:32PM +, Earle Martin wrote:
> and in general:
>
> x + x + . + x = x^2
> \___ x times ___/
>
> Derive in place:
>
> 1 + 1 + . + 1 = 2 x
> \___ x times ___/
>
>1 * x = 2 x
If you're going to do differentiate a function of
I saw this and thought of you people, for some reason.
- Forwarded message -
So I went and found this on a page of math "humor", in particular
of bogus proofs. This one ain't bad; a nice variant to a classic.
The aim is to prove that 1 = 2.
Notice the following:
1
16 matches
Mail list logo
