Re: On the muliplication of negative numbers


"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1217244260_798@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
| in message news:g6k7qu$r2l$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > Uncle Ben <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > 5277af6b-2456-4669-bec1-24e62a6f14a0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >> It might seem strange to consider this plebian topic in a newsgroup
| >> having to do with such an esoteric subject at the theory of
| >> relativity, But, believe it or not, a controversy has arisen between
| >> certain frequent posters in this newsgroup as to the result of
| >> multiplying negative numbers, a topic generally treated in the U.S.
| >> educational system before the 6th year (12-year-olds).
| >>
| >> Numbers have interested people for both practical purposes and
| >> amusement for centuries. The negative numbers arose to provide
| >> solutions to questions such as "What number, if any, added to 5 gives
| >> 3?" Before the invention of negative numbers, there was no such
| >> number. With negative numbers admitted, there is.
| >>
| >> Negative numbers pose no problem in addition and subtraction. And
| >> multiplication of a negative number by a positive integer is quickly
| >> understood as repeated addition. But multiplication of two negative
| >> integers is not so quickly dismissed as a problem. I admit that I
| >> groped for a while to think of a way to make the solution obvious in
| >> terms of more elementary operations. One doesn't want to say: It's a
| >> rule! Obey it!
| >>
| >> The way I came up with may not be simplest (if you kinow something
| >> simpler, tell me about it), but it works:
| >>
| >> Consider 5 * 5 = 25. If one is silly enough to write 5 as 6+(-1), one
| >> would have
| >> (6+(-1))*(6+(-1)).=25
| >>
| >> By the distributive law, one could expand that to
| >>
| >> 6*6 + 6*(-1) + (-1)*6 + (-1)*(-1) = 25
| >>
| >> We all agree that 6*6=36. Now 6*(-1) = (-1)+(-1)+(-1)+(-1)+(-1)+(-1)
| >> which reasonable people will agree amounts to -6. Similarly (-1)*6
| >> = -6 again. So far, we have
| >>
| >> 25 = 36 +(-6) + (-6) + (-1)*(-1)
| >> or
| >> 25 = 24 + (-1)*(-1)
| >>
| >> which shows that (-1)*(-1) = 1. Ta-dah!
| >>
| >> As a gift, we get sq.rt.(1) = -1,
| >
| > If by sqrt(...) you mean the square root function (as the notation
| > strongly suggests), or the standard root sign, then you write
| > sqrt(1) = 1
| > and
| > -sqrt(1) = -1
| >
| >
| >> Of course we already knew that
| >> 1*1=1, so we have discovered by this simple and obvious means that
| >> numbers can have two different square roots.
| >
| > Yes, in a sloppy way of speakoing, but *the* square root of a
| > positive real number is defined as a positive number and it is unique.
| >
| >>
| >> sq.rt.(16) = 4 or -4.
| >
| > No, we write
| > sqrt(16) = 4
| > and
| > -sqrt(16) = -4
| >
| > Dirk Vdm
|
| It's storm in a wine (or whine) glass:
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root
| Harald
|


It's a sloppy way of speakOing.
Dork is a sloppy, ignorant, pathetic local village idiot, like you.


Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?


"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.

According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.

According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?


" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
-- cretin Jimmy Black fmlast3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
he wrote.


According to Dork Bruere
"I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote."

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif


"I know that in the past Androcles has used tAB=tBA to
claim Einstein thinks tau_AB = tau_BA (the travel
times in the frame in which the clocks at A and B are
moving)." -- Blind "I'm not a troll" Poe.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif


"Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind
"I'm not a troll" Poe.
Ref: news:1189468758.944626.39450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.

Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(How many Polacks does it take to change a light bulb?)


"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.

The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.


"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.

Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).

According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.








|


.