Comments for The Mumbling Mathematician http://zetahype.wordpress.com ...a godsend to the millions who look around on slow news days and wonder “Whats goin’ on..in mathematics these days?” Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:21:16 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Making It Count: The Pigeonhole Principle by Making It Count: Counting the complement « The Mumbling Mathematician http://zetahype.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/making-it-count-the-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-31 Making It Count: Counting the complement « The Mumbling Mathematician Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:21:16 +0000 http://zetahype.wordpress.com/?p=5#comment-31 [...] under: Uncategorized — zetahype @ 1:21 am Here’s the much delayed second part of the Making It Count series which was launched with much fanfare a month ago. The counting technique I will present is [...] [...] under: Uncategorized — zetahype @ 1:21 am Here’s the much delayed second part of the Making It Count series which was launched with much fanfare a month ago. The counting technique I will present is [...]

]]> Comment on The power of armchair physics by jtankers http://zetahype.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/the-power-of-armchair-physics/#comment-30 jtankers Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:04:40 +0000 http://zetahype.wordpress.com/?p=66#comment-30 The discovery of dark energy might cause us to call Hawking Radiation "Reverse Hawking Radiation" (consuming virtual particle pairs might explain what black holes are feeding on...) Do you know what you get when you mix high energy colliders with Professor Otto Rossler's charged micro black hole theory? Answer: a golf ball http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.20min.ch%2Fnews%2Fwissen%2Fstory%2F24668213&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=de&tl=en The discovery of dark energy might cause us to call Hawking Radiation “Reverse Hawking Radiation” (consuming virtual particle pairs might explain what black holes are feeding on…)

Do you know what you get when you mix high energy colliders with Professor Otto Rossler’s charged micro black hole theory?

Answer: a golf ball

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.20min.ch%2Fnews%2Fwissen%2Fstory%2F24668213&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=de&tl=en

]]> Comment on The Holographic Principle.. by zetahype http://zetahype.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/the-holomorphic-principle/#comment-29 zetahype Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:02:18 +0000 http://zetahype.wordpress.com/?p=22#comment-29 hehe..Your TQFT friends better come up with a Bartlett manoeuvre of some sort then hehe..Your TQFT friends better come up with a Bartlett manoeuvre of some sort then

]]> Comment on Everyday Mathematics: The Dirac Spin by zetahype http://zetahype.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/everyday-mathematics-the-dirac-spin/#comment-28 zetahype Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:58:04 +0000 http://zetahype.wordpress.com/?p=53#comment-28 watch the video in the link zeeky..imagine your palm tracing a spiral! watch the video in the link zeeky..imagine your palm tracing a spiral!

]]> Comment on Everyday Mathematics: The Dirac Spin by zeeky http://zetahype.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/everyday-mathematics-the-dirac-spin/#comment-27 zeeky Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:46:44 +0000 http://zetahype.wordpress.com/?p=53#comment-27 Very interesting, when you say "...it takes a continuous 720 degrees rotation...", is that hypothetical, I can't seem to rotate 720 degrees continuously. Very interesting, when you say “…it takes a continuous 720 degrees rotation…”, is that hypothetical, I can’t seem to rotate 720 degrees continuously.

]]> Comment on Everyday Mathematics: The Dirac Spin by zetahype http://zetahype.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/everyday-mathematics-the-dirac-spin/#comment-26 zetahype Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:28:32 +0000 http://zetahype.wordpress.com/?p=53#comment-26 Not S0(2). It is because SU(2) is a double covering of S0(3). Not S0(2). It is because SU(2) is a double covering of S0(3).

]]> Comment on Everyday Mathematics: The Dirac Spin by Anonymous http://zetahype.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/everyday-mathematics-the-dirac-spin/#comment-25 Anonymous Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:49:15 +0000 http://zetahype.wordpress.com/?p=53#comment-25 I believe it is because SU(2) covers SO(2)? I believe it is because SU(2) covers SO(2)?

]]> Comment on Psyprobs 1 by Psyprobs 2 « The Mumbling Mathematician http://zetahype.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/psyprobs-1/#comment-21 Psyprobs 2 « The Mumbling Mathematician Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:55:18 +0000 http://zetahype.wordpress.com/?p=14#comment-21 [...] Filed under: Uncategorized — zetahype @ 9:55 am I had presented two betting scenarios in Psyprobs 1: coin-tossing and poker. A friend of mine has mailed in with a fairly comprehensive analysis of the [...] [...] Filed under: Uncategorized — zetahype @ 9:55 am I had presented two betting scenarios in Psyprobs 1: coin-tossing and poker. A friend of mine has mailed in with a fairly comprehensive analysis of the [...]

]]> Comment on Making It Count: The Pigeonhole Principle by zetahype http://zetahype.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/making-it-count-the-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-20 zetahype Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:41:51 +0000 http://zetahype.wordpress.com/?p=5#comment-20 umm..i did..the party of 6 problem is the one I solved in the second example. umm..i did..the party of 6 problem is the one I solved in the second example.

]]> Comment on Making It Count: The Pigeonhole Principle by Meech http://zetahype.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/making-it-count-the-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-19 Meech Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:39:18 +0000 http://zetahype.wordpress.com/?p=5#comment-19 You were talking about Ramsey numbers but didnt introduce the Party Problem? That I would have thought would be the party piece. You were talking about Ramsey numbers but didnt introduce the Party Problem? That I would have thought would be the party piece.

]]>