HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies)
Newsgroups: sci.math,rec.music.classical
Subject: Babbitt's Ph.D. (Re: P.Glass and math?)
Summary: ...and also T.Lehrer
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:44:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct14.174418.16388
Organization: Harvard Math Department

In article <1bhqnnINN77v@calvin.usc.edu>
alves@calvin.usc.edu (William Alves) writes:
"In article <1992Oct13.223043.16366@husc3.harvard.edu>
"elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
"
">Meanwhile I note that music theorist David Lewin and serial composer
">Milton Babbitt got their undergraduate degrees in mathematics, and
">math figures prominently in their work.
"
"[...]
"
"Milton Babbitt finally received his doctorate in math from Princeton -
"                                              ^^^^^^^

Are you sure of that?  I had thought it was a music Ph.D.  I'd be very
surprised if the mathematical content was deemed worthy of a Princeton
doctorate in pure mathematics.  At any rate Babbitt's work on serial
music has had to my knowledge no impact on pure math (it was rather
a new _application_ of some well-understood math to a field where its
significance had not been explicitly noted), but it did greatly affect
at least one brand of music composition, so a music degree makes much
more sense.

While I'm at it, I should have said only that Tom Lehrer never finished
his _Harvard_ Ph.D. in math:  he might well have earned a doctorate 
elsewhere.  At one point I read that his teaching duties at Santa Cruz
included Calculus --- though this wouldn't necessarily prove that he
had the Ph.D.

--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: tordm@vand (Tord G.M. Malmgren)
Subject: Re: "The Universe of MOTION" (crackpot index)
Reply-To: TordM@VanA.PhySto.SE
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Stockholm -- Sweden
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:27:20 GMT

In article <Oct.15.08.35.20.1992.24954@paul.rutgers.edu>, marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe) writes:

>I think that jb's otherwise praiseworthy index leaves out a few
>considerations:
>(1)	misciting of physical principles should be worth quite a bit,
>	especially:
>		the laws of thermodynamics
>		the observer effect and wave function collapse
>		the big bang, etc.

 this leads to another typical crack-pot definition -- the mixture and
ill-definitions of variable. As an example, let the effect P=UI speaking
voltage and amperes here, and your general crack-pot'd take that and
equal to mv speaking mass and velocity, and claim that any vehicle that
gets a current of I and voltage of U will travel at speed "UI/m", or
mix that with preasure or any other entity stated in any handbook denoted
by the letter "p" -- big or small, doesn't matter....




---------------+--------------------------------
 Tord Malmgren | InterNet: TordM@VanA.PhySto.SE | These opinions are my OWN,
               | BITNet  : TordM@SESUF51        | and NOT of this department!
---------------+--------------------------------
 Department of Physics, University of Stockholm
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: tedh@cylink.COM (Ted Hadley)
Subject: Real -> fraction algorithm needed
Organization: Cylink Corp.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 17:10:46 GMT

Greetings. I need an algorithm which I can code in 'C' which performs the
following task. This, I feel, is the best place to ask. If this is a common
request, please skip the details and cite a reference. Much appreciated. Here
goes:

Part 1: General case:

Given an real number X, compute to integers A and B such that A/B most
closely approximate X

Part 2: First constraint:

Repeat (1) such that the error, defined as the fractional part of A/(BX), is
within a certain bound (say +/- E) AND A and B are minimized (i.e., the
smallest possible values which produce a quotient with acceptible error).

Part 3: Second contraint: (this is the preferred form)

Given X, E, and Amax and Bmax, where Amax and Bmax are the maximum allowable
integers for A and B, respectively, compute all values of A and B for which
the error E is acceptible. For example: |A| < Amax and |B| < Bmax and some
value for E, list all possible {A, B} for which |fract(A/(BX))| < E.


ANY information is appreciated. I am not, however, a mathematician, and my
math skills are quite rusty. I have no idea how to approach the problem in
order to derive my own solution.

Please E-mail responses. If there are other requests, I will post the
responses. Thanks again.
-- 
Ted A. Hadley  tedh@cylink.COM         "Credo qvia absvrdvm est" -- Tertullian
Cylink Corporation, 310 N. Mary Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086  USA    408-735-5847
All opinions expressed are my own, and probably not liked by my employer.
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: mwaugh@utkvx2.utk.edu (marcie)
Subject: Re: Mattel says "Math is tough."
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:32:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.110256.5388@ms.uky.edu>, cyeomans@ms.uky.edu (Charles Yeomans) writes...
>In article <1992Oct5.191034.27195@Csli.Stanford.EDU> hiraga@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Yuzuru Hiraga) writes:
>>>:         Mattel has just released a new product. A Barbie doll that says
>>>: "Math is tough".
>>>
>>>What would you have her say?: 
>>
>>Not what I'd have her say, but if all of us filed a protest to Mattel,
>>it'll certainly be changed to "Mathematicians are tough".	:-)
>>
>>-YH
> 
>I would have Barbie say "Getting a job in math is tough"
> 

From a former Barbie addict:

Is Barbie influential? You'd better believe it! In my experience: (paraphasing
John Lennon) The Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ and Barbie
more popular than the Beatles. Barbie's business is being popular. Thus,
popular girls don't do math because math is (too) hard and thus uncool.
In fact, the math being taught to Barbies fan club is NOT tough. It is easy,
basic stuff that we all need to get by. Unless you live under a rock and
seldom emerge, the message that math is uncool is a widely distributed myth
among the elementary/ Jr. High crowd (and beyond, for that matter). Pressing
this concept too greater heights, Mattel has now hard-coded this message into
it's primary product, and has engaged it's considerable marketing prowess
to disseminate this information. I suppose we should be glad that Barbie
does NOT say " Math is GRRROOOOOSSSS!!!!!"

BTW: Getting a job WITHOUT math is tough! Barbie will learn this only after
it's (almost, we hope) too late.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
888*********88888********88888********88888********88888********88888******8888
	Marcie                             email : mwaugh@utkvx3.utk.edu  
888*********88888********88888********88888********88888********88888******8888
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Re: Barbie developments
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:29:58 GMT

The sad thing about this announcement is that it could easily come
true.
Xref: sparky sci.math:13286 sci.physics:16613 sci.astro:10839 sci.bio:3591 sci.chem:3946 soc.men:17790 soc.women:17783
From: dms@krang.vis.citri.edu.au (David Mcgregor SQUIRE)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.bio,sci.chem,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Is Math Hard?
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:35:33 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia

Well, I'm not sure how to answer this. I guess I find the maths in maths
course is hard when it seems completely abstract. The funny thing is that
most people swear that the maths I had to do in my advanced physics courses
was harder than the stuff I actually did in maths. I never found it so. I
have always been able to do the maths in physics courses with relative
ease. I seems to help me a lot if there is some physical system sitting in
there somewhere. Now in QM or statistical mechanics, I must admit that I
often don't have a picture of how the answer should look in my mind. So
maybe it all comes domn to a question of motivation.

-- 
Squizz
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Ability to do word problems
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:18:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.075327.20393@news.Hawaii.Edu> lady@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Lee Lady) writes:
>In article <BvnH6q.FMn@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

>>I personally consider the most important item in mathematics to be the
>>ability to use symbols.  Someone who uses symbols to formulate word problems
>                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>is doing what cannot be looked up in the library,   .... 

>I agree.  As I tell my Calc II students, once they pass the final exam 
>they may never again need to evaluate any integral except the very
>simplest kind.  What will be really valuable to them, if they use
>calculus at all, is the ability to set up integrals.

>But do I teach them to do that?  No.  I don't know what it's like at
>Purdue but here I'd say probably less than 5% of the students who
>pass calculus who are capable of doing a word problem.  As to
>applications of integration, the only one left in the calculus sequence
>here is volumes of revolution that only requires that students
>memorize two formulas.  And 90% of our calculus students are not even
>capable of doing that.

I do not believe that things are that much better at Purdue; 10% would
be optimistic.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: dbc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Bryan Carpenter)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: too intuitive to prove
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:35:11 GMT

In <1992Oct8.053608.24694@u.washington.edu> menasian@milton.u.washington.edu (Gregor Menasian) writes:

>A group of us are working on a problem that is far too obvious for us to
>grasp.  We need to prove, either formally or informally, that a relaion R
>on a set A is symmetric if and only R=R^(-1)

>We're looking for either ideas to start us off or a complete proof.  
>(a complete proof is, of course, perfered)

>Our biggest problem is that the proof must be formal.  

``R symmetric'' defined by a R b <=> b R a, and ``R^-1'' defined by
a R^-1 b <=> b R a, seem like good starting points.

>Thanks, 
>We call our selves the mutants.

Bryan
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: "The Universe of MOTION" (crackpot index)
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 19:43:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.193139.8517@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>  "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North 
>          Pacific Publishers, Portland, Oregon, 456 pages, indexed, 
>          hardcover. 
>
>Here we have about 92 capitalized words apart from book titles.
>We have one claim to have revolutionized astronomy without good
>evidence...
>...for a whopping score of 475 on the crackpot index.


Sorry, I left out the 30 points for claiming to have revolutionized
astronomy without good evidence, so the index is really 505!!

By the way, I welcome suggestions as to how to make this index more
accurate.  Of course, I'm not taking any of this too seriously, so
please spare paroxysms of philosophical agony about the definition of
a cracked pot.  Also, I only welcome suggestions from those whose
current crackpot index averages below 30 per post.


Newsgroups: sci.math
From: broussea@DMI.USherb.CA (Normand Brousseau)
Subject: Book required
Organization: Universite de Sherbrooke -- departement de Mathematiques et d'Informatique
Distribution: uk,us,ca
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:14:37 GMT

Greetings!

I would like to know where I can buy the following book:

       Birkhoff, G., Mac Lane, S.
       A survey of modern algebra
       Third Edition
       The Macmillan company, New York
       1965

       Library of Congress catalog card number: 65-15595.

A prompt action of your part would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks a lot!

Normand Broussea
Graduate student
Departement de mathematiques et d'informatique
Universite de Sherbrooke
2500 boul. Universite
Sherbrooke, Quebec
Canada, J1K 2R1
e-mail : broussea@dmi.usherb.ca
-- 

Normand Brousseau (e-mail : normand.broussea@dmi.usherb.ca)
Departement de mathematiques et d'informatique
Universite de Sherbrooke 2500 boul. Universite
From: kc@soda.berkeley.edu (Kwei-Cee Chu)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Wanted - prime number between 65536 and 131072
Date: 7 Oct 1992 07:36:16 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

Help!  I need a prime number between 65536 and 131072 quick!  If
there isn't one between those two numbers, then the largest one
smaller than 65536 would be appreciated.  Please respond by email,
and thanks in advance!

Kwei-Cee Chu
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: fokp@cary112.its.rpi.edu (Pingtao (Ben) Fok)
Subject: Re: Looking for fast methods of computing PI
Reply-To: fokp@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:51:34 GMT

I don't know what method you are talking about but I have been
thinking this problem for a long time and I found a way(the hard way)
to find PI.  I use the idea of polygon in a circle.  I first use 
a square to start with.  Then I turn the square into a octagon and find
the length of the side in terms of square root of 2. And then I 
double the number of side again and again and again.....
It works fine but the algebra is heavy.  I figure square root of 2
is easier to find than PI.  A friend of mine used taylor's series
to find Pi up to 5000 digit.
Ben fok
fokp@rpi.edu
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman)
Subject: Re: Do you know ?
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:39:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.050019.25103@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>  
kavuri@lips.ecn.purdue.edu (Surya N Kavuri ) writes:
>   
>   Can you give me a function on an interval [a b] which is
>   not differentiable anywhere on that interval ?

Sure. Let f(x) = 0 if x is irrational, and f(x) = 1 if x is rational.

Oh... you probably wanted a *continuous* function. :-)

--
Dave Seaman
ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu
From: mueller@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Carl Douglas Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Another GRE question for you folks
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:00:58 GMT
Reply-To: mueller@schaefer.UUCP (Carl Douglas Mueller)
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of Mathematics

In article <1bdf5tINNjnc@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> hougen@vision.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen) writes:
>I certainly don't remember having it impressed upon me that
>the surd always implies the positive square root.  

 This is the fault of your teachers.  It should have been taught that way.

>In fact, I remember
>equations being solved by taking *the* square root of both sides.
>There were invariably a positive solution and a negative solution.

 Absolutely, but that's something else altogether.  Remember actually
writing the +/- in front of one of the sides? (Like in the quadratic
formula?)  If the surd didn't imply one or the other root, that +/- 
wouldn't be necessary (at least as long as the surd was there).
>
>Darrell

Carl Mueller
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Catalan NUmbers
Date: 8 Oct 92 08:07:26 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <BvrFrn.53A@cs.columbia.edu> thanasis@cs.columbia.edu (Thanasis Tsantilas) writes:
>
>Is there a combinatorial ("bijective") way to prove that the 
>Catalan numbers are equal to C(2n,n)/(n+1)? 

Yes there is.  The Catalan numbers are also equal to the
number of grid paths in a square grid that connect two ends
of a given diagonal without touching it anywhere except at the
end points. 

The trick is called Andre's mirror trick of 1910.  First count all
paths also those that touch the diagonal.  Then count the touchers,
namely by reflecting the part from the start point to the first
touch in the diagonal.  Presto!

Read about in Comtet's book on Advanced Combinatorics.

JWN
From: hdev@dutiag.tudelft.nl (Hans de Vreught)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Calculating pi: help!
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:59:50 GMT

dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) writes:

>In article <Bw304E.LKu@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> falatic@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (MacGyver) writes:
>can get less, but not more.  Just today I attended a lecture by Kanada
>(Prof. Pi) who calculated pi to 1 billion digits, it took (if I remember
>right) 7 hours on a Hitac 820; which is a Japanese supercomputer from
>Hitachi; 2 nsec. cycle time.

So was I, I believe 7 hours was for the computation of pi and 18 hours for the
verification of pi. Guess Kanada rushed the sheets too fast...
--
Hans de Vreught                          | John von Neumann:
hdev@dutiaa.tudelft.nl                   | Young man, in mathematics
Delft University of Technology (TWI-ThI) | you don't understand things,
The Netherlands                          | you just get used to them.
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: scavo@cie.uoregon.edu (Tom Scavo)
Subject: Re: Help needed
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 20:01:23 GMT

>In article <u67csB1w165w@quest.UUCP> srhqla!quest!kdq writes:
>
>>If someone would be so kind as to solve for (i), or look up the
>>equation, or whatever, and respond by email, I would be eternally
>>grateful (well, a long time, anyway).  I ask for email since this site
>>does not receive sci.math.  Thanks in advance.
>>
>>             i
>>m = p * ------------
>>                   -n
>>        1 - (i + 1)

In article <1b3tpbINNmau@function.mps.ohio-state.edu> edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) writes:
>This answer (namely there is no closed-form solution, but it can
>be computed iteratively) should be in the FAQ for sci.math.

A reference would be:

        J. Mathews and S.T. Tan (1990).  Some interesting
        fixed points.  _Math. Mag._ 63(4), 263--269.

-- 
Tom Scavo
scavo@cie.uoregon.edu
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Subject: Re: Question on numerical integration
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:29:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.113401.1322@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> vhansen@ipfs.bau-verm.uni-karlsruhe.de (Wolfgang von Hansen) writes:
>How can one calculate things like
>
> a                oo
>Int f(x) dx  or  Int f(x) dx
>-oo               a
>
>numerically. I know how to do such things with finite limits,
>but I've got no idea how to deal with infinite limits.
>
>Thanks in advance, Wolfgang

Take the int(a,oo)f(x)dx case.  If the integral exists is is easy to 
show from the usual defintion of infinite limits that that for a given
small e > 0 there exists a X > a such that int(X,oo)f(x)dx < e.  So let e be the
error in the answer you are willing to allow, compute X and evaulate
int(a,X)f(x)dx.  

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com

Xref: sparky sci.math:13203 sci.physics:16519
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics
Subject: Re: "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:15:07 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Oct14.193139.8517@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

>          "nuclear" physics, general relativity, relativistic mass 

>To recall, the crackpot index is presently given as follows.

>-1)  A -5 point starting credit.
>0) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
>1) 2 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
>2) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
>correction.
>3) 30 points for each posting that claims a revolutionary theory but
>gives no concrete testable predictions.
>4) 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or
>claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
>(without good evidence).
>5) 10 points for each claim the quantum mechanics is fundamentally
>misguided (without good evidence).
>6) 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton
>claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without
>evidence).
>7) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for posters
>with defective keyboards).  
>9) 10 points for every use of science fiction works as if they were
>fact.
>10) 20 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged
>in a "conspiracy" to prevent ones work from gaining its well-deserved fame,
>or suchlike.
>11) 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this was
>evidence of sanity.

You should add:

12> 2 points (per word) for well-defined physics terms enclosed in quotation
    marks, as if there were something wrong with them.

13> using the word relativistic without knowledge of its meaning, as 
evidenced from the context  ;-)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: simms@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (dan)
Subject: Re: 'Perfect' numbers
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:08:16 GMT

guckes@math.fu-berlin.de (Sven Guckes) writes:

>dagjo@ifi.uio.no (Dag Espolin Johnson) writes:
>>Does someone have a list of the first numbers (as many as possible) that are
>>'perfect'?
>>
>>With 'Perfect number' I mean those numbers such that if you add together all
>>the numbers that is divideable with the numer, you get the number.
>>
>>The first one is 6     (1+2+3 = 6)
>>The next one is 28     (1+2+4+7+14 = 28)
>>If this is a FAQ, please tell me where I can find the answer.
>"It's in the FAQ!" - Damn, it isn't. (I just checked in news.answers.)

>If I remember correctly then the following are perfect numbers, too:

>496
>2128

>Unfortunately I don't have a reference at hand.

496 is, but 2128 isn't or at least the program I wrote says it isn't..
..it has chugged out past 10,000 without finding one ....does anyone
know an easier way of telling if a number is not perfect than just
plowing along and finding the sum of its divisors? ..i thought about
it for as long as I could without coming up with anytihng..like
if i know which of the numbers less than n are perfect or not, is
there an easy way to tell if n is perfect? thanks.

					dan

----
artie@uiuc.edu