Andre Weil was very opinionated and lived a very interesting life. I encourage you to read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Weil
132 karma · joined February 11, 2008
Andre Weil was very opinionated and lived a very interesting life. I encourage you to read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Weil
Please correct me if I am wrong, but if the relevant part of the article is "I do not have insurance, so it is important that I maintain my health", then the contraposition would be "It is not important that I maintain my health, so it follows that I have insurance." What you are suggesting as the contraposition is "I have insurance, so it is not important that I maintain my health", which is the inverse of the statement (and equivalent to the converse "If it is important that I maintain my health, then I do not have insurance."
On a second read of this article, it seems clear that my interpretation above is incorrect. It might still be that they are coming up with physical interpretations of microlocal analysis on curved spacetimes. (Though how you fix a quantization, I'm not sure.)
I'm not a physicist and have not read the original source, so please take anything I say with a large dose of salt.
How to derive the value of the integral: Square the integral to make it an integral in two variables, introduce polar coordinates, then change variables.
The mathematician Paul Halmos loved issues like these and once constructed a sentence that ends in five prepositions: "What did you want to bring that book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for?"
The a-ha solution to this puzzle is to realize that every participant but one has to lose exactly once. Each game has only one loser, so you need 5622 games.
Your method overestimates the number of games needed because you start counting at 0. (Think about the simple case where N=2.) Even if you started counting at 1, your method wouldn't in general give an exact answer (and would typically under- or over-estimate depending on whether you started counting at 1 or 0, respectively), but if you had a nice power of two (say, 2^d on the nose), then the sum from 1 to d of 2^(d-k) would give you exactly 2^d -1, which agrees with the a-ha answer.
In fact, there is a Lorentz-Lorenz equation. Somewhat more confusingly, when you study Maxwell's equations on a Lorentz background, it is often convenient to work in the Lorenz gauge.
Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that as wonderful as Texas is, if you're interested in universities it is sadly lacking. (I mostly know about math departments, so if I'm really wrong about either state, I would like to know.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_...
Of course, my experience is only with math courses, and your mileage may vary.
Another way of thinking about this is that 1.2 * 0.8 = 0.96, so it is a four percent pay cut. (This is true for any situation like this and can be remembered by the difference of two squares formula from your early algebra class -- (1 + r)(1-r) = 1 - r^2, where r is the fraction raise/pay cut.)