<?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:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" 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>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:13:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on The Axiom of Choice is Wrong by Hot Chick</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/the-axiom-of-choice-is-wrong/#comment-3887</link>
		<dc:creator>Hot Chick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:13:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/the-axiom-of-choice-is-wrong/#comment-3887</guid>
		<description>You nerds are so fucking hot! I am soooo turned on now. I can fuck Terence and Mark at the same time..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You nerds are so fucking hot! I am soooo turned on now. I can fuck Terence and Mark at the same time..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Rediscovering the Standard Model by S.C. Kavassalis</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/rediscovering-the-standard-model/#comment-3885</link>
		<dc:creator>S.C. Kavassalis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/?p=864#comment-3885</guid>
		<description>Great summary of the LHC highlights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great summary of the LHC highlights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on I wish I were smart. by melon</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/i-wish-i-were-smart/#comment-3883</link>
		<dc:creator>melon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:46:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/i-wish-i-were-smart/#comment-3883</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re plenty smart. Heavens know how I&#039;m going to get past linear algebra and diffy Q this semester. So much for my &quot;easy&quot; first year of college...
Speaking of Cornell, is the food really as good as it&#039;s hyped up to be?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re plenty smart. Heavens know how I&#8217;m going to get past linear algebra and diffy Q this semester. So much for my &#8220;easy&#8221; first year of college&#8230;<br />
Speaking of Cornell, is the food really as good as it&#8217;s hyped up to be?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Sum Divergent Series, II by Carl</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/sum-divergent-series-ii/#comment-3882</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:11:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/sum-divergent-series-ii/#comment-3882</guid>
		<description>Hi 

For quite some time i&#039;m thrilled by divergent series and consistent ways to assign a number to their &#039;sum&#039;.

Has anyone got a pointer what that sum would be for the sum of all primes?
N = 2 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 11 + ... ?

Thanks
Carl</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi </p>
<p>For quite some time i&#8217;m thrilled by divergent series and consistent ways to assign a number to their &#8217;sum&#8217;.</p>
<p>Has anyone got a pointer what that sum would be for the sum of all primes?<br />
N = 2 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 11 + &#8230; ?</p>
<p>Thanks<br />
Carl</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Protons have *collided* in the LHC by Caroline Pandolfini</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/protons-have-collided-in-the-lhc/#comment-3878</link>
		<dc:creator>Caroline Pandolfini</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:37:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/?p=857#comment-3878</guid>
		<description>Great news! I am a college sophomore with a dual major in Physics and Mathematics @ University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. By the way, i came across these excellent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.funnelbrain.com/searchResults.php?searchTxt=physics&amp;decks=true&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;physics flash cards&lt;/a&gt;. Its also a great initiative by the FunnelBrain team. Amazing!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great news! I am a college sophomore with a dual major in Physics and Mathematics @ University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. By the way, i came across these excellent <a href="http://www.funnelbrain.com/searchResults.php?searchTxt=physics&amp;decks=true" rel="nofollow">physics flash cards</a>. Its also a great initiative by the FunnelBrain team. Amazing!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Protons have orbited the LHC! by Interesting links for week ending November 21st &#124; Interesting Things</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/protons-have-orbited-the-lhc/#comment-3875</link>
		<dc:creator>Interesting links for week ending November 21st &#124; Interesting Things</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:05:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/?p=845#comment-3875</guid>
		<description>[...] Protons have orbited the LHC! [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Protons have orbited the LHC! [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Axiom of Choice is Wrong by Petter</title>
		<link>http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/the-axiom-of-choice-is-wrong/#comment-3873</link>
		<dc:creator>Petter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:42:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cornellmath.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/the-axiom-of-choice-is-wrong/#comment-3873</guid>
		<description>David Wilson, it seems that your objection is that their scheme cannot be applied in &quot;real life&quot;. That is quite obvious for arguments that invoke the AC.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David Wilson, it seems that your objection is that their scheme cannot be applied in &#8220;real life&#8221;. That is quite obvious for arguments that invoke the AC.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<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>
</channel>
</rss>
