492:
highest s_1, then the lowest s_g, then the opposite of those and check everything between them. This is just for finding the best solution. If all you need is a good solution, I'd split them up so each group has about the same number of elements, then move the splits between adjacent groups so both groups are closer to the mean until I can't do that any more, then I'd do it so it just decreases the standard deviation, then, if that's not good enough, I'd jiggling the borders a bit and trying again a few times. I'd program the computer to do this. I wouldn't just to it by hand unless it was only about a dozen elements in three or four groups (two groups is trivial). —
950:
those ideal division points fall. For instance, were we to divide the set {1,3,1} - whose sum is 5 - into 2 groups, our single ideal division point would fall within the second figure, 3, at a "distance" of 2.5 from the beginning of the data set. Now, add all such disputed figures to the group to their left or right - doesn't matter which, but it must be consistent for all disputed figures - and you'll have wound up with as many groups as you required, the maximum difference between the sums of any two of which is twice the largest figure in the initial set, as said above.)
1746:
false, in any part of the proof). The reason I find for this is that the difference is trivial; I think we can agree that the heart of the proof here is the part where I take a group G such that G/Z(G) is cyclic and show that it is abelian. It then doesn't really matter how I embed it in the entire proof; A real proof by reductio ad absurdum would go something like: "We want to prove that for every group G, if G is nonabelian then G/Z(G) is not cyclic. Assume otherwise. Then there exists a group G such that (G nonabelian -: -->
1027:(p. 722, Exercise 27.4); I can't promise they compute geodesic distance, but they may help answer the question behind the question. Usually computing a geodesic means solving a differential equation. If we require a geodesic between two given points, this becomes a boundary-value problem, more difficult than an initial-value problem. Computing the length of the geodesic may be the easier part. However, some geometries allow multiple geodesic paths between distant points, which can complicate the determination of "distance". --
1894:. Logical equivalency of the boolean statements does not mean that the methods are the same. By that reasoning, there's no point in making the difference between proving the contrapositive and making a direct proof, a claim that I would hope you won't care to assert. Your professors are not always right. I'm not always right. But in this case, I am. That's my last word on this.
163:-1 boundaries at position 0 (that is, before the first element, so that all but one substring are empty and the other is the whole sequence), and then for every boundary move it to the right if that reduces the difference between the sums of its left and right substring neighbors. Repeat this adjustment until no moves are possible (this obviously cannot take more than
914:
less important to me than minimizing the difference between the shortest and the longest column (in other words, the smallest and largest group sum), which has the added advantage of being much easier to calculate. Furthermore, I have been offered an algorithm which insures, within what seems like a reasonable time (I
1330:
Did you look at the article today? After your first post I glanced at it and filled out missing seminal citations. That should make it much easier to find contemporary papers, because they will cite these. Web searching is a skill worth honing; so much is now on line, the challenge is to know how and
811:
I came back to check if anybody had any additional comments, and the person who had additional comments turns out to be me! For every one of the partitions, you still have to sum over M sums (and generate them, although we did cover a trick for that earlier), so the complexity of my solution is more
108:
Let there be an ordered set of figures, for instance, {1,2,3,4,5}. I must split into N groups, each consisting of a continuous subset of figures. (That is, I may split the above set into 2 groups like this: {{1,2},{3,4,5}}, but not like this: {{1,5},{2,3,4}}.) In splitting, my goal is to minimize the
1927:
Do you promise? Then, if you're not too tired out from that, if you've finished wallowing in the afterglow of a deliciously pointless and overblown argument, perhaps you could contribute an answer the poster's question. I assume you do know the answer, as familiar as you are with the ins and outs of
1745:
You are correct; however, in my experience the distinction is blurry not only in the words of grad students, but of proffesors as well (in fact, I don't recall them ever using the term "contrapositive"; they would use "proof by contradiction" or variations thereof whenever they assume anything to be
1481:
I really don't know where this comes from. And I must say I just don't know what to do in such cases, as I haven't had much training with sums. Could you just give some general indications on what to do with such sums (and others)? Because here I just don't know where to start, and it must be so for
913:
OP once more. The problem, for those who were wondering, is one of text layout - splitting indivisible paragraphs over an arbitrary number of columns. I am much obliged for all your kind help. Having consulted certain knowledgeable individuals, however, I realized that standard deviation is probably
1965:
I'm not angry. And I didn't say anything about the answer because you're right, Meni, the hint that you provided is more than adequate to find the answer (in fact, that's about as much of an "answer" as a good text book would provide in the back of the book... I had one
Algebra prof who would go a
949:
complexity), that this difference is no more than twice the largest figure in the initial set. (I'll be happy to elaborate and provide a proof if anybody's interested, but here's a quick overview: sum the entire initial set, divide this sum into as many groups as you require, and find within which
1547:
Yes, a good way to solve it is assuming for contradiction that G/Z(G) is cyclic, and reach a contradiction by showing that G is in this case abelian. So you have to show that every two elements of G commute. Now, if you have some element of G, how can you represent it using the factor group? --
736:
2 where M is the number of resulting groups, the simplest way to handle this is divide and conquer; Iterate over all possible splittings of the given data set into two sets {A,B} and then try to conquer B by splitting it into M-1 groups. The runtime complexity will be directly proportional to
1653:
It's a matter of how you call things, really. You can say that I have proved the contrapositive of the original statement, that if G/Z(G) is cyclic then G is abelian, and you can say (which I did) that I assumed otherwise for the sake of contradiction, and reached the conclusion that G is both
491:
Let's call it n numbers in g groups with sums s_1, s_2, ..., s_g, and a mean of m. Is there a simple way to find the best with s_1 <= s_2 <= ... <= s_g? If so, I'd find that and its opposite, then check everything in between. If not, I'd find s_1 <= s_2 <= ... <= s_g with the
280:
You do not know the mean of the sums, you only know their weighted mean which, if I understand the problem correctly, is irrelevant. You have reminded me that there is no immediately obvious way to test a solution, so despite what I have said before, I'm not even sure this problem is in NP. --
1803:
While I'm sympathetic, I lean towards Donald's side. There are problems where considering the contrapositive and contradiction alternatives give you two different avenues of attack. It's worthwhile to maintain the distinction if for no other reason than to make sure both these avenues are
1020:
Depending on the metric, computing geodesics — much less geodesic distance — can be a challenge; but this metric is deliberately simplified, and of cosmological interest. Follow the links in the article, search the web and standard physics sources. You can find a discussion in
982:
and I wonder if one of them is the thing I am looking for. The proper length looks quite nice but unfortunately the definition does not seem to be restricted to geodesics. (I wonder if such an arbitrary looking definition makes sense anyway.) I just found that it says
1813:
The difference is quite obviously one of method. Care needs to be taken with proof. Your description of proof by contradiction is not quite correct. In Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, for example, we start by the premise that there exists a largest prime
433:
794:
if I'm not mistaken. (Say you have 12 numbers... that means there's 11 split points possible... As M is the number of groups that art to be chosen , M-1 is the number of split points that must be chosen as a result). Take this with a grain of salt.
134:
problems, and if that is the case, there isn't really a "good" answer. A partial answer might be possible if you elaborate on what is the application, what is a typical size for the set, whether you would accept approximate solutions, and so on. --
1774:
It's not just a matter of a couple syllables. The value of mathematics lies in the precision of its language. As for professors who mis-speak about contrapositive vs contradiction, I'd like to have a conversation with their PhD advisors some time.
2063:
you can derive the other. (Therefore neither rule is intuitionistically valid for proving existential statements). If you wanted to formalize what you could do with one that you can't do with the other, it would probably have to take some form of
1156:
1477:
991:. So it looks as if both of them do not help me, do they? Anyway, can I use Riemannian normal coordinates (exponential coordinates in maths jargon, I think) to calculate the geodesic distance? Or would you propose another ansatz? --
1261:
At first glance I also thought a highly symmetric manifold as RW-spacetime would admit quite simple geodesics, but it doesn't. What worries me most ist the fact that there do not seem to be geodesics with constant time, as constant
1255:
1748:
G abelian), it follows that there exists a group of G such that G is abelian and nonabelian, QEA". None of the differences between this proof and my version of it are, in my opinion, deep enough to deserve much attention. --
1950:
Donald: No need to get angry. No one is trying to say you are wrong, or that our professors are right. We are merely describing a phenomenon that happens in practice, and explaining why, in our opinion, it is so common. --
159:, because of the substring constraint. You also know the mean of the sums (useful in calculating their standard deviation), of course. Then, as an approximate solution (or perhaps initial guess) you can start with all
2103:
from your assumptions, there's no little bell that rings in your head and says "hey, wait a minute, this is fishy, the situation shouldn't look like this" -- because, as it's an impossible situation, there's nothing it
953:
Anyway, thanks for all your suggestions, guys. I'll keep watching for answers to this question, just for curiosity's sake - and of course, should I amazingly come up with an answer of my own, I'll be sure to post it. —
1320:
is not quite helpful. Searching the web is what I did for several days before asking here, so that did not bring enlightenment. Seems like I have to look out for a "bible". Thanks for the hint. I hope it helps me. --
266:
is good enough, you can then consider moving each subset of the boundaries by one element to see if that improves things. I'll let you know if anything else occurs to me; it might be useful to consider how to simply
1977:
Slightly off topic, but my personal taste is an "all or nothing" approach; I like struggling with a problem to solve it all by myself, but if that fails, I don't mind having the solution spelled out for me. --
1804:
considered. I think it's important that students understand the difference from a logical perspective. But, I have no interest in a fight on this matter and I'm willing to admit it's personal preference.
883:
885:, and of course I'm not even tackling adding complexity of adding numbers of significant size (like 1 MB binary representation anybody?) Again, I still say take with a grain of salt, as without actually
689:
614:
1562:
Just a quick nit here contrapositive and contradiction are not the same thing. Contradiction is that you assume that the statement is false and it leads to a contradiction. For example, proving that
792:
1763:
Just to add to the fun, it's worth mentioning that to prove a statement by contradiction and to prove its contrapositive by contradiction are logically identical. That is, to show A ==: -->
733:
545:
66:
59:
45:
1992:
That's fair, sorry. Since the discussion is wandering around a bit, I wonder if I could add a secondary question: What does Z(G) represent? I don't think I've learned that notation yet.
2162:
What is the name of the polyhedron that is built of 12 identical rhombus faces? I couldn't find it in all the polyhedra articles and lists but I'm quite sure it has a name. Thank you.
1947:
Black Carrot: You already know that we do not hand out homework answers here (which this question very well may be). I have already provided enough of a hint for the solution for now.
264:
55:
51:
1784:
I also find the distinction between the by contrapositive and by contradiction methods uninformative. In reality, when we do a proof, the conditional we are proving is A AND ==: -->
1642:
1586:
is irrational by assuming that it is rational and showing that this leads to a logical contradiction. Proving the contrapositive, on the other hand, relies on the equivalence of
298:
947:
1709:
1584:
1314:
1287:
1966:
lot farther than that when I asked him about how to do a proof and I found it actually a bit annoying. I didn't want the answer, I wanted to know how to find the answer).
200:
974:
At the science desk, I was given the advice to pose my question here: I am trying to find out, what the geodesic distance in a
Robertson-Walker-metric is. I came across
1732:
1610:
1041:
1362:
735:. For the number of resulting groups equaling two, you could find the minimal group sum standard deviation in just 2 passes over the entire dataset. For M : -->
112:
An example: say I am required to split the set {1,1,200,200} into two groups. The correct way to split it, in line with the above rule, is into {{1,1,200},{200}}.
1892:
1872:
1852:
1832:
25:
1317:
985:"For instance, if one measured the distance along a straight line or geodesic between the two points, one would not be correctly measuring comoving distance."
466:
solution? Even if there's not, that's not necessarily news, of course, since we can easily test the decision problem "Does there exist a path no longer than
1676:. Proof by contradiction requires that you assume the negation of your proposition (which in this case is an implication, so we're actually talking about
1162:
85:
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the
448:
You are of course correct, I've been thinking about this backwards. I do feel mortified for erring while trying to correct another, and I apologize. --
115:
I don't need an answer (although that would be nice) as much as a hint as to where to start looking. (How are such algorithms called, to begin with.) —
1331:
where to look. My first impulse in seeking advice for this would be to ask physicists, not mathematicians. More specifically, search and post at the
1734:) and then get a conclusion which is both true and false. It's a common mistake. I've seen grad students make it. But it's still a mistake.
2112:, it's very vulnerable to small, apparently inessential errors, which can allow you to derive both a statement and its negation by mistake.
1036:
Well, for the easiest, spatially flat case, I have the system of ODEs, they are 2nd order nonlinear, coupled with nonconstant coefficents:
37:
1357:
I've passed some exams lately (and did quite badly), and I couldn't figure out a few questions, especially the proof of this equality :
1932:
in all its bewitching subtlety. They did, after all, say that they already knew what format the proof should be in, and asked for help
1537:
Show that if G is nonabelian, then the factor group G/Z(G is not cyclic. I think I need to use the contrapositive, but I am stuck.
21:
1747:
G/Z(G) not cyclic) is false, that is, G is nonabelian and G/Z(G) is cyclic. From this and from the lemma that (G/Z(G) cyclic -: -->
815:
619:
2059:
difference between proof by contradiction and proof by contrapositive. More precisely, if you add either inference method to
550:
2180:
2151:
2030:
2002:
1987:
1970:
1960:
1939:
1898:
1808:
1798:
1779:
1769:
1758:
1738:
1663:
1648:
1557:
1521:
1503:
1489:
1342:
1325:
1031:
1013:
1006:
995:
963:
904:
806:
496:
478:
457:
443:
435:(with liberally inventive notation), regardless of the sizes of the groups, right? What we don't know is the mean of the
290:
275:
144:
124:
2143:). So, if you have some experience in the area, you have a sense of what sort of thing is reasonable in the case that ¬
463:
462:
No harm at all done! On the subject of NP membership, though, is there an easy way to test the optimality of, say, a
152:
2091:
and trying to derive a contradiction, the problem is that (assuming the theorem you're trying to prove is actually
740:
694:
506:
1787:. These are logically equivalent statements. And I've also had professors who called both contradiction proofs.
1983:
1956:
1754:
1659:
1553:
1517:
453:
286:
140:
86:
17:
1764:
B by contradiction means assuming A and ~B, and then arriving at a contradiction. Same for proving ~B ==: -->
737:
number of possible partitions given your conditions. The number of partitions is given by N-1 Choose M-1 or
428:{\displaystyle {\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{g=1}^{N}\sum _{i=1}^{n_{g}}x_{n_{gi}}={\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}x_{i}}
1482:
many others (and even if this sum just simplifies in a special way, could you still give me more advice ?).
205:
2068:
as the base theory, and relevance logic is generally hard to work with or even make precise in generality.
1994:
1322:
992:
1999:
1936:
1615:
1500:
1010:
202:
time, including the summing). I'm not sure if there's a polynomial-time way to finish the job, but if
2166:
2060:
1669:
900:
802:
921:
691:
are pretty trivial since by finding one of the smaller sums, you find the other by subtraction from
1979:
1952:
1750:
1679:
1655:
1549:
1513:
1486:
449:
282:
136:
1151:{\displaystyle {\ddot {\gamma }}^{0}+H(t)a^{2}(t)\sum _{i}\left({\dot {\gamma }}^{i}\right)^{2}=0}
1496:
1023:
1565:
1335:
1292:
1265:
2095:) you're working in an impossible situation. So when you get to the "end", where you've proved
1644:. What Meni has described here is in fact the contrapositive and not a proof by contradiction.
1472:{\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\sqrt {1-4x}}}=1+\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {(2n)!}{(n!)^{2}}}x^{n}}
1967:
1895:
1776:
1735:
1654:
nonabelian (given) and abelian (which we show), which is the contradiction we have sought. --
1645:
988:
975:
166:
2147:
holds, and you can compare the assertions that show up in your proof with that intuition. --
1793:
1714:
1589:
2065:
894:
796:
893:
the answer should be. Writing the program may reveal something I had not considered.
2175:
2148:
1673:
959:
120:
1877:
1857:
1837:
1817:
2025:
1805:
1766:
1509:
1338:. Keep in mind that this metric goes by several different names and abbreviations. --
1250:{\displaystyle {\ddot {\gamma }}^{i}+2H(t){\dot {\gamma }}^{0}{\dot {\gamma }}^{i}=0}
979:
493:
1788:
475:
440:
272:
131:
1339:
1028:
2170:
1332:
955:
116:
1668:
You can call a rock a loaf of bread, but that doesn't make it edible. Read
74:
2055:
On the contradiction-v-contrapositive question, in some sense there's no
474:, but I feel like the function problem deserves an NP-like test too. --
104:
Splitting an ordered set while minimizing group sum standard deviation
2018:; that is, the set of elements that commute with every element of
2108:
look like. That means that, while the methodology is technically
1005:? If so, it's apparently tied to general relativity, which makes
151:
It's worth noting that what you're looking for is a (particular)
1002:
1834:, and then demonstrate that there exists some natural number
878:{\displaystyle \textstyle O\left({\binom {N-1}{M-1}}M\right)}
109:
standard deviation of the sums of the figures in each group.
79:
Welcome to the
Knowledge Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
2123:, you have a lot more of a safety net, because presumably ¬
1318:
Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric#External Links
684:{\displaystyle \textstyle \sum _{S+1}^{N}x_{i}=s_{upper}}
295:
Are you sure we don't know that mean? That mean is just
609:{\displaystyle \textstyle \sum _{1}^{S}x_{i}=s_{lower}}
925:
819:
744:
698:
623:
554:
510:
1880:
1860:
1840:
1820:
1717:
1682:
1618:
1592:
1568:
1365:
1295:
1268:
1165:
1044:
924:
818:
743:
697:
622:
553:
509:
301:
208:
169:
1316:as well, through the first equation. Unfortunately
1886:
1866:
1846:
1826:
1786:~A OR . Proof by contradiction is ~B AND A ==: -->
1726:
1703:
1636:
1604:
1578:
1471:
1308:
1281:
1249:
1150:
941:
877:
786:
727:
683:
608:
539:
427:
258:
194:
2131:possible (otherwise you'd usually try to prove
1512:, though that will be harder in this case. --
787:{\displaystyle \textstyle {\binom {N-1}{M-1}}}
2071:However, there is indeed a big difference in
860:
831:
777:
748:
728:{\displaystyle \textstyle \sum _{1}^{N}x_{i}}
540:{\displaystyle \textstyle \sum _{1}^{N}x_{i}}
8:
1508:Yes, indeed. An alternative way is to use
1003:Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric
1879:
1859:
1839:
1819:
1716:
1681:
1617:
1591:
1569:
1567:
1463:
1450:
1417:
1411:
1400:
1366:
1364:
1300:
1294:
1273:
1267:
1235:
1224:
1223:
1216:
1205:
1204:
1179:
1168:
1167:
1164:
1136:
1126:
1115:
1114:
1102:
1083:
1058:
1047:
1046:
1043:
923:
859:
830:
828:
817:
776:
747:
745:
742:
718:
708:
703:
696:
662:
649:
639:
628:
621:
587:
574:
564:
559:
552:
530:
520:
515:
508:
419:
409:
398:
384:
370:
365:
353:
348:
337:
327:
316:
302:
300:
244:
219:
207:
180:
168:
2115:On the other hand, when you start with ¬
49:
36:
65:
271:whether a given choice is optimal. --
259:{\displaystyle O(2^{N}n)\ll O(2^{n}n)}
43:
2014:) represents the center of the group
1785:B. This has contrapositive ~B ==: -->
7:
1499:of (1-4x)^(-1/2) might be involved.
155:of the cardinality of your sequence
130:This smells like one of those nasty
1718:
1683:
1637:{\displaystyle \lnot B\to \lnot A}
1628:
1619:
1412:
835:
752:
32:
1874:has a prime divisor greater than
503:Just remember, If you calculate
942:{\displaystyle \textstyle O(n)}
1704:{\displaystyle \lnot (A\to B)}
1698:
1692:
1686:
1625:
1596:
1534:I want to prove the following
1447:
1437:
1429:
1420:
1200:
1194:
1095:
1089:
1076:
1070:
935:
929:
253:
237:
228:
212:
189:
173:
1:
1007:Geodesic (general relativity)
33:
1579:{\displaystyle {\sqrt {2}}}
1309:{\displaystyle \gamma ^{i}}
1282:{\displaystyle \gamma ^{0}}
2197:
547:first, finding the sums
195:{\displaystyle O(N^{2}n)}
2181:21:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
2152:22:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
2031:20:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
2003:04:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
1997:20:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1988:22:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1971:16:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1961:10:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1940:06:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1899:05:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1809:05:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1799:04:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1780:02:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1770:23:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
1759:23:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
1739:23:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
1664:22:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
1649:22:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
1558:20:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
1522:19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
1504:19:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
1490:18:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
1343:21:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1326:18:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1032:09:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1014:06:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
996:16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
964:00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
905:12:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
807:05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
497:18:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
479:23:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
458:22:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
444:22:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
291:16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
276:13:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
145:12:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
125:12:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Reference desk
1727:{\displaystyle \lnot B}
889:, I can only give what
470:?" with given path and
2135:outright, rather than
1888:
1868:
1848:
1828:
1728:
1705:
1638:
1606:
1605:{\displaystyle A\to B}
1580:
1473:
1416:
1336:sci.physics.relativity
1310:
1283:
1251:
1152:
943:
918:with what you'll call
879:
788:
729:
713:
685:
644:
610:
569:
541:
525:
429:
414:
360:
332:
260:
196:
87:current reference desk
1934:taking it from there.
1889:
1869:
1849:
1829:
1729:
1706:
1639:
1607:
1581:
1474:
1396:
1311:
1284:
1252:
1153:
944:
880:
789:
730:
699:
686:
624:
611:
555:
542:
511:
430:
394:
333:
312:
261:
197:
2167:Rhombic dodecahedron
2061:intuitionistic logic
1878:
1858:
1838:
1818:
1715:
1680:
1670:Reductio ad absurdam
1616:
1590:
1566:
1363:
1293:
1266:
1163:
1042:
922:
816:
741:
695:
620:
551:
507:
299:
206:
167:
2119:and try to derive ¬
1353:Sums and factorials
887:writing the program
1884:
1864:
1844:
1824:
1724:
1701:
1634:
1602:
1576:
1497:binomial expansion
1469:
1306:
1289:leads to constant
1279:
1247:
1148:
1107:
1001:Would that be the
939:
938:
875:
874:
784:
783:
725:
724:
681:
680:
606:
605:
537:
536:
439:of the groups. --
425:
256:
192:
1887:{\displaystyle p}
1867:{\displaystyle q}
1847:{\displaystyle q}
1827:{\displaystyle p}
1797:
1574:
1457:
1385:
1384:
1232:
1213:
1176:
1123:
1098:
1055:
989:comoving distance
976:comoving distance
970:Geodesic distance
858:
775:
392:
310:
93:
92:
73:
72:
2188:
1893:
1891:
1890:
1885:
1873:
1871:
1870:
1865:
1853:
1851:
1850:
1845:
1833:
1831:
1830:
1825:
1791:
1733:
1731:
1730:
1725:
1710:
1708:
1707:
1702:
1643:
1641:
1640:
1635:
1611:
1609:
1608:
1603:
1585:
1583:
1582:
1577:
1575:
1570:
1530:Abstract Algabra
1478:
1476:
1475:
1470:
1468:
1467:
1458:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1435:
1418:
1415:
1410:
1386:
1371:
1367:
1315:
1313:
1312:
1307:
1305:
1304:
1288:
1286:
1285:
1280:
1278:
1277:
1256:
1254:
1253:
1248:
1240:
1239:
1234:
1233:
1225:
1221:
1220:
1215:
1214:
1206:
1184:
1183:
1178:
1177:
1169:
1157:
1155:
1154:
1149:
1141:
1140:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1125:
1124:
1116:
1106:
1088:
1087:
1063:
1062:
1057:
1056:
1048:
948:
946:
945:
940:
884:
882:
881:
876:
873:
869:
865:
864:
863:
857:
846:
834:
793:
791:
790:
785:
782:
781:
780:
774:
763:
751:
734:
732:
731:
726:
723:
722:
712:
707:
690:
688:
687:
682:
679:
678:
654:
653:
643:
638:
615:
613:
612:
607:
604:
603:
579:
578:
568:
563:
546:
544:
543:
538:
535:
534:
524:
519:
434:
432:
431:
426:
424:
423:
413:
408:
393:
385:
380:
379:
378:
377:
359:
358:
357:
347:
331:
326:
311:
303:
265:
263:
262:
257:
249:
248:
224:
223:
201:
199:
198:
193:
185:
184:
153:weak composition
75:
38:Mathematics desk
34:
2196:
2195:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2179:
2160:
2075:. When proving
2066:relevance logic
1876:
1875:
1856:
1855:
1836:
1835:
1816:
1815:
1713:
1712:
1711:and not merely
1678:
1677:
1614:
1613:
1588:
1587:
1564:
1563:
1532:
1459:
1446:
1436:
1419:
1361:
1360:
1355:
1296:
1291:
1290:
1269:
1264:
1263:
1222:
1203:
1166:
1161:
1160:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1079:
1045:
1040:
1039:
972:
920:
919:
847:
836:
829:
827:
823:
814:
813:
764:
753:
746:
739:
738:
714:
693:
692:
658:
645:
618:
617:
583:
570:
549:
548:
526:
505:
504:
415:
366:
361:
349:
297:
296:
240:
215:
204:
203:
176:
165:
164:
106:
101:
30:
29:
28:
12:
11:
5:
2194:
2192:
2184:
2183:
2173:
2159:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2113:
2069:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
1995:76.185.123.122
1980:Meni Rosenfeld
1975:
1974:
1973:
1953:Meni Rosenfeld
1948:
1945:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1883:
1863:
1843:
1823:
1811:
1772:
1751:Meni Rosenfeld
1743:
1742:
1741:
1723:
1720:
1700:
1697:
1694:
1691:
1688:
1685:
1674:Contraposition
1656:Meni Rosenfeld
1633:
1630:
1627:
1624:
1621:
1601:
1598:
1595:
1573:
1550:Meni Rosenfeld
1531:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1514:Meni Rosenfeld
1466:
1462:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1442:
1439:
1434:
1431:
1428:
1425:
1422:
1414:
1409:
1406:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1389:
1383:
1380:
1377:
1374:
1370:
1354:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1303:
1299:
1276:
1272:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1246:
1243:
1238:
1231:
1228:
1219:
1212:
1209:
1202:
1199:
1196:
1193:
1190:
1187:
1182:
1175:
1172:
1158:
1147:
1144:
1139:
1134:
1129:
1122:
1119:
1112:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1094:
1091:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1061:
1054:
1051:
1017:
1016:
971:
968:
967:
966:
951:
937:
934:
931:
928:
910:
909:
908:
907:
872:
868:
862:
856:
853:
850:
845:
842:
839:
833:
826:
822:
779:
773:
770:
767:
762:
759:
756:
750:
721:
717:
711:
706:
702:
677:
674:
671:
668:
665:
661:
657:
652:
648:
642:
637:
634:
631:
627:
602:
599:
596:
593:
590:
586:
582:
577:
573:
567:
562:
558:
533:
529:
523:
518:
514:
500:
499:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
450:Meni Rosenfeld
422:
418:
412:
407:
404:
401:
397:
391:
388:
383:
376:
373:
369:
364:
356:
352:
346:
343:
340:
336:
330:
325:
322:
319:
315:
309:
306:
283:Meni Rosenfeld
255:
252:
247:
243:
239:
236:
233:
230:
227:
222:
218:
214:
211:
191:
188:
183:
179:
175:
172:
148:
147:
137:Meni Rosenfeld
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
91:
90:
82:
81:
71:
70:
64:
48:
41:
40:
31:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2193:
2182:
2177:
2172:
2168:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2157:
2153:
2150:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2134:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2111:
2107:
2102:
2098:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2078:
2074:
2070:
2067:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2053:
2032:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2009:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2001:
1998:
1996:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1976:
1972:
1969:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1949:
1946:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1938:
1935:
1931:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1900:
1897:
1881:
1861:
1841:
1821:
1812:
1810:
1807:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1795:
1790:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1778:
1773:
1771:
1768:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1744:
1740:
1737:
1721:
1695:
1689:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1647:
1631:
1622:
1599:
1593:
1571:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1541:
1538:
1535:
1529:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1510:Taylor series
1507:
1506:
1505:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1488:
1483:
1479:
1464:
1460:
1451:
1443:
1440:
1432:
1426:
1423:
1407:
1404:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1390:
1387:
1381:
1378:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1358:
1352:
1344:
1341:
1337:
1334:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1324:
1323:217.232.42.35
1319:
1301:
1297:
1274:
1270:
1260:
1244:
1241:
1236:
1229:
1226:
1217:
1210:
1207:
1197:
1191:
1188:
1185:
1180:
1173:
1170:
1159:
1145:
1142:
1137:
1132:
1127:
1120:
1117:
1110:
1103:
1099:
1092:
1084:
1080:
1073:
1067:
1064:
1059:
1052:
1049:
1038:
1037:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1019:
1018:
1015:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
994:
993:217.232.40.21
990:
986:
981:
980:proper length
977:
969:
965:
961:
957:
952:
932:
926:
917:
912:
911:
906:
902:
898:
897:
892:
888:
870:
866:
854:
851:
848:
843:
840:
837:
824:
820:
810:
809:
808:
804:
800:
799:
771:
768:
765:
760:
757:
754:
719:
715:
709:
704:
700:
675:
672:
669:
666:
663:
659:
655:
650:
646:
640:
635:
632:
629:
625:
600:
597:
594:
591:
588:
584:
580:
575:
571:
565:
560:
556:
531:
527:
521:
516:
512:
502:
501:
498:
495:
490:
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
460:
459:
455:
451:
447:
446:
445:
442:
438:
420:
416:
410:
405:
402:
399:
395:
389:
386:
381:
374:
371:
367:
362:
354:
350:
344:
341:
338:
334:
328:
323:
320:
317:
313:
307:
304:
294:
293:
292:
288:
284:
279:
278:
277:
274:
270:
250:
245:
241:
234:
231:
225:
220:
216:
209:
186:
181:
177:
170:
162:
158:
154:
150:
149:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
128:
127:
126:
122:
118:
113:
110:
103:
98:
96:
88:
84:
83:
80:
77:
76:
68:
61:
57:
53:
47:
42:
39:
35:
27:
23:
19:
2161:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2109:
2105:
2100:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2084:
2083:by assuming
2080:
2076:
2072:
2056:
2024:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2000:Black Carrot
1993:
1968:Donald Hosek
1937:Black Carrot
1933:
1929:
1896:Donald Hosek
1777:Donald Hosek
1736:Donald Hosek
1646:Donald Hosek
1542:
1539:
1536:
1533:
1501:80.169.64.22
1495:I think the
1484:
1480:
1359:
1356:
1022:
1011:Black Carrot
984:
973:
915:
895:
890:
886:
797:
471:
467:
436:
268:
160:
156:
114:
111:
107:
94:
78:
1024:Gravitation
1009:promising.
132:NP-complete
26:Mathematics
1854:such that
2158:Polyhedra
2149:Trovatore
1333:newsgroup
50:<<
2127:usually
2073:practice
2026:King Bee
1806:J Elliot
1767:J Elliot
1540:Thanks
1485:Thanks.
437:averages
24: |
22:Archives
20: |
2057:logical
891:I think
89:pages.
2106:should
1543:Laura
494:Daniel
476:Tardis
441:Tardis
273:Tardis
99:July 3
67:July 4
46:July 2
2110:valid
2099:and ¬
2087:and ¬
1944:Whoa.
1789:nadav
1765:~A.
1340:KSmrq
1029:KSmrq
916:think
812:like
69:: -->
63:: -->
62:: -->
44:<
16:<
2176:talk
2171:mglg
2169:? --
2093:true
1984:talk
1957:talk
1930:Math
1794:talk
1755:talk
1672:and
1660:talk
1612:and
1554:talk
1518:talk
1487:Xedi
978:and
960:talk
956:Itai
896:Root
798:Root
454:talk
287:talk
269:test
141:talk
121:talk
117:Itai
56:July
2022:. –
987:in
901:one
803:one
464:TSP
60:Aug
52:Jun
2129:is
1986:)
1959:)
1757:)
1719:¬
1693:→
1684:¬
1662:)
1629:¬
1626:→
1620:¬
1597:→
1556:)
1520:)
1413:∞
1398:∑
1376:−
1298:γ
1271:γ
1230:˙
1227:γ
1211:˙
1208:γ
1174:¨
1171:γ
1121:˙
1118:γ
1100:∑
1053:¨
1050:γ
962:)
903:)
852:−
841:−
805:)
769:−
758:−
701:∑
626:∑
557:∑
513:∑
456:)
396:∑
335:∑
314:∑
289:)
232:≪
143:)
123:)
58:|
54:|
2178:)
2174:(
2145:B
2141:B
2139:→
2137:A
2133:B
2125:B
2121:A
2117:B
2101:C
2097:C
2089:B
2085:A
2081:B
2079:→
2077:A
2020:G
2016:G
2012:G
2010:(
2008:Z
1982:(
1955:(
1882:p
1862:q
1842:q
1822:p
1796:)
1792:(
1753:(
1722:B
1699:)
1696:B
1690:A
1687:(
1658:(
1632:A
1623:B
1600:B
1594:A
1572:2
1552:(
1516:(
1465:n
1461:x
1452:2
1448:)
1444:!
1441:n
1438:(
1433:!
1430:)
1427:n
1424:2
1421:(
1408:1
1405:=
1402:n
1394:+
1391:1
1388:=
1382:x
1379:4
1373:1
1369:1
1302:i
1275:0
1245:0
1242:=
1237:i
1218:0
1201:)
1198:t
1195:(
1192:H
1189:2
1186:+
1181:i
1146:0
1143:=
1138:2
1133:)
1128:i
1111:(
1104:i
1096:)
1093:t
1090:(
1085:2
1081:a
1077:)
1074:t
1071:(
1068:H
1065:+
1060:0
958:(
936:)
933:n
930:(
927:O
899:(
871:)
867:M
861:)
855:1
849:M
844:1
838:N
832:(
825:(
821:O
801:(
778:)
772:1
766:M
761:1
755:N
749:(
720:i
716:x
710:N
705:1
676:r
673:e
670:p
667:p
664:u
660:s
656:=
651:i
647:x
641:N
636:1
633:+
630:S
616:,
601:r
598:e
595:w
592:o
589:l
585:s
581:=
576:i
572:x
566:S
561:1
532:i
528:x
522:N
517:1
472:x
468:x
452:(
421:i
417:x
411:n
406:1
403:=
400:i
390:N
387:1
382:=
375:i
372:g
368:n
363:x
355:g
351:n
345:1
342:=
339:i
329:N
324:1
321:=
318:g
308:N
305:1
285:(
254:)
251:n
246:n
242:2
238:(
235:O
229:)
226:n
221:N
217:2
213:(
210:O
190:)
187:n
182:2
178:N
174:(
171:O
161:N
157:n
139:(
119:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.