<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for The Everything Seminar</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>Geometry, Topology, Categories, Groups, Physics, . . . Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:56:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on About by William Lee</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/about/#comment-3871</link>
		<dc:creator>William Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:56:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-3871</guid>
		<description>Our website Science.org is a informational databases and online news publication for anything and everything related to science and technology. We recently ran a poll asking our website users regarding what online informational resources they use to keep up to date or even to simply find great information. It seems many of our users have labeled your blog as an excellent source of Space information. We have reviewed your blog and must say, we absolutely love the information you have made available to the public and would love to make your blog a part of our top science blogs. After browsing your blog, our research team has decided to award you a Top science Blogs award banner.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Our website Science.org is a informational databases and online news publication for anything and everything related to science and technology. We recently ran a poll asking our website users regarding what online informational resources they use to keep up to date or even to simply find great information. It seems many of our users have labeled your blog as an excellent source of Space information. We have reviewed your blog and must say, we absolutely love the information you have made available to the public and would love to make your blog a part of our top science blogs. After browsing your blog, our research team has decided to award you a Top science Blogs award banner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Non-nonstandard Calculus, I by Alan Fisher</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/08/28/non-nonstandard-calculus-i/#comment-3868</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Fisher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:12:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/08/28/non-nonstandard-calculus-i/#comment-3868</guid>
		<description>I have the book by Bell, but I do not like SIA because it denies the Law of the Excluded Middle without making it clear just when you can make a number both equal to, and not equal to, 0.  On the other hand, those ultrafilters require the heavy logical machinery of the Axiom of Choice.

I prefer to use a proper subset of Robinson&#039;s hyperreals (his R*) only requires the cofinite (Fréchet) filter on N.  Call my subset R†, the set of ratios of real polynomials (the familiar &quot;rational functions&quot;) of the index variable, where two pairs of polynomials have the same ratio (belong to the same equivalence class) if the set of values of the index for which the ratios are not equal is finite.  

This is the classic example of a non-Archimedean ordered set, and, if statements about polynomial ratios are considered true only the same conditions for equality hold, the transfer principle holds for all first-order statements.  The proof requires only the properties of filters in general, and not the property of an ultrafilter that EVERY set of natural numbers or its complement has to be a member of the ultrafilter.

I am writing an appendix for Thompson&#039;s _Calculus_made_Easy_ that uses my R† to justify the infinitesimals.

The great triumph of standard (real number) math is Weierstrass epsilon-delta definition of a limit, which tells one when one has found a limit (using only the real numbers), but leaves no clue as to how to find it.  

In effect, nonstandard methods allow one to calculate beyond the infinite decimal precision of standard reals, and round off directly to the nearest standard real, the limit sought, Robinson&#039;s &quot;standard part&quot;, without all that tedious mucking about in shrinking deltas and epsilons.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have the book by Bell, but I do not like SIA because it denies the Law of the Excluded Middle without making it clear just when you can make a number both equal to, and not equal to, 0.  On the other hand, those ultrafilters require the heavy logical machinery of the Axiom of Choice.</p>
<p>I prefer to use a proper subset of Robinson&#8217;s hyperreals (his R*) only requires the cofinite (Fréchet) filter on N.  Call my subset R†, the set of ratios of real polynomials (the familiar &#8220;rational functions&#8221;) of the index variable, where two pairs of polynomials have the same ratio (belong to the same equivalence class) if the set of values of the index for which the ratios are not equal is finite.  </p>
<p>This is the classic example of a non-Archimedean ordered set, and, if statements about polynomial ratios are considered true only the same conditions for equality hold, the transfer principle holds for all first-order statements.  The proof requires only the properties of filters in general, and not the property of an ultrafilter that EVERY set of natural numbers or its complement has to be a member of the ultrafilter.</p>
<p>I am writing an appendix for Thompson&#8217;s _Calculus_made_Easy_ that uses my R† to justify the infinitesimals.</p>
<p>The great triumph of standard (real number) math is Weierstrass epsilon-delta definition of a limit, which tells one when one has found a limit (using only the real numbers), but leaves no clue as to how to find it.  </p>
<p>In effect, nonstandard methods allow one to calculate beyond the infinite decimal precision of standard reals, and round off directly to the nearest standard real, the limit sought, Robinson&#8217;s &#8220;standard part&#8221;, without all that tedious mucking about in shrinking deltas and epsilons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Beam is Back by Kea</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/the-beam-is-back/#comment-3866</link>
		<dc:creator>Kea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:57:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/?p=817#comment-3866</guid>
		<description>Go LHCb! Go ALICE! Well, OK, we still have to wait awhile ... phew.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Go LHCb! Go ALICE! Well, OK, we still have to wait awhile &#8230; phew.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What killed Madame Curie?  (Part 1) by camron</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/what-killed-madame-curie-part-1/#comment-3865</link>
		<dc:creator>camron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:12:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/?p=715#comment-3865</guid>
		<description>thanks for the information on Marie Curie&#039;s death, this will help me out dramtically on my research project for Chemistry</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thanks for the information on Marie Curie&#8217;s death, this will help me out dramtically on my research project for Chemistry</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I wish I were smart. by Steven Heilman</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/i-wish-i-were-smart/#comment-3864</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven Heilman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:25:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/i-wish-i-were-smart/#comment-3864</guid>
		<description>Hey- if you are curious about 49, I would read Kac&#039;s article (1966) or Gordon, Webb and Wolpert (1992).  I actually just wrote about some related results of Steve Zelditch, for a general audience, here: http://bfrank.org/overeducated/?p=77</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey- if you are curious about 49, I would read Kac&#8217;s article (1966) or Gordon, Webb and Wolpert (1992).  I actually just wrote about some related results of Steve Zelditch, for a general audience, here: <a href="http://bfrank.org/overeducated/?p=77" rel="nofollow">http://bfrank.org/overeducated/?p=77</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I wish I were smart. by Holly</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/i-wish-i-were-smart/#comment-3856</link>
		<dc:creator>Holly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:02:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/i-wish-i-were-smart/#comment-3856</guid>
		<description>This is awesome! I&#039;m going to start one of these! Unfortunately, I&#039;m rather young and don&#039;t really know what most of this means, so I don&#039;t really can&#039;t discuss any of this. But I&#039;m going to start a list like this!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is awesome! I&#8217;m going to start one of these! Unfortunately, I&#8217;m rather young and don&#8217;t really know what most of this means, so I don&#8217;t really can&#8217;t discuss any of this. But I&#8217;m going to start a list like this!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Classical Mechanics, The Symplectic Way! by Quijote</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/classical-mechanics-the-symplectic-way/#comment-3855</link>
		<dc:creator>Quijote</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:24:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/classical-mechanics-the-symplectic-way/#comment-3855</guid>
		<description>Sorry,  the first is a simple misunderstanding. Of course R denotes he range of that function. But the second question is still holds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry,  the first is a simple misunderstanding. Of course R denotes he range of that function. But the second question is still holds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Classical Mechanics, The Symplectic Way! by Quijote</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/classical-mechanics-the-symplectic-way/#comment-3854</link>
		<dc:creator>Quijote</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:39:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/classical-mechanics-the-symplectic-way/#comment-3854</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Explicitly, this means that for every point in N , we have a function {-,-} from pairs of tangent vectors to R which has a bunch of properties&lt;/i&gt;

Don&#039;t you mean &quot;tangent vectors to N&quot; instead of R?

&lt;i&gt;The tangent space at decomposes into the sum of the tangent space to  M at  x, and the tangent space to the cotangent space at x.&lt;/i&gt;

Don&#039;t we need a connection for this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Explicitly, this means that for every point in N , we have a function {-,-} from pairs of tangent vectors to R which has a bunch of properties</i></p>
<p>Don&#8217;t you mean &#8220;tangent vectors to N&#8221; instead of R?</p>
<p><i>The tangent space at decomposes into the sum of the tangent space to  M at  x, and the tangent space to the cotangent space at x.</i></p>
<p>Don&#8217;t we need a connection for this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What killed Madame Curie? (Part 4) by AndrewB</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/what-killed-madame-curie-part-4/#comment-3848</link>
		<dc:creator>AndrewB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:27:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/?p=813#comment-3848</guid>
		<description>These stories fulfill my deep wishes to communicate with the giants of physics. I like it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These stories fulfill my deep wishes to communicate with the giants of physics. I like it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What killed Madame Curie? (Part 4) by Kea</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/what-killed-madame-curie-part-4/#comment-3846</link>
		<dc:creator>Kea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/?p=813#comment-3846</guid>
		<description>Brilliant!!! I am waiting eagerly to see your detective reach a very old age in the present ....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brilliant!!! I am waiting eagerly to see your detective reach a very old age in the present &#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
