I apologize for the confusion surrounding the removal of the Application Tracking portlet in MyMIT. The system is supposed to display a message explaining why the portlet is no longer there, but it's not showing up for some reason. I'll look into this when I'm back in the office.
The Application Tracking portlet is gone because it is now definitively too late in the process to submit additional or missing application components. (It was actually too late weeks ago - but our amazing records staff did an incredible job of processing things well beyond the deadline. On behalf of all of us, here's a big public thanks to them.)
So this is just a quick entry to let you all know that everyone's portlet has been removed, and it doesn't imply anything about individual decisions.
Now that the Application Tracking portlet has been turned off, use it as an excuse to let go of the process a little bit. You've done everything you can do, so try to have some fun in these next few weeks. Hang in there and try not to stress - there's nothing left to do but wait, and if all goes well, you'll know in 2 weeks and 53 minutes. :-)
[Edit: to respond to the questions about midyear grades, please don't worry. If we felt we needed to see midyear grades in order to make a decision, and they weren't in your file, we'd contact your school directly to get them.]
Comments (Closed after 30 days to reduce spam)
Posted by: Alyssa on March 3, 2007
Posted by: Sh1fty on March 3, 2007
Posted by: Herman on March 3, 2007
After waiting for months it shouldn't seem that long, but...
Posted by: Tim on March 3, 2007
Posted by: Daniel on March 3, 2007
Posted by: AB on March 3, 2007
Posted by: AB on March 3, 2007
Posted by: Ben on March 3, 2007
"Application tracking is no longer available for entry year 2007. Best of luck to all applicants!"
Good luck everyone, and thanks for the bit about mid-year grades, that makes me feel better. My school only just finished calculating rank last week
Posted by: Ben M on March 3, 2007
"Application tracking is no longer available for entry year 2007. Best of luck to all applicants!"
Good luck everyone, and thanks for the bit about mid-year grades, that makes me feel better. My school only just finished calculating rank last week
Posted by: Ben M on March 3, 2007
Posted by: Ebot on March 3, 2007
Good luck to all the applicants and try not to stress too much, there's nothing else you can do now, so relax!
Posted by: Omar on March 3, 2007
Posted by: Elizabeth on March 3, 2007
Posted by: Daniel on March 3, 2007
okay, is it a good thing or a bad thing that i haven't applied for any other schools????? i mean i ONLY applied to MIT!!
lol. I'm a total idiot HAHAHA
and i don't know what is funny. but that just makes me laugh...............well, of course i'm terrified .
Posted by: Amjad on March 3, 2007
Posted by: herman on March 3, 2007
oh boy...2 weeks. excited, nervous. Best of luck to everyone!
Posted by: Jay on March 3, 2007
Posted by: Jigar on March 3, 2007
my sat scores didn't turn up on tracking and now i'll never know.
guess it's time to say bye.
Posted by: chrissie on March 3, 2007
Posted by: Joti on March 3, 2007
is there really a lunar eclipse tonight? does anyone know what time?
Posted by: theresa on March 3, 2007
Posted by: 0 on March 3, 2007
There's a community at orkut :
MIT Aspirants Clas of 2011
I recommend you all to become a member of that community. It was started by Vishal Upadhayay, so search "Vishal Upadhayay", and then through his profile you can locate the community; otherwise it's very tough to locate the community.
Remember, as per Ben, even the bottom 10% of the applicants are "very impressive", which means that all of us are, "at least", very impressive, as per someone from MIT. I think that at-least-very-impressive minds should form a group, irrespective of the decisions.
PS: don't blame me for the wrong spelling of
the word "Class", in the community's name
Posted by: 0 on March 3, 2007
Posted by: Titus on March 3, 2007
Posted by: Josh V on March 3, 2007
Best I can express my feelings at the moment.
Posted by: 0 on March 3, 2007
Posted by: Ja Hyun Cho on March 3, 2007
:((
:((
Posted by: The madman who makes people fly on March 3, 2007
Posted by: Chandresh on March 3, 2007
I'm also in the same situation as Elizabeth. MIT is my first choice and also the first school I hear from... I don't get decisions from anyone else until maybe end of March, the soonest.
MIT being first... good thing? Bad thing?? I don't know.
What I do know is that I'm totally freaked out to find out. I want to know, but then again, I don't. Yesterday, I was talking to my friend who also applied to MIT. We were joking that "now, all we have to do is wait for the rejection letters to come in..." Yeah, we were joking, but I can't help but feel that that might be the case.
But hey, gotta keep a positive outlook, yeah? We'll see what happens. Good luck guys!
Posted by: 0 on March 3, 2007
If I wanted to know if that was true in my case, whether my mid year reports were ever looked at...how can I find out?
Posted by: Jimmy on March 4, 2007
P.S. Does it really matter with two weeks left before decisions come out and them having been deciding for nearly 2 and a half weeks?
Posted by: Anonymous on March 4, 2007
Posted by: Cobra129 on March 4, 2007
Good luck to all applicants (myself included)!
T-minus THanks to the records staff indeed. My midyear showed up when I checked at lunch yesterday, and then the tracking was taken down when I tried to show my mom after school. Hope that snuck it there in time -_-
Good luck to all applicants (myself included)!
T-minus < two weeks...
Posted by: RK on March 4, 2007
MIT..wait for me.....here I come!
STOP ME IF YOU CAN....SMOKINNNNN.....IAM THE MASK!
Posted by: A guy who skydives.... on March 4, 2007
Posted by: Hanna on March 4, 2007
Posted by: The madman who makes people fly on March 4, 2007
Posted by: 0 on March 4, 2007
Posted by: Hanna on March 4, 2007
Posted by: Ormen on March 4, 2007
A = 1000 / (17 - d)
Where A represents Anxiety (measured in fingernail fragments) and d represents the current day in the month of March.
Posted by: Daniel on March 4, 2007
Actually, I think that just having a foreign language in your CV is a big thing when applying. I dont believe that a D is gonna b such a "deal breaker" when others cant boast about a second language at all. Good luck...
Posted by: Hanna on March 4, 2007
Posted by: yohini on March 4, 2007
Ankit Chandra
Gaborone, BOTSWANA
Posted by: Ankit Chandra on March 4, 2007
All of sudden you are at the cyberspace. You try to access MIT site and due to nervousness you type wrong address a number of times. The web browser keeps telling you 'the page cannot be displayed'. Your state of mind cheats you that the browser means you have been rejected! Hopeless you finally get into MyMIT page. You nervously type in your password and username slowly with your index finger. You ponder for a moment. Something tells you not to log in. Then some force from nowhere makes you hit the return key. And the page loads.
A message appears. It reads ....................
Posted by: Thuita Maina on March 4, 2007
i hav lot to do abt
Posted by: bhushan on March 4, 2007
it really sounds what its going to be
Posted by: bhushan on March 4, 2007
Good luck to all applicants!
Posted by: Susan Virgem on March 4, 2007
Oops! Now where do I stand?
Posted by: Mr. am I Tea?= MIT on March 4, 2007
Best of Luck to Ya'll!!
Posted by: AB on March 4, 2007
Anyway, good luck regular applicants! I won't lie, these two weeks drag - go and do stuff you love, though. There's nothing you can do about admissions.
Posted by: Melissa '11 on March 4, 2007
I didn't even get passed the first line when I checked my status online. I just picked up my laptop and ran to my dad's room, where the battery promptly fell out =)
Posted by: Melissa '11 on March 4, 2007
hey what on earth did you do when you knew that you are admitted Melissa??? you didn't sleep for about on whole month, did you?? lol
OMG i can't imagine what i will do if i find out that i'm admitted!!
good luck to all of you.
Posted by: Amjad on March 4, 2007
Posted by: Ashley Jones on March 4, 2007
Yours truly,
Hopeful applicant Travis
Posted by: Travis Oswald on March 4, 2007
Posted by: Anonymous on March 4, 2007
2 weeks? The suspense might drive some people nuts... As for me that'll be 2 years and 2 weeks, but that's a different story (but this post does make me feel a bit edgy, and yet even more scared).
GOOD LUCK TO EVERYONE!
*cheers for everyone*
Posted by: LilKraze on March 4, 2007
but Anonymous - if you got into MIT, which you seem to want to do, and came here, wouldn't you be residing in America anyways? That's sort of a strong statement to make when you're applying to an American school. Also, you seem to be implying that American students that get accepted to MIT aren't nearly as qualified as the international admits. If that's the case, then why aren't there more incredible schools like MIT in other parts of the world, where their student bodies would be comprised of these superior international students? MIT's student body is primarily American, but if these students weren't qualified to be there, then, despite all the funding and money MIT gets from outside sources, it simply wouldn't have the reputation it has. And that reputation is the reason you're bothering to apply to an American school, isn't it?
Posted by: Sara '11 on March 4, 2007
I would like to tell all the other applicants not to loose hope. I've read about people who where the top in their classes, people who aced the SATs, played three instruments and used to write for the community newspaper get rejected. So don't loose hope, just because you didn't get 2400 in your SAT I, or 800 in any of your SATs II, doesn't mean you won't get in.
In short (or... kind of short): keep your hopes up, we all stand a chance, and if it doesn't happen it's probably because it wasn't meant to happen. Perhaps those us who get rejected will have a better time and career at some other place that is not MIT and attend MIT to do a Masters degree or a PHD. No matter what the outcome situation is, it is not the end of the world, as some people said before, but the beginning of something new.
Posted by: Maverick on March 4, 2007
I would like to tell all the other applicants not to loose hope. I've read about people who where the top in their classes, people who aced the SATs, played three instruments and used to write for the community newspaper get rejected. So don't loose hope, just because you didn't get 2400 in your SAT I, or 800 in any of your SATs II, doesn't mean you won't get in.
In short (or... kind of short): keep your hopes up, we all stand a chance, and if it doesn't happen it's probably because it wasn't meant to happen. Perhaps those us who get rejected will have a better time and career at some other place that is not MIT and attend MIT to do a Masters degree or a PHD. No matter what the outcome situation is, it is not the end of the world, as some people said before, but the beginning of something new. GOOD LUCK!
Posted by: Maverick on March 4, 2007
Posted by: Maverick on March 4, 2007
APMO = Asian-Pacific Math' Olympiad
Posted by: Chandresh on March 4, 2007
i don't think anonymous was saying anything against the american students that are accepted to mit. he/she was just pointing out that international admissions is far more competitive, because mit wants no more than 8% of its classes to be international -- thus, only about 100 foreign students are accepted each year. this means that, even though the inernational pool may be as qualified as the us one, it is competing for a proportionally smaller number of spots.
plus, you have to keep in mind that often schools outside the us are much more competitive and rigorous, and many international students have trudged through much more advanced material than the us public school system covers. so it is very probable that, if there were no limits, the acceptance rate for intls would be higher.
and don't be offended by anonymous' remark that it is the only time he/she would wish to be an american citizen -- it's pretty normal to love your own country and not wish to be part of another. the fact that he/she wants to come to mit to study may be due more to the unique characteristics of the institute and not be motivated by admiration for america.
Posted by: naturalized expat on March 4, 2007
Posted by: sara '11 on March 4, 2007
Good luck and hopefully we'll all get brass rats in a few years. :o)
Posted by: Audrey H. on March 4, 2007
I wonder how many of you are getting pressure from parents as well? My parents are pressurizing me to make a good score in the hs, in case I am rejected from MIT
Posted by: The madman who makes people fly on March 4, 2007
ya figured it right
Chandresh
Did you participate in APMO?
LilKraze
You will soon join the list of anxious people.
Anyhow best of luck (By the rings of aturn, I did correct the typo in this word, just imagine what it could be :(:(|) to all
Posted by: The madman who makes people fly on March 4, 2007
Posted by: The madman who makes people fly on March 4, 2007
Please accept me. Just to make her happy.
Posted by: The madman who makes people fly on March 4, 2007
your girlfriend is 42!!!!!! No wonder you call yourself madman! I 18 and never had a girlfriend; that is one thing which I lack. It's not that I look like a nerd or something, or have any other trait which has prevented me from having a girlfriend.
Though I am humble, and hate to boast, and those who boast too much, unnecessarily, I know many dumb guys being successful in relationships, I couldn't even start a relationship! That's is because when I was around 11 I got rejected by a girl, and since then I never had the courage to propose or something. Considering my age I feel I am really stupid, but after reading your post I am sure I am a billion times luckier, and smarter, and simultaneously less dumber than some boy who at the age of 17/18/19 has 42 yr old girlfriend!
I think because of the age difference a more appropriate term would be aunt-friend
PS: I know most of you must be thinking is this the time to discuss a dumb issue like this...Yes...at least it's not the usual oh! I am so worried I wish I get into MIT .....at least some off-topic posts add some literary contrast to what you are reading, which obviously is makes reading more enjoyable!
Posted by: Anonymouws on March 4, 2007
Thanks for all the fish!
Posted by: Snively on March 4, 2007
Posted by: Qiji on March 4, 2007
Posted by: Jessica on March 4, 2007
It would never be dumb to discuss about any issues in MIT, I personally would not accept the fact that smart people only talk about high level topics, it's just a dumb way to avoid life then.. But anyway, what's the big deal of having relationship prior or when you 18? Haha, I am sixteen and I am applying to MIT, I thought that age is never the difference in life. I guess loads of girls would like you if you just be a benevolent person and always ready to save the days. (let's not turn this forum into a single male's party) But anyway, good luck to your rest of college apps and life..
Posted by: Qiji on March 4, 2007
Posted by: Snively on March 5, 2007
*in large friendly letters*
Posted by: 0 on March 5, 2007
You didn't notice that my gf is already married to an doctorate engineer, with 2 kids.
And well, she first proposed that she would be my "mother" instead --- but is my girlfriend.
And I had been rejected by almost 100 girls already, "They Came, They Saw, They Won, They Enjoyed, They Rejected". Now I have only one left!
I don't know why they are not stable with me. My personalty tests confirm that as a boyfriend I am "Cool like sea breeze, Dream guy etc." And PEOPLE SAY I am above average smartness here, still it's an unsolved mystery. :-?
Congrats for all who enjoy a relationship.
Posted by: The madman who makes people fly on March 5, 2007
Mr. madman if you aren't having stable relationships , it means that there's some area of your personality, and things around you, on which you need to concentrate, to find out what's the fault?
Personality tests aren't quite accurate, at times, and there are some exceptions like you!
Posted by: James Bond 007 on March 5, 2007
Que1 Once upon a time a person kept three bananas in front of an elephant. The elephant ate only two of them? Can you guess why did the elephant not eat the third banana? Please don't read any further, and first think about it for, at least, 5 minutes, before looking at the answer.
Answer [scroll down]:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Because the third banana was made of plastic!
Don't get angry dear reader! Please continue reading.
QuriousQreature Question2
Once upon a time three bananas were kept in front
an elephant. The elephant did not eat any banana.
Can you guess why the elephant, in this case, didn't eat any banana?
Answer [scroll down]:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Because the elephant was made of plastic!
Posted by: QuriousQreature on March 5, 2007
and Matt's : mcgann at mit dot edu
urgent, please help.
thanxx
Posted by: 0 on March 5, 2007
I just wanted to tell you that James Bond 007, QuriousQreature are my pen names.
Posted by: Mr. am I Tea?=MIT on March 5, 2007
My current date of birth and March 17, 2007
Because I'll feel that I have got a new life? I wish I could get into
"am I Tea?"
Posted by: 0 on March 5, 2007
Help me guys. Madman?
Posted by: Viksit on March 5, 2007
Posted by: Ishan on March 5, 2007
The dumbest jokes are always the best ones. Continue making us laugh
Posted by: Hanna on March 5, 2007
web.mit.edu/people.html
Posted by: 0 on March 5, 2007
sinx
---- = x
six
how ?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
s,i,x get cancelled, since they are present in both numerator and denominator
I never said that the numerator = "sine of x"
denominator = 6
you assumed the expression to mean that; that's not my fault!
I never asked you to assume anything
PS: s,i,x are non-zero!
Posted by: QuriousQreature on March 5, 2007
sinx
---- = n
six
Posted by: 0 on March 5, 2007
Posted by: QuriousQreature on March 5, 2007
Posted by: Hanna on March 5, 2007
Is the refracrive index of your brain 1?
If you can't answer this question with full confidence, despite knowing what "refractive index of a medium" means, then there is no need to tax your brain too much, because it means that most probably the refractive index of your brain is indeed actually 1.
By the way, the refractive medium of my brain is 0!
Posted by: QuriousQreature on March 5, 2007
Great to know that there is another Tim Applicant to MIT.Tim, you can reach me at wumborti(at)yahoo(dot)com. i hope we both make this final lap.
Posted by: Tim on March 5, 2007
Posted by: AB on March 5, 2007
R u sure u did not mistake the refractive index of ur brain wid ur IQ? =) Am joking ok. No offense meant. In fact, am refreshing this page everytime just to see wat silly joke u've posted again. Lol...
Good luck
Posted by: Hanna on March 5, 2007
But whatever the decisions, hmm, MIT (I dreamed on it, slept on it) SO!! PUHLEEEZZ jeezz..
Best of LUCK to ALL!!
Posted by: AB on March 5, 2007
Posted by: AB on March 5, 2007
Posted by: Jess on March 5, 2007
let a=2.
=> a+a=aa
=> 2a=a^2
=> 2*2=2^2
=> 4=4
??
speaking of silly jokes...
Posted by: 0 on March 5, 2007
• Proof by general agreement: "All in favor?..."
• Proof by imagination: "Well, we'll pretend it's true..."
• Proof by convenience: "It would be very nice if it were true, so..."
• Proof by necessity: "It had better be true, or the entire structure of mathematics would crumble to the ground."
• Proof by plausibility: "It sounds good, so it must be true."
• Proof by intimidation: "Don't be stupid; of course it's true!"
• Proof by lack of sufficient time: "Because of the time constrait, I'll leave the proof to you."
• Proof by postponement: "The proof for this is long and arduous, so it is given to you in the appendix."
• Proof by accident: "Hey, what have we here?!"
• Proof by insignificance: "Who really cares anyway?"
• Proof by profanity: * * * * * QE f****** D
• Proof by definition: "We define it to be true."
• Proof by tautology: "It's true because it's true."
• Proof by plagarism: "As we see on page 289,..."
• Proof by lost reference: "I know I saw it somewhere...."
• Proof by calculus: "This proof requires calculus, so we'll skip it."
• Proof by terror: When intimidation fails...
• Proof by lack of interest: "Does anyone really want to see this?"
• Proof by illegibility: *Scribble scribble scribble*
• Proof by logic: "If it is on the problem sheet, it must be true!"
• Proof by majority rule: Only to be used if general agreement is impossible.
• Proof by clever variable choice: "Let A be the number such that this proof works..."
• Proof by tessellation: "This proof is the same as the last."
• Proof by divine word: "...And the Lord said, 'Let it be true,' and it was true."
• Proof by stubbornness: "I don't care what you say- it is true."
• Proof by simplification: "This proof reduced to the statement 1 + 1 = 2."
• Proof by hasty generalization: "Well, it works for 17, so it works for all reals."
• Proof by deception: "Now everyone turn their backs..."
• Proof by supplication: "Oh please, let it be true."
• Proof by poor analogy: "Well, it's just like..."
• Proof by avoidance: Limit of proof by postponement as it approaches infinity
• Proof by design: If it's not true in today's math, invent a new system in which it is.
• Proof by authority: "Well, Don Knuth says it's true, so it must be!"
• Proof by intuition: "I have this gut feeling."
Posted by: Snively on March 5, 2007
The proof by logic is, by far, the best! For a proof that I couldn't seem to do on a math test, I wrote that it must be true because we were asked to prove it. My professor thought it was clever, so he gave me half credit..
Posted by: Adam S. on March 5, 2007
Can we still change our personal information?
Because I already edited my mailing address but MyMIT homepage still says that my current mailing address is my old mailing address. What should I do?
Posted by: Carlos on March 5, 2007
Posted by: 0 on March 5, 2007
Ahhh, it's so soon, and yet so far away! Hang in there, guys!
Posted by: 0 on March 5, 2007
i very much doubt it. the admissions office and the financial aid office are two separate entities, and you have to figure that, since the fin aid deadline just went by, the office probably has a ridiculous amoung of mail to deal with. on the other hand, if you submitted it a long time ago, and it's still not there, i would call fin aid to check. i doubt you want to risk being admitted with an empty financial aid file.
anonymous 2:
you're not the only one who hasn't told their parents yet. thankfully, mine will be gone for two weeks including march 17th, so i will have as much space as necessary to deal with the decision.
Posted by: 0 on March 5, 2007
Posted by: 0 on March 5, 2007
Posted by: The madman who makes people fly on March 5, 2007
Posted by: Rebecca on March 5, 2007
(2+2)/+=22 (??) Proved
Posted by: AB on March 6, 2007
hahaha. proof by divine word is awesome. and proof by clever variable choice...
Posted by: Josh V on March 6, 2007
best of luck to all
I wud say if u r appropriate for MIT, God will tak u there and then no one can stop u from getting into MIT
Posted by: bhushan on March 6, 2007
Posted by: 0 on March 6, 2007
i didn't understood what r u trying to say
Posted by: bhushan on March 6, 2007
Keep your faith alive. In God, in yourself and ofcourse, in the wonderful admissions people of MIT. Things will work out for the best. Best of luck, everybody.
Posted by: 0 on March 6, 2007
We know that for any natural number n,
n=1+1+1+1+1...n times
So
n^2=n+n+n+n+n...n times
Differentiate both sides.
2n=1+1+1+1+1...n times
2n=n
2=1
Bonus points for someone who spots BOTH mistakes in the 'proof'.
Posted by: sid on March 6, 2007
Posted by: 0 on March 6, 2007
Posted by: 0 on March 6, 2007
In your proof for 1=2, the mistake is that
n^2 and n+n+n+n.. are both constants.
The derivative of a constant with respect to a variable is zero!
=> 0=0 and not 2=1!
Posted by: Mrinal on March 6, 2007
refractive index of a medium=
<b>(speed of light in that medium)/ (speed of light in air)</b>
Which means if the refractive index of the brain of a person is 1, it means that the person's brain is nearly as dense as air;)
Now, if you knew the meaning of refractive index of a medium , and couldn't answer the aforementioned question, you know how good your brain is
PS: Please don't get offended, it's a mere joke
Posted by: QuriousQreature on March 6, 2007
Initiating hibernation mechanism:
10% ------ 50%----------------100%
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................
Posted by: QuriousQreature on March 6, 2007
There was an Egyptian talking to a man from Gana. The Egyptian said:" You know there have have been archeological digs in my country and they have discovered underground cables in many regions. This proves that my ancestors were extremely civilised as they had the telephone"
The man from Gana replied:" In my country, there have been archeological digs too but they did not find any cables whatsoever. This proves that my ancestors were even more advanced people; they used mobile phones..."
P.S: No offense meant to anyone of any citizenship. It's just the story as I heard it.
Posted by: 0 on March 6, 2007
It seems so many guys have this mentality, "I won't be happy till I get admitted to MIT." This mentality affects so many people round the world, that's why you will hear people saying: "I will be happy till I get a good job, I will never be happy till I get a good wife, I will be happy when I get a nice car etc..."
The point is: if you can't be happy now, you will probably never be happy coz life is a series of challenges. Only positive attitude towards life can make you happy not money. Happiness is a journey not destination.
So guys, let us be happy and not get worried by MIT decisions. We are so blessed that we have no reason to mourn. (And if you think you have probelms, then you haven't seen people with probelms; you will discover how lucky you are!)
Cheers!
Thuita Maina.
MIT international applicant - Kenya.
Posted by: Thuita Maina on March 6, 2007
what for?
well, we can just talk there and waste time lol. i mean we are gonna post comments here at mit blogs and there at the group wasting double the time, and that's what we want. i guess we all want to waste our time at least 'till march 17th
Posted by: Amjad on March 6, 2007
I'd love to move to America, study at MiT and then become a naturalized citizen. Ah, dreams.
Good luck everyone.
Posted by: Eirik on March 6, 2007
Posted by: Borat on March 6, 2007
My Internet Explorer doesn't show this web page, but Mozilla Firefox shows this page. This so strange, is there something wrong with my PC, or is it that MIT is more friends with Mozilla people , than with Microsoft people
Posted by: Anonymous on March 6, 2007
and what if you have more advanced courses!! that doesn't mean you are better, if your school gives calculus courses and another American school does not (for example) that does count for nothing, because that doesn't mean you outsmart those who doesn't take calculus classes at school(again for example), that just means that you are a bit more knowledgeable but not smarter. you have to improve you are smart away from the school work in order to get admitted to MIT.
trust me there are so many disadvantages for applying to MIT as international student, i think you can realize that so clear when looking at the admissions statistics.
and just for the record i'm not an american student lol.
Posted by: Amjad on March 6, 2007
YUCK. IE is just dull, stupid, dumb web browser.
lol
no offense hahahha
(that's what happens, sometimes you just keep attacking then you say "no offense". lol but i'm kidding there is offense actually)
Posted by: Amjad on March 6, 2007
go take a look at it.
Join it. it'll be fun
here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2250308853
Posted by: Amjad on March 6, 2007
How right you are!
Posted by: benhaldor on March 7, 2007
I think by becoming an American you will be betraying your own people. They gave birth to you, brought you up and you have got to give back something to them. I don't mean you shouldn't go to MIT. Go to MIT (if admmitted of course), get your education and go back to help your people.
In any case, I don't think you need to be an American to succeed in life. It's more of your character, personality and brains.
I believe that it's better to be a chief in a your home village than a subject in an empire.
Anyway good luck Eirick in your dreams!!
Posted by: Thuita Maina on March 7, 2007
One piece of advice for y'all (I don't really have a southern accent, just easier to type in. This explanation kind of defeats that purpose...):
1. DON'T PANIC. (nice large friendly letters)
2. Don't forget your towel.
You should be ok. Anyone else thinks that the movie to the book was sacrilege?
~Another Random Naturalized Expat
Posted by: Kiran on March 7, 2007
And i see it alot, its sly, silly... but wrong. However, I have been experiencing that feeling in a place i would never have expected, an MIT forum. Logic is MIT's game, and puzzles are its fun. However... sophisticals... they walk a very fine line, so... this is out to all of you trying to hoodwink others with absolutely mindnumbing cleverness... your wrong.
first of all, is an elephant made out of plastic REALLY an elephant... using my bible... the oxford dictionary, no. An elephant is nothing that RESEMBLES an elephant, so why didnt the elephant eat the bannanas when their was no elephant? this, is misleading logic compensated with wit.
and this 2+2=22, is absolutely false
you cant necessarilly prove this using the proves stated above, but those would at least yield a little more reliable answer. HOWEVER, prove this mathematically, and you find its fals.
ALSO, the person that does say 2+2=22 also trains his own adders to bite him, why?
because he goes on to state that 2+2=4 prove by contradiction.
their, done.
If you want to solve a REAL riddle check out einstiens puzzle... you can do it two ways, the witty way, wich takes 1 read, or the logical way which took me roughly 3000 reads. but a WAY better riddle AND NOT a sophistical!
to do the witty way,
think of the method of confusious, answer every question with another question... DONT be fooled by the facts given, just think about a question that would make the puzzle incinerate before your eyes... 1 question, and you will be witty. this... this 2+2=22 is not wit... its just a bored mathematician to which, i say sole or derive 1+e^i(pi)=0 I derived this
BY ACCIDENT! when trying to solve a nonlinear differential equation... and if you need direction, should be writing a blog on how any average mathematical heavywieght can solve it, but i was really astonished, when i shouled my professor, that the formula was already found... roughly 500 years ago, but its nice to know that im on eulers path... who knows, maybe ill be able to contribute as much as him?
also, i incourage everyone to read his works, he wrote all his thoughts and calculations down... BEFORE calculus, thus anyone should be able to see it... his thoughts are just AMAZING, the downside? thats 70 volumes of 2000 paged work... good luck reading that in a lifetime!
in summery, dont try to hoodwink people, go ahead and hoodwink people that can understand its a hoodwink, but dont try it with people weho have enough problems understanding math as it is... ive seen the effect of such proves on people that dont understand them... not pretty, makes it that much harder for them to understand the CORRECT way...
but im sure no one minds, and im sure all of you would make EXCELLENT thinkers, just know that in the end, false results prove false reasoning, and false thinking. ALTHOUGH, a great excercise to widen the horizons of the mind...
1 week left...
Posted by: Lendz on March 7, 2007
Posted by: lendz on March 7, 2007
BETRAY?????????
OMG i need a break....
c'mon life is simpler than that
you shouldn't think this way....
it's just that thinking this way is so....sad
Posted by: Amjad on March 7, 2007
10%-----------50%--------100% completed
Dear Lendz
It appears to me that you are unaware of the term "Parallel Thinking". What I used in that "elephant and banana" example or that "sinx" example was parallel thinking, which, in a simple way, can be defined has thinking about things, in not the usual monotonous logical manner, but thinking in a completely different manner.
Very few are gifted with this ability, and if you'll get into the depth of all this stuff, you'll realize that many complex mathematical, or real life problem, can be solved, or, at least, partially solved by employing parallel thinking. Also that, the world faces so many problems, and we don't have scarcity of usual-logically-thinking-experts, but where are the solutions? Either the solutions are too expensive, or they are too complex to be implemented, because of the state of the society, and the world order. Parallel thinking has the solutions. I know , to some, it may appear that I am exaggerating the potential of parallel thinking, but this concept of mine is still like a baby; it is yet to blossom into a tall handsome adult, and gain recognition, by the usual-monotonous-logical-thinkers. Parallel thinking is actually a cousin of the plain logic, and common sense that most of the humans employ, it is just that, for centuries, people like you, have conspired against it, and upheld only the plain logic. People like you are the cause of it's stunted growth, and that is why, it's role has been limited to just, the so called "dumb jokes", which are actually manifestations Parallel Thinking. Needless to stay, you do need to deviate a little bit from the dictionary meaning, or the strict definitions, of things. And you do deviate from the definitions of "your bible", sometimes at least; I am sure you do, at least, sometimes, because you are a human and not a programmed robot, which would all the time stick to the dictionary meaning of things. Actually parallel thinking should have attained the status of a branch of logic, Alas! it hasn't gained much popularity. However, I will ensure, that people accept it as a new way of thinking, and that it's role doesn't get limited to just making people laugh.
By the way, those who thought QuriousQreature is some dumb boy, what do you think about me, and my philosophy? How many of you thought about things in so different-than-usual manner? And I would like to remind you that it was me, who came up with the idea that MIT= am I tea?, how many could think like this?
Posted by: QuriousQreature on March 7, 2007
I think the sinx example is dead on, logical coherent, and different, and i never said the elephant one was wrong, i just merrilly stated, that in an argument... someone on my position has the upper ground, because your banking on other people acknowledging your definition for elephant. when indeed an elephant is indeed JUST an elephant. This one here, was misleading... why? also because their could be a BILLION different answers. Why didnt the elephant eat the bananas infront of it? well... my answer, the bananas were directly behind it. why? well, if you walk forward in a strait line you will eventually come in contact with the bannana, so... it ISW in front, yet, not. If this was the answer to the question, you would be relying on something someone could actually figure out. I dont think anyone could logically think that the bannana is made out of plastic... no riddle, because your given no clues. why not rubber? why not glass? But I have no quarries with the sinx/six, quite the contrerary, that actually brought a sly smile to my lips, because logically, i knew what you were going to do. And i do believe i have heard I am Tea before... or something similar; i dont know about that... but i also... drum role... said that it was a GREAT excercise to widen the mind... IF DONE CORRECTLY, and my thesis was, 2+2=22, is not done correctly. thats just plain... wrong. because A PROVE is just that... a PROVE. and what happens when you submit a prove? the examiners look for exactly this. Inconcistencies. so your prove is wrong, by inconsistency, so your going to have to prove it another way. And i might add i have no grudge against parralel thinking, in DiffEQ's its ALL PARRALEL thinking... ok, a little fudgy at times, but its looking at things in a simpler, and more universal... and somewhat drastically different light.
and no, i had never heard the term parralel thinking before, but i am familiar with its concept... so if you will is this a term you invented to describe this process, because id like to use it. it describes it perfectly. so if you did creat this phrase, i ask your permission to be able to use it. Or ill just come up with my own, but parrallel thinking is a good term... although... maybe porpendicular thinking would be better? coming from the opposite direction and all.. na... parralel thinking is good... similar in itself to parrallel transport, and i would recomend you input that into wikipedia, great term... anyways, in summery: I believe i stated that the sinx is grand, the elephant was good, and the 2+2=22 was dumb; and i never made any pun on your ability, just some of the implementation; oh, and i should probobly mention, the only reasons i know this, is because ive had it happen to me. And im gratefull for it. A person was sarcastic enough to go ahead and analyze my witty parralel thinking... but i was lucky because he actually gave me feedback i have never lost... and that feedback i have given you. what you do with that is your own, And I am NO expert at making random parrallel problems like that, so im not saying this as a person "who knows all" just as a person that is offering suggestions on how to do better. but this is all just my opinion, but know, just because i critisize something it does not mean i have no respect, in fact, i usually critizise things i have respect for.
but I'll repeat a point that may not have been registered, Parrelel thinking is a GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT mentle excercise. I recomend everyone to at least attept this at least once a week, Its a great excercise. I love it.
Posted by: lendz on March 8, 2007
I think its far fetched to say i conspire against something... when all i try to do is point out mistakes, thats like calling someone a traitor when they disagree with you, unpatriotic because they are different from you, evil because you dont understand them. I just know what happens when people dont realise the mistakes they are making... they become a habit. Theirs a phrase out their i have come to love, practice makes habbit, so to counteract this you have to have some checks on what you do not know, so please, i invite EVERYONE if their is anything mildly wrong with my conclusions, and even more so the way i got those conclusions, feel free to tell me. And i will not stubbornly defend a dieing point to death. but DONT, because of mild contradiction, say i am in any plot to destroy or subdue something because i disagree with it. In fact i LOVE disagreeing with things, it gives me a chance to stop my usuall unusual thinking, and allows me to take a somewhat unbiosed view of things. sometimes the only way to learn (I speek from experience) is to defend a dieing concept. but thats no where near grounds enough to go shouting CONSPIRACY! just relax, pary, and lunge. its like fencing, someone attacks, you fend them off, and offer a few of your own... logical rational decisions, with a parrallel flare is the PERFECT combination. And I fear/hope that one day ill be able to go up against QuriousQreature because I know, hes one hades of a thinker.
Posted by: lendz on March 8, 2007
Posted by: lendz on March 8, 2007
The second error is a bit harder to spot.
QQ, are you serious? What do you mean by 'uphold plain logic' while rejecting 'parallel thinking'? What you call 'plain logic' is just what makes man different from the animals. 'Plain logic' is truth, and truth is self-evident. What you call 'parallel thinking' is what I call 'amusement'. It's nothing more than that.
Tell me, how exactly can you be useful, productive or creative with 'parallel thinking'? Except for making up jokes or riddles?
('Lateral thinking' is different, it's what Sherlock Holmes used to do. Thinking backward from the results to the events that caused them is very hard to do.)
The computer you use today, the OS you use, the books you read or study, even the table/chair/food/clothes/doors/windows you use -- ALL of them have been created by plain logic alone. If all of us spent all our time in (sin x)/n=6 then mankind wouldn't progress.
Posted by: Sid on March 8, 2007
Posted by: Lendz on March 8, 2007
you begin with:
To prove: 1=2.
We know that for any natural number n,
n=1+1+1+1+1...n times
So
n^2=n+n+n+n+n...n times
mistake #1, multiply both sides by n, and you should get
n^2=n+n+n+n+n...n^2
Differentiate both sides.
2n=1+1+1+1+1...n times
2nd error;
2n =1+1+1+1+1+1+...+2n
2n=2n
2=2
1=1
done
Posted by: Lendz on March 8, 2007
Posted by: Lendz on March 8, 2007
Parallel Thinking liberates the parallel-thinker from the usual way of thinking, and helps them to widen their way of looking at things. When someone learns something new, or looks at things from a completely new perspective, new neural connections are formed inside the brain, which contribute to an increased intellectual capability. Since I haven't "fully" solved a "major" problem by adopting parallel thinking, there's no point showing the partial solutions, since the partial solutions are after all "partial". But, if ever I find a full solution to a major problem, I will present it.
From the tone of your response, it appears that, may be, you think that I am completely against plain logic. No! That is not true, and can't ever be true with any parallel-thinker, because just like while studying the motion of bodies, one need s a reference frame, in this case, plain logic is actually the reference frame. Because, what goes beyond the domain of plain logic, usually lands in the domain of parallel thinking. Also that, since, as of now, parallel thinking, at least, helps to contribute thinking-capability, it's role, in terms, of contributions, is subtle. If for instance you are able to solve some complex mathematical problem presently, it is quite likely that, some time in the past, you solved some puzzle, or some logical problem, which has "parallel" structure to the mathematical problem, i.e. there is some analogy between the two situations. Now, obviously, when you'll solve the problem, you'll take the credit, for solving the complex problem. However, you won't give credit to that other "former" problem with similar structure; assuming that you were unable to solve it, and that someone showed you the way to solve it. Which is to say, that you'll take credit in solving the complex problem, and not give any credit to the one, who showed you how to solve the former problem. I think the best way to put it is just like
"Behind every successful man there is a women."
"Behind every successful logician there is a hidden-parallel-thinker, somewhere deep within the mind."
And one thing, which you seem to miss out, because you don't think this way, is that, a master of parallel thinking has to be a master of plain logic. I can't draw a venn diagram over here, but please try to visualize, "plain-logical-thinking" is a "subset" of "parallel thinking".
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. " - Albert Einstein
I think, though Albert Einstein, is talking about common sense, this words are, to a certain extent, applicable for plain-logic also.
For instance, if someone got angry, because they couldn't think of something similar to an out-of-common-sense answer like "the banana being artificial" {Dear Lendz, Obviously I am not in love with plastic, you can surely choose the other materials; the crux of the discussion is to think differently than usual, and not to favour one material, for no common-sense-reason, or explicitly defined explanation over other }. Why can't we have an artificial banana? Sure we can make one? But why couldn't you think of it? Because you have taken certain things for granted-"prejudice"- like there can't be an artificial banana.
And yes Lendz, you are true; everybody has this capability. It's just that, as Einstein puts it, that people acquire certain prejudices by the age of eighteen, and then they spend their whole life being governed by these prejudices!
Now Mr. Sid please don't restrict your mind to the usual-monotonous-logical-way of looking at the equation that
sinx/x= 6 [NO NO wrong way !]
Please look it at this way:
sinx/x = six
Posted by: 0 on March 8, 2007
Posted by: Mr. am I Tea?= MIT/QuriousQreature on March 8, 2007
Explanation1:
You say let "n be any natural number"
then you do all those procedures to hide a big mistake
eventually, you write
2n=n
Hello! There's no natural number, which is a solution to that equation, zero is not a natural number, it's a "whole number"
Explanation2:
You begin with n=1+1+1+...n times
whether you add 1 few times or n times, the resultant is a constant. Derivative of constant is zero!
You said that you are differentiating with respect to "n"
1)sub-explanation 1:
n is a constant, as per your own of defining
it that n=1+1+1... n times
so you can't differentiate w.r.t to a constant
2) sub-explanation 2:
even if you prefer to still stick to the
"illusion" that "n" is a variable, despite the
fact that when you add 1 to itself any number
of times, one gets a constant and not a
variable, listen to this
Your so called variable is an "abnormal
variable". When we study differential calculus,
we use real variable, which can take any real value, within an interval
What kind of variable is this which can only take natural number values. If you know a little bit of quantum mechanics, you realize that you have taken a sort of "quantified variable", because this variable can take only natural values, and on top of that you perform the audacious operation of differentiating with respect to a strange variable
Posted by: Mrinal on March 8, 2007
n=1+1+1+1+1...n
what if n = 1/2? or n = √2 ? or do you mean n to be the set of natural numbers?
so if i were being formal, with n being the set of natural numbers, then
n=1+1+1+1+1...n
Im not sure if youd count that as an error though.
Posted by: Lendz on March 8, 2007
Mrinal you are... but im afraid you CAN differentiate with respect to a constant.
you just get zero. Anti diferentiate zero and you get +c + some constant. it works...
differential calculus is also just an illusion of differentials, partials are not differentials... but on such inexplicably symple equations... they can be disregarded in resolve for just plane simple limits.
QuriousQreature
What i meant was you did not have a solution, that any number of senarios that i could come up with outside the realm of probobility would work, and that means i wouldnt even have to stretch my mind... i do have to admitt though, you could come up with a stronger answer than that. Also, feel free to illaborate on this parrallel thinking, I feel as if youve tried to broach this topic before yet keep getting shunned away as subnormal or something... that would explain the frustration and needless oppossition to OUR logic in response to yours. Relax. We know what you mean. I quite like the idea, but im not necessarilly sure weather solving an extremely complicated math problem has anything to do with using the technique as a child, because it could be inferred that the child did not make the technique up that way, in which case where did he get it from? Or if the child did make up the result that solved the solution... is it equally as proboble that the adult is equally as qualified to develop the approach the child did? I think so, and im sure you know this but a quote such as the ones you have been stating are generalizations. This is not an english class, we know what those quotes meen and we also know what they dont. And einstien was merrilly stating in those quotes that one must neglect wizdom, or wit, when solving applications. And what it means to leave all your "predgiduces" behind is to leave what you have, and have not learned to prefer. Einstien himself also noted that he had predgiduces that he would leave behind when doing certain problems... but alas; He was a wize man, wizer than most up to today; he was wize enough to admit it.
Posted by: Lendz on March 8, 2007
but i'm not necessarily sure weather solving an extremely complicated math problem has anything to do with using the technique as a child, because it could be inferred that the child did not make the technique up that way, in which case where did he get it from? Or if the child did make up the result that solved the solution... is it equally as probable that the adult is equally as qualified to develop the approach the child did? I think so, and im sure you know this but a quote such as the ones you have been stating are generalizations. This is not an English class, we know what those quotes mean and we also know what they don't. And Einstein was merrily stating in those quotes that one must neglect wisdom, or wit, when solving applications. And what it means to leave all your "predgiduces" behind is to leave what you have, and have not learned to prefer. Einstein himself also noted that he had predgiduces that he would leave behind when doing certain problems... but alas; He was a wise man, wiser than most up to today; he was wise enough to admit it. I have corrected a few spelling mistakes to make it a bit easier for others to understand.
There was a time when nobody could think a+a = a (when a != 0. But thanks to Bulian logic, we know now that this is a valid OR operation. At the creation, it was more close to parallel thinking than solid plain logic. Many cases of quantum mechanics, as it appears to ME at least, looks like parallel thinking, confirmed by "Different Mathematics". I think there are always room to think parallelly, even when it looks like "childish".
I do not want to make any comment on Einstein
Posted by: The madman who makes people fly aka Captain SS Wan on March 8, 2007
I merrilly was saying that if a child could come up with an idea that solved a problem, why is it improboble that the adult could? I think adults are equally as qualified to solve a puzzle using a tequnique they never learned as much as any child... for what did the child use to solve the problem, experience? NO! No, i think that experience just shows us what may work, and may not. nothing childish about it. so to say every puzzle we solve is using a technique we learned from childhood would be a useless statement that i few as incredibly false to the tenth power. You are indeed correct to infer that parralel thinking is used widly in quantum mechanics, but i never heard of different mathematics before... i will be sure to look it up the next time im in borders.
Posted by: Lendz on March 9, 2007
You say that, one can differentiate with respect to a "constant", this is incorrect. When we find the derivative of something w.r.t a variable, as I said, we get to know how that something changes, as the variables changes. But a constant is a constant! it can't change [obviously!], so what do you mean by saying that the you can differnetiate with respect to a constant. Because it would mean the rate at which something, changes as constant changes.....oops!.... a constant never changes; therefore you can't find the rate at which something changes when a constant changes [BECAUSE A CONSTANT CAN'T TAKE VLUES!, simply because it's isn't a variable]
=> it isn't possible to differentiate something with respect to a contant
Posted by: Madman on March 9, 2007
Mrinal and Lendz, yes, since n takes natural numbers only, it is discontinuous, and hence not differentiable.
But suppose that it is continuous. Suppose that 4.5=1+1+1...4.5 times. Then you may have noticed that the number of terms (=n) is also a function of n, yet you have not accounted for it while differentiating. That is the second error.
Posted by: Sid on March 9, 2007
Posted by: Mrinal on March 9, 2007
in fact the rate of change of a constant is zero. you said it yourself, it doesnt change, which means the rate of change is zero... no? so the dirivative of a constant IS zero. which is why we can take dirivatives of a constant... taking the dirivative of zero is another thing though... and requires lopitall to a degree.
in summery, yes you can.
Posted by: Lendz on March 9, 2007
Madman on March 9, 2007 01:51 != The madman who makes people fly
Posted by: The madman who makes people fly on March 9, 2007
we acknowledge.
Posted by: lendz on March 10, 2007
I had typed Madman's name by mistake in the post :
posted by: Madman on March 9, 2007 01:51 AM
I had written that message, for madman, but by mistake, in hurry, I made a forgot to type name. I also mentioned, this before in my post :
Posted by: Mrinal on March 9, 2007 01:52 AM
Posted by: MRINAL MONGA on March 10, 2007
Yes, it's obvious that one can find the derivative of a constant with respect to a variable; the value of the derivative of a constant with respect to a variable is same for any contant, including zero. It is zero.
What I wanted to convey in my post, in which I wrote Madman's name by mistake, is that :
One can't differentiate something with respect to a constant; I never said that one can't differentiate a constant with respect to a variable. Surely, one can do that, because that is mathematically correct.
Posted by: Mrinal Monga on March 10, 2007
hmmm... so it comes down to a case of misunderstanding, and, actually... you may be right, i will need to think on this one...
Posted by: lendz on March 10, 2007
I'll go back to Sid's problem:
"To prove: 1=2.
We know that for any natural number n,
n=1+1+1+1+1...n times
So
n^2=n+n+n+n+n...n times
Differentiate both sides.
2n=1+1+1+1+1...n times
2n=n
2=1"
Firstly, what you have here is 'n', a natural number. And any function f(x)=n, where n is a natural number, is discontinuous, and hence NOT differenciable.
Next (pretty much the same point as the earlier one, but with a different point of view):
2n=n =>2n-n=0 =>n=0;
Which further clarifies that 'n' in this case, cannot be anything other than zero.
And if we differenciate a constant, we get zero.
And just so that you do not make the same mistake in future, remember that f(x)=g(x) does not necessarily imply f'(x)=g'(x); think about it!
Cheers and all the best!
Posted by: Ashesh on March 11, 2007
Posted by: Ashesh on March 11, 2007
I think you probably made a mistake while typing the message you wanted to convey; I think you wanted to convey that
f'(x)=g'(x) DOESN'T IMPLY THAT f(x)=g(x)
but, instead you wrote:
f(x)=g(x) DOESN'T IMPLY THAT f'(x)=g'(x)
Why? It's perfectly correct; if f and g are equal why should their derivatives not be equal?
If the derivatives of two functions are equal, then they may the two functions can be different, because of the constants present in their definition, which get eliminated (i.e. become zero), on differentiation.
Posted by: Mrinal on March 11, 2007
Posted by: K on March 11, 2007
Posted by: Sid on March 12, 2007
Consider two functions:
F(x)=sin(x), and G(x)=cos(x).
Now we know that, F(x)=G(x) when x = 2n(pi)+pi/4;
And one such solution is x=pi/4.
Now see. F'(x)=cos(x) and G'(x)=-sin(x), put x=pi/4, do the values of the derivatives be equal?
Another point. Try to visualise the graphs now. The sin and cos graphs meet at many points, but their slopes are not equal at any of them.
This is just one example. You can find out many others.
Also, I'd like to clarify:
F(x)=G(x) does not necessarily imply that F'(x)=G'(x), AND ALSO F'(x)=G'(x) does not necessarily imply that F(x)=G(x).
And I'm sorry about that Sid, I wasn't very much in touch with this post since I was switching over to a new internet connection.
Cheers and all the best to all of you!
Posted by: Ashesh on March 12, 2007
Lets take F(x)=2x+c and G(x)=2x+c' ; where c and c' are unequal.
We definitely have F'(x)=G'(x)=2, but since these lines are parallel, they never meet, and it is impossible to have a condition when F(x)=G(x).
Posted by: Ashesh on March 12, 2007
If f(x)=g(x)
then it implies that
1) f and g have "identical definition"
2) their domains and ranges are identical
What you have done is that, you have taken a set of discontinuous points (not even all the points, within an interval), and have proved your hypothesis using it.
I hope by giving you a precise definition of what f(x)=g(x) means, you'll realize that your example fails to meet all the requirements; rather it doesn't meet any of the requirements, which means
your proof is wrong.
1) obviously sin(x) and cos(x), are different trigonometric functions, the definitions of F and G are different
2) sin(x) and cos(x) don't have same domain and range
Posted by: Mrinal on March 12, 2007
Well, I completely agree with you in this case.
But then, in your sense, you're talking about 'terminology'
By F(x)=G(x) in this case, I'm indeed referring to different functions, but what I'm talking about here are the values of these two functions.
As far as I remember, writing F(x)=G(x) for all x (or writing F=G) implies that F and G are the same functions. F(x)=G(x) simply means that F and G have the same value for a certain (or more than one) value of x.
Moreover, since I'm already talking about different points here, there is no question of continuity. I'm differenciating F and G separately, and both these functions are continuous on their own.
I sincerely don't think writing F(x)=G(x) implies that F and G are similar functions. It only tantamounts to a simple linear/polynomial/trigonometric/exponential/logarithmic equation.
Cheerio!
Posted by: Ashesh on March 12, 2007
Posted by: 0 on March 13, 2007
Logic is MIT, or at least logic is structure, and it is usefull against everything that isnt a parent or sister. (Bias) Anyways, i would recomend those that think logic unuseful to reorder their parameters. because i know it to be the exact opposite.
ashesh and mrinal, you are both right. and wrong is some places in which the other points out, so you too would make excellent study partners... hope to see you their, i love a good spar.
Posted by: Lendz on March 13, 2007
Wow man, you made me want to come to MIT all the more!!
All the best to you buddy...
And Mrinal, well, lets call this off man.
I guess we're both right in our own different ways, and whatever this may be, it really does show that both of us have pretty clear concepts about mathematics in this regard. All the best to you bro. Our discussion itself was so exciting, so imagine what it would be like to work together?
Hehe, I know I'm making it all sound a little too imaginative, and a little too easy, but still, it never hurts to think man.
I'm really really hoping to see both of you there.
Sharp brains from all over the world. I think thats what MIT is about. ;-D
Lets hope we're all getting the chance to be a part of that.
All the best guys!
Posted by: Ashesh on March 13, 2007
Posted by: Lendz on March 13, 2007
Posted by: rbanerjee on March 13, 2007
Add a comment
Comments have been closed.