professor david c ullrich fails as a human being - IF THIS ISN'T FUCKING WORSE THAN TOMMY BEHAVIOR THAN YOU FUCKERS ARE BLIND!!

On Nov 30, 4:05 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:39:39 -0800 (PST), lwal...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:09 pm, Denis Feldmann <denis.feldmann.sanss...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
amy666 a écrit :
log(A) = (A-1) - (A-1)^2/2 + (A-1)^3/3! - ...
So 3!=3=6????

An obvious typo. Let's write instead:

log(A) = (A-1) - (A-1)^2/2 + (A-1)^3/3 - ...

for det A in the unit radius.
otherwise use log(1/A) =  -  log(A).
Interesting. What makes you believe this is convergent for every matrix
  with |det(A)|<1 (hint : det A<1 doesnt imply much for det (A-I) ; try
it for A=[[1/10 0] [0 5]] ...)

OK then, let |det(A-I)|<1 then.

Both galathaea and tommy1729 have suggested the use
of power series to define log. But it's unclear to
me for which matrices the power series converges.

The sources I've seen give a trivial case when the
series converges -- when there exists a natural
number n such that (A-I)^n = 0. Then the series
obviously converges, since all but finitely many
terms are the zero matrix.

What I'd to see is a matrix for which the series
converges, even though the series has infinitely
many nonzero terms.

You don't even read the threads you *** in on.
In that other thread g gave a correct criterion:
if ||A - I|| < 1 for a certain norm then the series
converges.

Of course he also showed he really didn't know
much about any of this when he said that...

what the *** did i show???

your innuendo is fucking unbelievable

i was the one who gave the description of A^C

i was the one who gave the convergence criterion
including radius

i was the one who gave the right series first
(as denis has loved to jump in
i had - oh horrors! - a missing term the first post
which i corrected when i reread the post
and noticed it missing on my own
- i corrected _before_ anyone else said anything about it)

i was the one who mentioned
despite it being ignored in this thread
that the way to extend the definition
is analytic continuation

i was the one who worked out a sample problem

i was the one who showed
the baker-campbell-hausdorff extension

holy *** david
you have been the only one who has failed

you failed to provide any definition
ever
in all of these discussion
and yet you failed to show it couldn't be
(despite that being your first opinion
however desperately you want to hide that)

you fail in every desperate attempt of yours
to somehow say i have been wrong in any of this
either desperately claiming
i should have said more about convergence
or whatever it is you need to feel better

you are the only one who is showing incompetence
through questioning established mathematics
and though you will try to play it off
it's these posts of yours that illustrate your true intentions

i've already mentioned
that exponents and logarithms of matrices
was something we covered in control theory
one of the few math courses i ever took
in a college setting

i've also pointed out a matrix equation
that i discovered in my generalised trigonometry
that generalises a well known exponential relation
for the 2d rotation matrix

so yeah
continue with your insinuations

illustrate to anyone out there
that you are piece of fucking trash

illustrate your need to belittle others
so it makes it very fucking clear to everyone
that it is a _need_ of yours

it's the only way you can feel good

you don't have any math of your own worth ***
so you have to show that
yeah
_all_those_years_
they meant something
they gave you the intelligence to be better than others

show it in it's naked form

keep it up

--

and for the last fucking time
it's SHE
it's fucking SHE

your masculist insinuations are all
just fucked up emanations of your own insecurities

you've failed on so many levels
ullrich
this whole enterprise is sad

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.

Loading