quote:Originally posted by bdgee: I rarely approve of rejecting the open participation in normal society to anyone, but you have proved again and again that you are hopelessly unworthy of anything else. As you have noticed, I am far from alone in finding you and all your aggrandizing claims to superiority to be utterly disgusting.
Simply put, you are simple, both socially and intellectually, and have not the mental capacity to try to amount to anything but being simple.
Would you like to play a game of Checkers?
Munchkin Man
I don't play checkers.
Instead I entertain myself playing with possible solutions to the question of whether or not there is an acyclic continuum M embedable in RxR and such that for some continuous function from M to M, for every point z of M, f(x) is different from x and the question of exacty what restrictions on a connected subset C of RxR with x-projection R are necessary and sufficient in order to guarantee that some subset of C is a connectivity function from R to R.
Somehow I doubt your ability to play in my games.
Of course, I have published partial results on each of these unsolved mathematical questions in the Procedings of the American Mathematical Society.
Have you any publication at all in any respected mathematical journal?
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Of course, I have published partial results on each of these unsolved mathematical questions in the Procedings of the American Mathematical Society.
The Munchkin Man hopes you had a proofreader.
You have a misspelled word above.
The correct spelling is "Proceedings" instead of "Procedings."
By the way, can you provide a link to the article your wrote?
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: I don't play checkers.
Instead I entertain myself playing with possible solutions to the question of whether or not there is an acyclic continuum M embedable in RxR and such that for some continuous function from M to M, for every point z of M, f(x) is different from x and the question of exacty what restrictions on a connected subset C of RxR with x-projection R are necessary and sufficient in order to guarantee that some subset of C is a connectivity function from R to R.
That's some mighty fancy mathematics you're talking about there.
If you can handle mathematics of this level, then why would you be afraid to play the Munchkin Man in a simple little game of Checkers?
Munchkin Man
Posts: 558 | From: Munchkin Man | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Have you any publication at all in any respected mathematical journal?
The Munchkin Man does not contribute to mathematical journals, whose authors are composed largely of a mutual mental masturbation society of egotists and trivialists.
The truth of the matter is that you and the Munchkin Man travel in two entirely different mathematical universes.
You travel in one of extreme minutiae, as evidenced by your description of one of your favorite topics.
You also appear to be a member of a radical minority rebel fringe element of mathematics, one which does not believe in "The Order Of Operations."
The Munchkin Man also suspects that your radical opposition to the laws of order which govern mathematics has an intrapsychic connection to your obsession with fascists.
In contrast, the Munchkin Man travels in a mathematical universe of order and reason, and one which is dedicated to the effective instruction of mathematics to children and young adults, all the way from elementary school and through the college level.
The Munchkin Man is dedicated to the promotion of the mathematical literacy of America's precious school children.
This is why the Munchkin Man took upon his past duties as a proofreader of mathematics textbooks with such dedicated enthusiasm and zeal.
The Munchkin Man views himself as a crusader and fighter against the enemy of illiteracy which tries to infect and invade the quality of today's mathematics textbooks.
Every time the Munchkin Man spots a spelling error, a grammatical error, or a mathematical error, in any of the textbooks the Munchkin Man is proofreading, the Munchkin Man spots an enemy held with the same level of disdain as that of a terrorist.
This is when the Munchkin Man springs into action and stamps out that terrorist.
Illiteracy is the enemy of literacy.
It is the Munchkin Man's mission in life to do everything he can to stamp out the enemy of illiteracy.
Although the Munchkin Man is not doing any proofreading at the present time, due to a trend of outsourcing which has had a direct impact upon this line of work, the Munchkin Man is still making a valuable contribution to the mathematical literacy of local school children with the Munchkin Man's private tutoring practice.
It is with great dedication, with which the Munchkin Man hops into his Munchkin Mobile, and drives distances which take as long as an hour or more, fighting rush hour traffic all the way, in order to reach the home of a poor struggling student who so very desperately needs the Munchkin Man's help in mathematics.
Although the Munchkin Man has never published an article for a scholarly mathematical journal, the Munchkin Man has had his name listed in the editorial credits of a number of mathematics textbooks during the past four years.
The Munchkin Man has also published a number of articles for various Checker magazines and journals. The Munchkin Man also once wrote a checker book of his very own.
The Munchkin Man also had an original magic trick published in a magic magazine in 1988. This was back in the days when the Munchkin Man was an amateur magician.
In summary, the Munchkin Man does not wish to play trivia games with the type of mathematical minutia you described.
Instead, the Munchkin Man would prefer to dedicate his life to the greater common good of promoting the mathematical literacy of America's precious school children.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Munchkin Man
Posts: 558 | From: Munchkin Man | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
1023456798 (which is the second possible lowest number unless you allow 0 to be the first number which would be inconsistent with common math since there's an infinite number of zeros in front of EVERY number) divided by 7 is a whole number... but divided by 8 it isn't....
boring munchie... 7 isn't the most difficult number since it was my second try.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Of course, I have published partial results on each of these unsolved mathematical questions in the Procedings of the American Mathematical Society.
The Munchkin Man hopes you had a proofreader.
You have a misspelled word above.
The correct spelling is "Proceedings" instead of "Procedings."
By the way, can you provide a link to the article your wrote?
You or your? Them r's sure are tricky aren't they? Just think of how flawless and completely meaningfull that little oral turd could have been without that pesky r. Shame really cause I for one was pulling for your. Dammit there's that r again. Pesky buggar.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
1023456798 (which is the second possible lowest number unless you allow 0 to be the first number which would be inconsistent with common math since there's an infinite number of zeros in front of EVERY number) divided by 7 is a whole number... but divided by 8 it isn't....
boring munchie... 7 isn't the most difficult number since it was my second try.
The Munchkin Man regrets to inform you that your answer in incorrect.
Please go back and read what the Munchkin Man wrote about one of the original conditions of this problem: ___________
"Your 10-digit number must also be the SMALLEST 10-DIGIT NUMBER POSSIBLE that is divisible by each of the digits, 1 through 9.
This means that each of the digits, 1 through 9, must be able to divide into your 10-digit number evenly, with a remainder of 0." ____________
Now take a look at your answer again: ___________
1023456798 ___________
Did you make sure that your answer above is evenly divisible by each of the digits, from 1 through 9?
Hmmmmmm?
Did you test for divisibility by 5?
If so, you would have found that your proposed answer, 1023456798, is not divisible by 5.
If you divide 5 into 1023456798, you get the following result:
204691359 R 3
Due to the fact that the remainer is not 0, then 1023456798 is NOT divisible by 5.
This goes back to a number theory rule that is now being taught in elementary school: ___________________________
A number is divisible by 5 only if its last digit is either 0 or 5. ___________________________
The answer you came up with ends in 8.
Therefore, 1023456798 is not divisible by 5 because it does not end in 0 or 5.
The Munchkin Man would like to thank you for giving this problem a try.
The Munchkin Man would like to give you the opportunity to try it again.
Good luck!
Happy Thanksgiving!
Munchkin Man
Posts: 558 | From: Munchkin Man | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Of course, I have published partial results on each of these unsolved mathematical questions in the Procedings of the American Mathematical Society.
The Munchkin Man hopes you had a proofreader.
You have a misspelled word above.
The correct spelling is "Proceedings" instead of "Procedings."
By the way, can you provide a link to the article your wrote?
You or your? Them r's sure are tricky aren't they? Just think of how flawless and completely meaningfull that little oral turd could have been without that pesky r. Shame really cause I for one was pulling for your. Dammit there's that r again. Pesky buggar.
Congratulations!
You have caught the Munchkin Man in a rare mistake.
You are correct.
The Munchkin Man intended "you" instead of "your."
This is why even proofreaders need proofreaders.
Indeed, the war against illiteracy is a team effort.
Thanks!
Happy Thanksgiving!
Munchkin Man
Posts: 558 | From: Munchkin Man | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The truth of the matter is that you and the Munchkin Man travel in two entirely different mathematical universes"
Indeed, because you have no idea what mathematics is and I do. You imagine, out of the sickness that drives your being, that you can claim to "know" mathematics and others will be so intimidated they will not question you and uncover your false claims to membership in a a scholarship that is well beyond your capabilities. I do mathematics, you see, and am not at all intimidated by delving into what is familiar territory for me. You don't know what the hell you are trying to talk about.
The truth: You don't know what the hell you are trying to talk about. You are a sicko and that's the extent and the depth of your success.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: The truth: You don't know what the hell you are trying to talk about. You are a sicko and that's the extent and the depth of your success.
Would you like to play a game of Checkers?
Munchkin Man
Posts: 558 | From: Munchkin Man | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't provide any reference from which my true identity, address, phone number, social security number, or any other vital information about me can be collected by those who do not have any business with that information and might choose to misuse it......that includes a self centered sicko that identifies himself as a fictional imp and admits to being a mental case.
Anyway, you couldn't read those papers, dufus.
And by the way, it wasn't misspelled, it was miss-typed. You might want be careful and not get me into correcting your terrible usages of the English language. Along with mathematics, chemistry, and physics, I took graduate work in English (but never a course in typing), specializing in technical editing and writing, then worked professionally as a technical writer and editor for a number of years. What yaw'll needs ta do is yaw'll needs ta go off som'eres and work on fixin up some o' your eee-mo-shunle problems and hang-ups (don't waste time working on the mental aspects, because that is restricted, probably by genetics) so ya can maybe get aholt of ya life and leave normal folks alone.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't offer it as an excuse you egotistical fool.
It was a straight forward correction of your ignorant and absurd attack. You're so screwy between the ears you'd "eff"-up a wet dream.
Maybe yo mama messed up ya potty trainin so bad yaw'll got the wrong notion about what sort of stink is undesirable, cause you sure wallers in it a lot.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
here's the kinda stuff i've been workin' with lately MM..
i have to cast a 2500 F furnace using refractory cement that is supposed to be 90 lbs per cubic foot.. and it costs 51 cents a pound plus shipping...
the furnace crown has to be 23" wide inside to accommodate the 4 (200$ ea)silicon carbide heating elements that are 32 MM in diam and which can only be loaded to 15 watts per CM2...
the depth of the furnace crown has to be at least 21" to accommodate the the crucible, which is a 19" diameter hemisphere with a flat bottom...
the crown must be 3" thick and needs no floor since it rests on top of the crucible investment...
i cannot make any of the corners square because that creates uneven strain on the refractory material when it gets above 1600 F...
how much refractory do i need to make the crown? and how much will it cost?
next question will be how much it will cost to invest the crucible with 2" of glass corrosion resistant refractory, and then 3" of insulating refractory the same as the crown..
also? how many Amps can i load the 4 elements with before the 15 watts per CM2 limit kicks in?
PS the final kicker? the refractory has an advertised density of 90 lbs per ft3 but when i actually used it ? it comes out 55ft3.... so i have a bunch left over, and just did the door which is a fairly simple rectangle and i know exactly how much i used it wasn't 90 lbs per ft
quote:Originally posted by glassman: here's the kinda stuff i've been workin' with lately MM..
i have to cast a 2500 F furnace using refractory cement that is supposed to be 90 lbs per cubic foot.. and it costs 51 cents a pound plus shipping...
the furnace crown has to be 23" wide inside to accommodate the 4 (200$ ea)silicon carbide heating elements that are 32 MM in diam and which can only be loaded to 15 watts per CM2...
the depth of the furnace crown has to be at least 21" to accommodate the the crucible, which is a 19" diameter hemisphere with a flat bottom...
the crown must be 3" thick and needs no floor since it rests on top of the crucible investment...
i cannot make any of the corners square because that creates uneven strain on the refractory material when it gets above 1600 F...
how much refractory do i need to make the crown? and how much will it cost?
next question will be how much it will cost to invest the crucible with 2" of glass corrosion resistant refractory, and then 3" of insulating refractory the same as the crown..
also? how many Amps can i load the 4 elements with before the 15 watts per CM2 limit kicks in?
PS the final kicker? the refractory has an advertised density of 90 lbs per ft3 but when i actually used it ? it comes out 55ft3.... so i have a bunch left over, and just did the door which is a fairly simple rectangle and i know exactly how much i used it wasn't 90 lbs per ft
It certainly falls into the category of a "real world problem" and is light years away from the universe of mathematical minutiae where one poster here stakes his home.
The Munchkin Man would probably need a detailed sketch of this furnace you are talking about, including all of its parts, in order to figure out what is going on.
This is one tutorial technique the Munchkin Man teaches his students -- to draw a sketch of any word problem when the words alone render the meaning of the problem unclear.
The Munchkin Man especially emphasizes this technique when solving Geometry word problems.
Here is an example of such a problem the Munchkin Man has just composed from the top of his head: _________________
The lowermost and larger base of an isosceles trapezoid measures exactly 280 centimeters.
The height of this trapezoid measures exactly 72 centimeters.
The area of this trapezoid is exactly 15,480 square centimeters.
The uppermost and smaller base of this trapezoid is aligned with, and congruent and connected to, one side of a perfect square.
In other words, the length of the uppermost and smaller base of this trapezoid is exactly equal to the length of each side of its adjoining square.
Find the total outside perimeter of the figure formed by the fusion of the trapezoid and the square.
Enjoy!
Best Wishes,
Munchkin Man
Posts: 558 | From: Munchkin Man | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: here's the kinda stuff i've been workin' with lately MM..
i have to cast a 2500 F furnace using refractory cement that is supposed to be 90 lbs per cubic foot.. and it costs 51 cents a pound plus shipping...
the furnace crown has to be 23" wide inside to accommodate the 4 (200$ ea)silicon carbide heating elements that are 32 MM in diam and which can only be loaded to 15 watts per CM2...
the depth of the furnace crown has to be at least 21" to accommodate the the crucible, which is a 19" diameter hemisphere with a flat bottom...
the crown must be 3" thick and needs no floor since it rests on top of the crucible investment...
i cannot make any of the corners square because that creates uneven strain on the refractory material when it gets above 1600 F...
how much refractory do i need to make the crown? and how much will it cost?
next question will be how much it will cost to invest the crucible with 2" of glass corrosion resistant refractory, and then 3" of insulating refractory the same as the crown..
also? how many Amps can i load the 4 elements with before the 15 watts per CM2 limit kicks in?
PS the final kicker? the refractory has an advertised density of 90 lbs per ft3 but when i actually used it ? it comes out 55ft3.... so i have a bunch left over, and just did the door which is a fairly simple rectangle and i know exactly how much i used it wasn't 90 lbs per ft
It certainly falls into the category of a "real world problem" and is light years away from the universe of mathematical minutiae where one poster here stakes his home.
The Munchkin Man would probably need a detailed sketch of this furnace you are talking about, including all of its parts, in order to figure out what is going on.
This is one tutorial technique the Munchkin Man teaches his students -- to draw a sketch of any word problem when the words alone render the meaning of the problem unclear.
The Munchkin Man especially emphasizes this technique when solving Geometry word problems.
Here is an example of such a problem the Munchkin Man has just composed from the top of his head: _________________
The lowermost and larger base of an isosceles trapezoid measures exactly 280 centimeters.
The height of this trapezoid measures exactly 72 centimeters.
The area of this trapezoid is exactly 15,480 square centimeters.
The uppermost and smaller base of this trapezoid is aligned with, and congruent and connected to, one side of a perfect square.
In other words, the length of the uppermost and smaller base of this trapezoid is exactly equal to the length of each side of its adjoining square.
Find the total outside perimeter of the figure formed by the fusion of the trapezoid and the square.
Enjoy!
Best Wishes,
Munchkin Man
be more helpful if you sketched Glassy-Eyed's furnace and provided him a second opinion...
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic