Re: A MOD B NO MATH HAHAHAHA !!

On Dec 23, 8:27 am, lwal...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 22, 4:06 am, Tonic...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Dec 22, 11:36 am, lwal...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Unlike earlier arguments regarding tommy1729 and notation,
I know _exactly_ what the problem is with the notation,
since I've seen previous posts where someone attempted to
write a mod m = b.
Can you give some examples, either in this group or anywhere else,
when somebody used a (mod m) = b  and was told it was "illegal" or
incorrect or meaningless?
Can you give some names of "purists" who won't accept 13 (mod 4) = 1?

Well, Dik Winter, for one.

And David Ullrich for another. Less than two and a half hours
after Tonio posted, Ullrich wrote the following:

"Dik is precisely correct when he says that in
standard mathematical notation there is no
"mod m" operator and in particular no such
thing as "a mod m". In mathematical usage
there is only a _relation_ mod(a,b,m).
The notation
  b == a mod m
means exactly that m divides b - a; it doesn't
say that there is such a thing as "a mod m"."

Since I mentioned that I've seen discussions
about mod m before, I tried to look for an old
post which discusses this.

Once again, I'm in the situation where I know
that I've seen it before, but I can't even find
the old thread. I only found one thread in the
past five years, and the thread was specifically
discussing computer notation:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/4b7159e9...

Oh well. At least I'm aware of the recent comments
by Ullrich and Winter.

*************************************************************************

You lost me: where did any of them rejected 13 (mod 4) = 1 but
accepted 13 = 1 (mod 4)?
I'm aware, and now more than eer, of the different meanings of mod,
with or without parentheses, in mathematics (say, number theory) and
in computer prgramming, but so far I haven't seen anyone rejection the
above, even that you quote David's last post, where btw he addresses
Tommy's last histerical "hahahaha's" because of precisely this
confussion, and Tommy even went farther: he laughed, or did as if he
laughed, at D. Winter writing

">A MOD B
NO MATH ?!?
HAHAHAHA
you guys are really going far :)
quasi are you reading this ?
its really funny , how far my critics are willing to go.
since a mod b is not math
number theory is not math !! ..."

as if what D. Winter wrote meant trhe above at all...typical
intellectual dishonestity or, at the very least, stupid impulse to
show off and lack of basic understanding. and lots of very annoying
attitude...and this is Galathaea's hero!

Anyway: perhaps the confussion came from the two meanings above, so
anyway: a little background, a little fore-explanation, and anyone
could understand, imo, what one means either way.

Regards
Tonio
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Notation (was Re: Is this a general property of an abelian group?)
    ... But good notation is more than just unambiguous. ... But that confusion only exists if you insist that the symbol MUST ... simply will not get very far in doing mathematics. ... I can imagine something like "take one pigeon, and add another pigeon, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
    ... Since you seem to like mathematics, ... avoid prefix notation. ... if symbols is head in a LISP list or not. ... definition for a sequence of binary processes. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: A MOD B NO MATH HAHAHAHA !!
    ... In mathematics "mod" is not an operator. ... standard mathematical notation there is no ... David C. Ullrich ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: It can take 500 years
    ... A disease with one notation might not map to a disease with other ... Our modern power of easy reckoning with ... Alfred North Whitehead, An Introduction to Mathematics, Williams ...
    (sci.math)