Activity for Peter Taylorâ€
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edit | Post #288039 |
Post edited: |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #288022 |
I haven't analysed it in detail, but I don't think that *a priori* it can be assumed to be fallacious. (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #288022 |
It's not impossible in principle to make a profit by buying every number combination, although it requires a large syndicate both to invest and to obtain the tickets; a lottery where unwon prizes roll over so that the jackpot gets large enough to be worth it; and a bit of luck so that you're not shar... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287999 |
I was specifically assuming that the numbers on each ticket are *not* randomly generated but chosen by the player. (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287999 |
I would say that in the context of the question the chance of winning is linear with the number of tickets because we can assume that the tickets will not have the same numbers, and a perfect match with the selected numbers is required to win, so they cover different outcomes of a single event. (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287998 |
Post edited: It's not necessary to put the entire post in bold; compact the comparable data into one table; the Daily Keno description was insufficient to say anything meaningful |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287973 | Question closed | — | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287958 | Question closed | — | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287958 |
To properly answer this question we would need full details on the prize structure (because most lotteries have more than just the top prize) and sufficient details on the ticket structure to estimate the chances of prizes being shared. (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287787 |
Certainly $p_0 \in$ [A183064](https://oeis.org/A183064) shows that candidates are quite sparse. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287787 |
Post edited: Tweak for consistency |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287787 | Initial revision | — | over 1 year ago |
| Question | — |
Prove that 49 is the only prime square to be followed by twice a prime square and then a semiprime Let $\tau(n)$ denote the number of divisors of $n$. OEIS sequence A309981 gives the smallest $k$ such that the tuple $(\tau(n), \tau(n+1), \ldots, \tau(n+k))$ uniquely determines $n$. For small $n$ the value can often be verified by case analysis in residues to a suitable modulus, but $n=49$ is mo... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287764 |
I think that it's intended to be seen as community reputation rather than mathematics reputation: it measures your contribution to the math.codidact.com community (and that, in turn, is arguably a proxy for activity in the math.codidact.com community, as long as you're not mainly making posts which g... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287761 |
Your comment about the unapproved edit possibly points to the need for a feature request. I'm a site moderator but the moderation tools don't seem to show a queue of edits pending approval. If it's still pending, post a link in this comment thread and I'll look at it. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287674 |
The choice of symbols is separate to the choice of base. The symbols which you call Arabic numerals in the question aren't the 10 symbols used in Arabic. Computer programmers tend to use 0123456789abcdef for hexadecimal. But it seems to me that the choice of symbols is a question of communication as ... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287674 |
Is this a question about mathematics? (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287588 |
[Quadratic programming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_programming) has a long Wikipedia page which I won't attempt to summarise beyond to say that it's about optimising an "objective function" subject to quadratic constraints. Since all you care about is the existence of a solution, the cho... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287588 |
"Correct assignment of signs": when I said "signed volume" it's because if the given value is negative you need to negate it to get the correct volume. Assigning the signs is essentially guessing which ones need to be negated. (The last sentence gives an idea for making an intelligent guess; in the w... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287588 |
Post edited: |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287588 | Initial revision | — | over 1 year ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Dividing a cuboid in four Firstly, I assume that your usage of "quadrilateral" implies planarity, and I will largely assume that the hexahedron is convex. Then the hexahedron can be represented as six vectors, being the (unnormalised) normals for the planes under the convention that the plane is given by $v \cdot N = 1$. This... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287518 |
I think it would be possible to replace `$$` with `$`, similarly with whatever other block markers are configured, and `\begin` with `%` or something else which makes the eqnarray or cases or whatever environment obviously not render so that the poster realises there's something to fix. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287519 | Initial revision | — | over 1 year ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Posts with math are very, very tall in the feed Apart from my other answer about titles, which is posted separately so that people can vote on it separately, I don't see a problem which needs fixing. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287518 | Initial revision | — | over 1 year ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Posts with math are very, very tall in the feed I think that forcing inline display of a given MathJax segment in some contexts but not others is not a great solution because there are a few things which get treated differently in the two contexts, to the extent that I change some markup if I decide to change a block to an inline block. However... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287410 |
Post edited: When I fixed the consistency in the body earlier I overlooked the title |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287502 | Initial revision | — | over 1 year ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Is posting multiple answers encouraged, and under what circumstances? I'm not aware of any specific guidance, so for now it probably comes down to "Use your common sense". Certainly if the answers are long and independent then it makes sense to post them separately; if they're all one-liners then it probably makes more sense to post them in one answer. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287481 |
View Source shows that the raw HTML being sent to the browser is `A parabola is given by $y^2=2px$ with $p>0$. The point $D$ is on the parabola in the first quadrant at a distance of $8$ from the $x$-a...` so the problem is a double-escaping. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287410 |
Post edited: Make the two expressions consistent with each other, use more standard limits |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287492 |
Rather than mapping the whole original example, maybe you can split it: at least one of the ranges $[0, 1]$ and $[1, \infty)$ must preserve the property, and if it's the latter then it's at least worth considering that it still preserves the property under the mapping $x \to \frac1x$. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287439 | Initial revision | — | over 1 year ago |
| Answer | — |
A: Find all integer solutions for $a_1(a_1+k)(a_1+2k)...(a_1+(2k+1)d)+1 = n^2$ The initial observation is explained by the identity $$(x^2 + 3x + 1)^2 = x(x+1)(x+2)(x+3) + 1$$ The generalisation is messed up in the question as it currently stands, but the only smallish similar identity which I can find is the uninteresting $$(x+1)^2 = x(x+2) + 1$$ (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #287178 |
@#55348, if you take any 2D shape with a well-defined area and sweep it along its normal to create a generalised prism of height h, the volume will be the area times h. If you linearly scale the shape by the same scale in both directions, the area of the shape (and hence the volume of the generalised... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287146 | Initial revision | — | over 1 year ago |
| Answer | — |
A: What to do with the algebra-precalculus tag? After a week, I've taken action in line with the feedback received by eliminating the tag, retagging some of the questions which had it, and deleting some which had no redeeming features at all (negative score, no upvotes, no answers except for a self-answer by a deleted user). (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #282966 |
Post edited: Eliminating unhelpful tag algebra-precalculus |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #280118 |
Post edited: Eliminating unhelpful tag algebra-precalculus |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #286140 |
Post edited: Eliminating unhelpful tag algebra-precalculus |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287063 |
Post edited: Eliminating unhelpful tag algebra-precalculus |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #287078 | Initial revision | — | over 1 year ago |
| Question | — |
What to do with the algebra-precalculus tag? This question is prompted by a recent question with the tag algebra-precalculus, although I see that it's by no means the first. This tag apparently means something to some people. I believe that specifically it means something to people who went through the US education system (whether in the US ... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #286991 |
I've seen this problem before, I but can't remember the details. One thing which does stand out is that the extrema settle. If you consider e.g. ordering $1,2,5,3,4,6$, the $1,2,\ldots$ and $\ldots,6$ are now fixed. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #286854 |
Ok, I get it now. For some reason I was visualising the spiral as going inwards, not outwards. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #286854 |
This isn't bijective: it doesn't encode information about the width and height of the spiral, so it can't be decoded. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #286709 |
I wonder whether the textbook was badly translated into English. A more standard name for $m_1, m_2, \ldots, m_k$ would be *intermediate terms*, and you'll probably find that more useful for communicating with people who didn't use the same textbook. (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #286709 |
Are you sure that "mean" is the correct word? The arithmetic mean of a collection of numbers is the most common form of average. I would guess from the example that the term you want is "number of intermediate values", but I'm not certain that it's the only possibility. (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #286656 | Initial revision | — | almost 2 years ago |