Discussion:
simple question (re-post)
Simon Roberts
2018-02-13 01:18:04 UTC
Raw Message
I don't even know the fundamentals.

If

A || C

and

B \| C

does THIS imply

(A = B) \ | C ?
Jim Burns
2018-02-13 01:21:40 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A = B) \ | C ?
Simon Roberts
2018-02-13 04:02:09 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Jim Burns
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A = B) \ | C ?
like you do not know.
Jim Burns
2018-02-13 04:39:15 UTC
Raw Message
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 8:21:47 PM UTC-5,
Post by Jim Burns
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A = B) \ | C ?
like you do not know.
Yes, exactly like I didn't know -- because I didn't know.

Do you think I would lie to you about not recognizing
your notation? What reason might I have to do that?

I've looked at a couple more of your posts now,
and I have a guess now that your meaning divisible
and not divisible. But that's just a guess -- a guess
which you could have confirmed or corrected for the
same amount of effort that you used to not do either.

But that was then. You clearly don't want to talk to me,
I discover that I don't want to talk to you,
so we're done here.
Simon Roberts
2018-02-13 05:10:42 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Jim Burns
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 8:21:47 PM UTC-5,
Post by Jim Burns
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A = B) \ | C ?
like you do not know.
Yes, exactly like I didn't know -- because I didn't know.
Do you think I would lie to you about not recognizing
your notation? What reason might I have to do that?
I've looked at a couple more of your posts now,
and I have a guess now that your meaning divisible
and not divisible. But that's just a guess -- a guess
which you could have confirmed or corrected for the
same amount of effort that you used to not do either.
But that was then. You clearly don't want to talk to me,
I discover that I don't want to talk to you,
so we're done here.
ok Jim what ever.
Simon Roberts
2018-02-13 01:25:42 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A = B) \| C ?
failed attempt

assume (A - B) || C

Ax - Bx = C

A | C

A(x-y) = Bx

where Ay = C.

stuck.
Simon Roberts
2018-02-13 01:27:44 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A = B) \| C ?
failed attempt
assume (A - B) || C
Ax - Bx = C
A | C
A(x-y) = Bx
where Ay = C.
stuck.
counter example

10 || 20

10 - 6 || 20

6 \| 20

fail.
Simon Roberts
2018-02-13 04:03:42 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A-B) \| C ?
typo.
Simon Roberts
2018-02-13 05:33:37 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A-B) \| C ?
typo.
ok Jim is it?
Post by Simon Roberts
If
A || C
and
B /| C
does THIS imply
(A-B) /| C ?
thanks.
Jim Burns
2018-02-13 16:02:37 UTC
Raw Message
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:03:49 PM UTC-5,
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 8:18:11 PM UTC-5,
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A-B) \| C ?
typo.
ok Jim is it?
I suppose you have your reasons for
Simon Roberts
2018-02-13 17:01:48 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Jim Burns
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:03:49 PM UTC-5,
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 8:18:11 PM UTC-5,
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A-B) \| C ?
typo.
ok Jim is it?
I suppose you have your reasons for
What is the standard notation (in text) for "divides (evenly)" and "does not divide (evenly)" before I start explaining mine? Also can the proof be finished without a counter example. (I know sometimes the idea is true for certain A and B and sometime not true for certain A and B, how is a proof (general) formed from that in this example? A divides C, B does not divide C, WHEN does (A-B) either divide C or (A-B) not divide C? Or any variation on the theme. Are there proofs (I had thought I read one) like if (A+B) || C and A || C then B || C? Was that it?

Also I have used for "not divide" in the past

!|
\|
/|

for "divides" I've used

||
|

also

for say

A | B as an example.

I have used

B = 0 (mod A)

B = 0 mod A

B (mod A) = 0 (mod A)

B mod A = 0 mod A

B = A mod A

B == 0 (mod A)

B % A = 0

hell, i've really mixed it up.

(i've never use "advance payday loans" (i'm a bum))
Simon Roberts
2018-02-13 17:08:09 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Jim Burns
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:03:49 PM UTC-5,
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 8:18:11 PM UTC-5,
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A-B) \| C ?
typo.
ok Jim is it?
I suppose you have your reasons for
What is the standard notation (in text) for "divides (evenly)" and "does not divide (evenly)" before I start explaining mine? Also can the proof be finished without a counter example. (I know sometimes the idea is true for certain A and B and sometime not true for certain A and B, how is a proof (general) formed from that in this example? A divides C, B does not divide C, WHEN does (A-B) either divide C or (A-B) not divide C? Or any variation on the theme. Are there proofs (I had thought I read one) like if (A+B) || C and A || C then B || C? Was that it?
Also I have used for "not divide" in the past
!|
\|
/|
for "divides" I've used
||
|
also
for say
A | B as an example.
I have used
B = 0 (mod A)
B = 0 mod A
B (mod A) = 0 (mod A)
B mod A = 0 mod A
B = A mod A
B == 0 (mod A)
B % A = 0
hell, i've really mixed it up.
(i've never use "advance payday loans" (i'm a bum))
Also for Newton F = Ma

I've seen

F := Ma
F == Ma
F is a mere definition
F is Force
F is a variable
F is fictitious
F is real
If F is applied to your mass you may feel it.
Simon Roberts
2018-02-13 17:28:25 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Jim Burns
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:03:49 PM UTC-5,
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 8:18:11 PM UTC-5,
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A-B) \| C ?
typo.
ok Jim is it?
I suppose you have your reasons for
What is the standard notation (in text) for "divides (evenly)" and "does not divide (evenly)" before I start explaining mine? Also can the proof be finished without a counter example. (I know sometimes the idea is true for certain A and B and sometime not true for certain A and B, how is a proof (general) formed from that in this example? A divides C, B does not divide C, WHEN does (A-B) either divide C or (A-B) not divide C? Or any variation on the theme. Are there proofs (I had thought I read one) like if (A+B) || C and A || C then B || C? Was that it?
Also I have used for "not divide" in the past
!|
\|
/|
for "divides" I've used
||
|
also
for say
A | B as an example.
I have used
B = 0 (mod A)
B = 0 mod A
B (mod A) = 0 (mod A)
B mod A = 0 mod A
B = A mod A
B == 0 (mod A)
B % A = 0
hell, i've really mixed it up.
(i've never use "advance payday loans" (i'm a bum))
Also for Newton F = Ma
I've seen
F := Ma
F == Ma
F is a mere definition
F is Force
F is a variable
F is fictitious
F is real
If F is applied to your mass you may feel it.
Then if seen
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Simon Roberts
"much greater" for impending close approximations
I've seen ~ for "simalar" and i think "not"

And others "and equal sine with a tilda of top" for "close"

- "minus" or "negative" or "not"

i've seen => "implies"

A<=>B A iff B and [A => B and B => A]

converse contrapositve

onto
one to one
and that other one "one to one and onto"

for every
for all
for some
there exists
for no
for none
"member of" "belongs to" "is in" "is an element of"

"infinite" "unlimited" "never ending...

wow Jim, I've been around, in a fleeting way, in terms of term.

"such that" "let" "set" "define"

"substituting" "replacing"

"canceling" "removing"

"x becomes invariable" "x is invariant?"

"orthogonal" "square" "at right angles" "perpendicular"

"pi by 2" "pi over 2" "pi divided by 2" "90 degrees" "90 degree angle"

"ball" "sphere" "spherical surface"

"horizontal and vertical" "down and up"

"height width and depth"

"magnitude" "distance"

"scalar" "vector"

"complex conjugate"

"absolute value"

ya' know?

natural numbers, counting numbers, positive integers, cardinal numbers, numbers

reals, rationals, imaginary, transcendental,

sqr(2), sqrt(2), 2^(1/2), 2/sqrt(2).

I not being mean, i'm not fluent, I'm multilingual and have no fluency.

"root mean square"

120Vrms = 120V = 110V actually near 117.5Vrms (US)

passive component active components diodes thyristor

Hertz cycles per second (per second) (rads per second) (degrees per second)

(nu) (f) (omega)
Simon Roberts
2018-02-13 18:03:05 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Jim Burns
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:03:49 PM UTC-5,
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 8:18:11 PM UTC-5,
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A-B) \| C ?
typo.
ok Jim is it?
I suppose you have your reasons for
What is the standard notation (in text) for "divides (evenly)" and "does not divide (evenly)" before I start explaining mine? Also can the proof be finished without a counter example. (I know sometimes the idea is true for certain A and B and sometime not true for certain A and B, how is a proof (general) formed from that in this example? A divides C, B does not divide C, WHEN does (A-B) either divide C or (A-B) not divide C? Or any variation on the theme. Are there proofs (I had thought I read one) like if (A+B) || C and A || C then B || C? Was that it?
Also I have used for "not divide" in the past
!|
\|
/|
for "divides" I've used
||
|
also
for say
A | B as an example.
I have used
B = 0 (mod A)
B = 0 mod A
B (mod A) = 0 (mod A)
B mod A = 0 mod A
B = A mod A
B == 0 (mod A)
B % A = 0
hell, i've really mixed it up.
(i've never use "advance payday loans" (i'm a bum))
Also for Newton F = Ma
I've seen
F := Ma
F == Ma
F is a mere definition
F is Force
F is a variable
F is fictitious
F is real
If F is applied to your mass you may feel it.
Then if seen
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Simon Roberts
"much greater" for impending close approximations
I've seen ~ for "simalar" and i think "not"
And others "and equal sine with a tilda of top" for "close"
- "minus" or "negative" or "not"
i've seen => "implies"
A<=>B A iff B and [A => B and B => A]
converse contrapositve
onto
one to one
and that other one "one to one and onto"
for every
for all
for some
there exists
for no
for none
"member of" "belongs to" "is in" "is an element of"
"infinite" "unlimited" "never ending...
wow Jim, I've been around, in a fleeting way, in terms of term.
"such that" "let" "set" "define"
"substituting" "replacing"
"canceling" "removing"
"x becomes invariable" "x is invariant?"
"orthogonal" "square" "at right angles" "perpendicular"
"pi by 2" "pi over 2" "pi divided by 2" "90 degrees" "90 degree angle"
"ball" "sphere" "spherical surface"
"horizontal and vertical" "down and up"
"height width and depth"
"magnitude" "distance"
"scalar" "vector"
"complex conjugate"
"absolute value"
ya' know?
natural numbers, counting numbers, positive integers, cardinal numbers, numbers
reals, rationals, imaginary, transcendental,
sqr(2), sqrt(2), 2^(1/2), 2/sqrt(2).
I not being mean, i'm not fluent, I'm multilingual and have no fluency.
"root mean square"
120Vrms = 120V = 110V actually near 117.5Vrms (US)
passive component active components diodes thyristor
Hertz cycles per second (per second) (rads per second) (degrees per second)
(nu) (f) (omega)
in electronics we use j not i since i is used for small signal current

i = sqrt(-1). only a placeholder for pi/2 (direction) that happens to just work very well. RAD MAN!

jw always bothered me, jwC
Simon Roberts
2018-02-13 18:10:46 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Jim Burns
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:03:49 PM UTC-5,
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 8:18:11 PM UTC-5,
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A-B) \| C ?
typo.
ok Jim is it?
I suppose you have your reasons for
What is the standard notation (in text) for "divides (evenly)" and "does not divide (evenly)" before I start explaining mine? Also can the proof be finished without a counter example. (I know sometimes the idea is true for certain A and B and sometime not true for certain A and B, how is a proof (general) formed from that in this example? A divides C, B does not divide C, WHEN does (A-B) either divide C or (A-B) not divide C? Or any variation on the theme. Are there proofs (I had thought I read one) like if (A+B) || C and A || C then B || C? Was that it?
Also I have used for "not divide" in the past
!|
\|
/|
for "divides" I've used
||
|
also
for say
A | B as an example.
I have used
B = 0 (mod A)
B = 0 mod A
B (mod A) = 0 (mod A)
B mod A = 0 mod A
B = A mod A
B == 0 (mod A)
B % A = 0
hell, i've really mixed it up.
(i've never use "advance payday loans" (i'm a bum))
Also for Newton F = Ma
I've seen
F := Ma
F == Ma
F is a mere definition
F is Force
F is a variable
F is fictitious
F is real
If F is applied to your mass you may feel it.
Then if seen
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by Simon Roberts
"much greater" for impending close approximations
I've seen ~ for "simalar" and i think "not"
And others "and equal sine with a tilda of top" for "close"
- "minus" or "negative" or "not"
i've seen => "implies"
A<=>B A iff B and [A => B and B => A]
converse contrapositve
onto
one to one
and that other one "one to one and onto"
for every
for all
for some
there exists
for no
for none
"member of" "belongs to" "is in" "is an element of"
"infinite" "unlimited" "never ending...
wow Jim, I've been around, in a fleeting way, in terms of term.
"such that" "let" "set" "define"
"substituting" "replacing"
"canceling" "removing"
"x becomes invariable" "x is invariant?"
"orthogonal" "square" "at right angles" "perpendicular"
"pi by 2" "pi over 2" "pi divided by 2" "90 degrees" "90 degree angle"
"ball" "sphere" "spherical surface"
"horizontal and vertical" "down and up"
"height width and depth"
"magnitude" "distance"
"scalar" "vector"
"complex conjugate"
"absolute value"
ya' know?
natural numbers, counting numbers, positive integers, cardinal numbers, numbers
reals, rationals, imaginary, transcendental,
sqr(2), sqrt(2), 2^(1/2), 2/sqrt(2).
I not being mean, i'm not fluent, I'm multilingual and have no fluency.
"root mean square"
120Vrms = 120V = 110V actually near 117.5Vrms (US)
passive component active components diodes thyristor
Hertz cycles per second (per second) (rads per second) (degrees per second)
(nu) (f) (omega)
*x = or is it x* complex conjugate or a line over x. a hat is a unit vector of some statistical notion for something. variance (n-1) mean (n) standard deviation, the null hypothesis, Poison distribution, Chi square, NORMAL, BELL, Gausion. del dot rho = 0, faraday cage. Gauss's Law. Skin effect. Johnson graph? Forgot his name. Carnot cycle and hysteresis.

That compass thingy for measuring any area on paper, now them thing really neat.

2 stroke, single stroke, for stroke.

buoyancy and no single pump more than 32 ft. under water.
Jim Burns
2018-02-13 23:32:30 UTC
Raw Message
On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 11:02:51 AM UTC-5,
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:03:49 PM UTC-5,
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 8:18:11 PM UTC-5,
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A-B) \| C ?
-- where A || C means "A divides C" and B \| C means
"B does not divide C" --

imply the last.

I think the easiest way to see this is to use modular
arithmetic, which you refer to later.

If A divides C, then C mod A = 0
If B doesn't divide C, then C mod B = k
for some k != 0

(A-B) mod C
= ((A mod C) - (B mod C)) mod C
= ( 0 - k ) mod C
!= 0 , because k != 0

Therefore, (A-B) doesn't divide C

If we want to prove this more formally, we would want
formal definitions of "divides" "mod" and so on.
Off-hand, I don't know if there are common definitions,
but we know what we want them to mean.

"x divides y evenly"
x | y :<->
Ez:( x*z = y )

"z is the remainder of y divided by x"
y mod x = z :<->
( x*z =< y ) &
Aw:(w > z) -> ( x*w > y )

Lemmas
0 =< z < x

x | y -> y mod x = 0

y mod x = 0 -> x | y

Let x | y = z and z != 0. Then
(-x) mod y = (x - z)

Let x | y = z and x' | = z'. Then
(x + x') mod y = (z + z') mod y
What is the standard notation (in text) for
"divides (evenly)" and "does not divide (evenly)"
before I start explaining mine?
What I've seen is a vertical bar | with the divisor
on the left (as I wrote above). There could be other
notations. If you just say what you mean, that would be
enough -- though a good rule of thumb is to follow standard
notation, because of its familiarity.

All the discussion of notation is not a problem,
but all I wanted was to know what || and \| mean
when you use them here.
Simon Roberts
2018-02-13 23:46:24 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Jim Burns
On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 11:02:51 AM UTC-5,
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:03:49 PM UTC-5,
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 8:18:11 PM UTC-5,
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A-B) \| C ?
-- where A || C means "A divides C" and B \| C means
"B does not divide C" --
imply the last.
I think the easiest way to see this is to use modular
arithmetic, which you refer to later.
If A divides C, then C mod A = 0
If B doesn't divide C, then C mod B = k
for some k != 0
(A-B) mod C
= ((A mod C) - (B mod C)) mod C
= ( 0 - k ) mod C
!= 0 , because k != 0
Therefore, (A-B) doesn't divide C
repost of a counter example

10 || 20
6 \| 20
(10 - 6) || 20

don't be something your not, OK?
Post by Jim Burns
If we want to prove this more formally, we would want
formal definitions of "divides" "mod" and so on.
Off-hand, I don't know if there are common definitions,
but we know what we want them to mean.
"x divides y evenly"
x | y :<->
Ez:( x*z = y )
"z is the remainder of y divided by x"
y mod x = z :<->
( x*z =< y ) &
Aw:(w > z) -> ( x*w > y )
Lemmas
0 =< z < x
x | y -> y mod x = 0
y mod x = 0 -> x | y
Let x | y = z and z != 0. Then
(-x) mod y = (x - z)
Let x | y = z and x' | = z'. Then
(x + x') mod y = (z + z') mod y
What is the standard notation (in text) for
"divides (evenly)" and "does not divide (evenly)"
before I start explaining mine?
What I've seen is a vertical bar | with the divisor
on the left (as I wrote above). There could be other
notations. If you just say what you mean, that would be
enough -- though a good rule of thumb is to follow standard
notation, because of its familiarity.
All the discussion of notation is not a problem,
but all I wanted was to know what || and \| mean
when you use them here.
you full of poop, Jimbo.
Jim Burns
2018-02-14 00:56:58 UTC
Raw Message
On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 6:32:42 PM UTC-5,
Post by Jim Burns
On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 11:02:51 AM UTC-5,
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:03:49 PM UTC-5,
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 8:18:11 PM UTC-5,
Post by Simon Roberts
I don't even know the fundamentals.
If
A || C
and
B \| C
does THIS imply
(A-B) \| C ?
-- where A || C means "A divides C" and B \| C means
"B does not divide C" --
imply the last.
I think the easiest way to see this is to use modular
arithmetic, which you refer to later.
If A divides C, then C mod A = 0
If B doesn't divide C, then C mod B = k
for some k != 0
(A-B) mod C
= ((A mod C) - (B mod C)) mod C
= ( 0 - k ) mod C
!= 0 , because k != 0
Therefore, (A-B) doesn't divide C
repost of a counter example
10 || 20
6 \| 20
(10 - 6) || 20
My mistake.

Somehow,
C mod A = 0
magically turned into
A mod C = 0
in the space of a couple lines.
don't be something your not, OK?
you full of poop, Jimbo.