Fw: can someone answer my question?

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Mon Dec 7 18:23:37 EST 1998

Walter Eric Johnson wrote:

> How many solutions does cos(x)=0 have?

One talks about "solving" a function for its x-axis intersections, but "zeroes" of a function are
not "Solutions" to the function... they are Solutions to a =specific subset= of a function's
domain, determined by both the function's general Solvability =and= the value of the independent
variable... in the above, "x"... the =Solution" to a function is the function, itself, Proven for
all values of its independent variable(s)... there's always just one of these. Proven functions are
numerical-domain "maps"... given such a function, one can find one's way within the numerical
domain with respect to which the function has been Proven... just as one can use a regular
topographical map to find one's way


> Apply Newton's method to the function f(x)=x^2 - 25.  Select a value
> x0=6 and it will converge to the value x=5 (f(5)=0).  Select a value
> of x0=-6 and it will converge to the value x=-5 (f(-5)=0).  You have
> the same function but it converges to two different solutions based
> on your starting value.

The "solutions" are dependent upon the expressly-delimited conditions... whether the independent
variable is "5" or "6"... what's happening is that the numerical domain of the generalized function
is being "divided" into smaller numerical domains... one cannot call the results "solutions" unless
one carries through reference to the generalized function, and it's larger numerical domain.
Otherwise, calling the delimited results "solutions" is just agreeing to be Blind.

> For more fun, use Newton's method to find zeros of f(x)=sin(x).  There
> are a countably infinite number of solutions.
> : If there's not =One Answer= there's =No= Convergence.
> See the above.

See the above.

> For a series, convergence implies a single answer.  But you were
> talking about solving an equation.
> : ... <much useless bs shipped>
> : When you =Stop= your Murdering of Innocents.
> You're really off the deep end now.

I stand on what I've posted.

> : To the Operators of this "robot responder": Take this matter =Seriously=. I Mean =Exactly=
> : what I've posted in the preceding sentence... your machine is B. S. ...you folks will have
> : Murdered thousands before the dust settles. Disconnect your Pitifully-Inept machine, and
> : Apologize to everyone here in bionet.neuroscience, or the place where you're doing your
> : little "experiment" stands to Lose =Everything=. K. P. Collins
> You're an even bigger bozo than I thought.  FWIW, my primary e-mail
> address is robots at tamu.edu.  There is no "robot responder".

I stand on what I've posted... Clearly, there is a "Robot Responder", and just as Clearly, the
"goals" inherent in the Programming of that "Robot Responder are Inverted with respect to Truth. K.
P. Collins

[to ALL: I =Apologize= that all of this is occurring in your Electronic Presence. K. P. Collins]

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list