Autor: The thing

Fecha: 9/03/2003 02:23

Hello another joke :

A Mathematician (M) and an Engineer (E) attend a lecture by a Physicist. The topic concerns Kulza-Klein theories involving physical processes that occur in spaces with dimensions of 9, 12 and even higher. The M is sitting, clearly enjoying the lecture, while the E is frowning and looking generally confused and puzzled. By the end the E has a terrible headache. At the end, the M comments about the wonderful lecture.

E: "How do you understand this stuff?"

M: "I just visualize the process"

E: "How can you POSSIBLY visualize something that occurs in 9-dimensional space?"

M: "Easy, first visualize it in N-dimensional space, then let N go to 9"

## [Foro antiguo] Joke

**Moderator:** Moderadores

### [Foro antiguo] Joke

Lo importante es el contenido

Descubre La vida del enésimo

Descubre La vida del enésimo

Autor: The thing

Fecha: 9/03/2003 02:29

ONLY FOR PHYSICS

These are the secrets of the teachers of Murcia :

How to prove a theorem. Guide for lecturers.

Proof by vigorous handwaving:

Works well in a classroom or seminar setting.

Proof by forward reference:

Reference is usually to a forthcoming paper of the author, which is often not as forthcoming as at first.

Proof by funding:

How could three different government agencies be wrong?

Proof by example:

The author gives only the case n = 2 and suggests that it contains most of the ideas of the general proof.

Proof by omission:

"The reader may easily supply the details"

"The other 253 cases are analogous"

Proof by deferral:

"We'll prove this later in the course".

Proof by picture:

A more convincing form of proof by example. Combines well with proof by omission.

Proof by intimidation:

"Trivial."

Proof by seduction:

"Convince yourself that this is true! "

Proof by cumbersome notation:

Best done with access to at least four alphabets and special symbols.

Proof by exhaustion:

An issue or two of a journal devoted to your proof is useful.

Proof by obfuscation:

A long plotless sequence of true and/or meaningless syntactically related statements.

Proof by wishful citation:

The author cites the negation, converse, or generalization of a theorem from the literature to support his claims.

Proof by eminent authority:

"I saw Karp in the elevator and he said it was probably NP- complete."

Proof by personal communication:

"Eight-dimensional colored cycle stripping is NP-complete [Karp, personal communication]."

Proof by reduction to the wrong problem:

"To see that infinite-dimensional colored cycle stripping is decidable, we reduce it to the halting problem."

Proof by reference to inaccessible literature:

The author cites a simple corollary of a theorem to be found in a privately circulated memoir of the Slovenian Philological Society, 1883.

Proof by importance:

A large body of useful consequences all follow from the proposition in question.

Proof by accumulated evidence:

Long and diligent search has not revealed a counterexample.

Proof by cosmology:

The negation of the proposition is unimaginable or meaningless. Popular for proofs of the existence of God.

Proof by mutual reference:

In reference A, Theorem 5 is said to follow from Theorem 3 in reference B, which is shown to follow from Corollary 6.2 in reference C, which is an easy consequence of Theorem 5 in reference A.

Proof by metaproof:

A method is given to construct the desired proof. The correctness of the method is proved by any of these techniques.

Proof by vehement assertion:

It is useful to have some kind of authority relation to the audience.

Proof by ghost reference:

Nothing even remotely resembling the cited theorem appears in the reference given.

Proof by semantic shift:

Some of the standard but inconvenient definitions are changed for the statement of the result.

Proof by appeal to intuition:

Cloud-shaped drawings frequently help here.

Fecha: 9/03/2003 02:29

ONLY FOR PHYSICS

These are the secrets of the teachers of Murcia :

How to prove a theorem. Guide for lecturers.

Proof by vigorous handwaving:

Works well in a classroom or seminar setting.

Proof by forward reference:

Reference is usually to a forthcoming paper of the author, which is often not as forthcoming as at first.

Proof by funding:

How could three different government agencies be wrong?

Proof by example:

The author gives only the case n = 2 and suggests that it contains most of the ideas of the general proof.

Proof by omission:

"The reader may easily supply the details"

"The other 253 cases are analogous"

Proof by deferral:

"We'll prove this later in the course".

Proof by picture:

A more convincing form of proof by example. Combines well with proof by omission.

Proof by intimidation:

"Trivial."

Proof by seduction:

"Convince yourself that this is true! "

Proof by cumbersome notation:

Best done with access to at least four alphabets and special symbols.

Proof by exhaustion:

An issue or two of a journal devoted to your proof is useful.

Proof by obfuscation:

A long plotless sequence of true and/or meaningless syntactically related statements.

Proof by wishful citation:

The author cites the negation, converse, or generalization of a theorem from the literature to support his claims.

Proof by eminent authority:

"I saw Karp in the elevator and he said it was probably NP- complete."

Proof by personal communication:

"Eight-dimensional colored cycle stripping is NP-complete [Karp, personal communication]."

Proof by reduction to the wrong problem:

"To see that infinite-dimensional colored cycle stripping is decidable, we reduce it to the halting problem."

Proof by reference to inaccessible literature:

The author cites a simple corollary of a theorem to be found in a privately circulated memoir of the Slovenian Philological Society, 1883.

Proof by importance:

A large body of useful consequences all follow from the proposition in question.

Proof by accumulated evidence:

Long and diligent search has not revealed a counterexample.

Proof by cosmology:

The negation of the proposition is unimaginable or meaningless. Popular for proofs of the existence of God.

Proof by mutual reference:

In reference A, Theorem 5 is said to follow from Theorem 3 in reference B, which is shown to follow from Corollary 6.2 in reference C, which is an easy consequence of Theorem 5 in reference A.

Proof by metaproof:

A method is given to construct the desired proof. The correctness of the method is proved by any of these techniques.

Proof by vehement assertion:

It is useful to have some kind of authority relation to the audience.

Proof by ghost reference:

Nothing even remotely resembling the cited theorem appears in the reference given.

Proof by semantic shift:

Some of the standard but inconvenient definitions are changed for the statement of the result.

Proof by appeal to intuition:

Cloud-shaped drawings frequently help here.

Lo importante es el contenido

Descubre La vida del enésimo

Descubre La vida del enésimo

Autor: The thing

Fecha: 9/03/2003 02:32

Another joke that i have found for you Schrödinger :

Dictionary of Definitions of Terms Commonly Used in Math. lectures.

The following is a guide to terms which are commonly used but rarely defined. In the search for proper definitions for these terms we found no authoritative, nor even recognized, source. Thus, we followed the advice of mathematicians handed down from time immortal: "Wing It."

CLEARLY:

I don't want to write down all the "in- between" steps.

TRIVIAL:

If I have to show you how to do this, you're in the wrong class.

OBVIOUSLY:

I hope you weren't sleeping when we discussed this earlier, because I refuse to repeat it.

RECALL:

I shouldn't have to tell you this, but for those of you who erase your memory tapes after every test...

WLOG (Without Loss Of Generality):

I'm not about to do all the possible cases, so I'll do one and let you figure out the rest.

IT CAN EASILY BE SHOWN:

Even you, in your finite wisdom, should be able to prove this without me holding your hand.

CHECK or CHECK FOR YOURSELF:

This is the boring part of the proof, so you can do it on your own time.

SKETCH OF A PROOF:

I couldn't verify all the details, so I'll break it down into the parts I couldn't prove.

HINT:

The hardest of several possible ways to do a proof.

BRUTE FORCE (AND IGNORANCE):

Four special cases, three counting arguments, two long inductions, "and a partridge in a pair tree."

SOFT PROOF:

One third less filling (of the page) than your regular proof, but it requires two extra years of course work just to understand the terms.

ELEGANT PROOF:

Requires no previous knowledge of the subject matter and is less than ten lines long.

SIMILARLY:

At least one line of the proof of this case is the same as before.

CANONICAL FORM:

4 out of 5 mathematicians surveyed recommended this as the final form for their students who choose to finish.

TFAE (The Following Are Equivalent):

If I say this it means that, and if I say that it means the other thing, and if I say the other thing...

BY A PREVIOUS THEOREM:

I don't remember how it goes (come to think of it I'm not really sure we did this at all), but if I stated it right (or at all), then the rest of this follows.

TWO LINE PROOF:

I'll leave out everything but the conclusion, you can't question 'em if you can't see 'em.

BRIEFLY:

I'm running out of time, so I'll just write and talk faster.

LET'S TALK THROUGH IT:

I don't want to write it on the board lest I make a mistake.

PROCEED FORMALLY:

Manipulate symbols by the rules without any hint of their true meaning (popular in pure math courses).

QUANTIFY:

I can't find anything wrong with your proof except that it won't work if x is a moon of Jupiter (Popular in applied math courses).

PROOF OMITTED:

Trust me, It's true.

Fecha: 9/03/2003 02:32

Another joke that i have found for you Schrödinger :

Dictionary of Definitions of Terms Commonly Used in Math. lectures.

The following is a guide to terms which are commonly used but rarely defined. In the search for proper definitions for these terms we found no authoritative, nor even recognized, source. Thus, we followed the advice of mathematicians handed down from time immortal: "Wing It."

CLEARLY:

I don't want to write down all the "in- between" steps.

TRIVIAL:

If I have to show you how to do this, you're in the wrong class.

OBVIOUSLY:

I hope you weren't sleeping when we discussed this earlier, because I refuse to repeat it.

RECALL:

I shouldn't have to tell you this, but for those of you who erase your memory tapes after every test...

WLOG (Without Loss Of Generality):

I'm not about to do all the possible cases, so I'll do one and let you figure out the rest.

IT CAN EASILY BE SHOWN:

Even you, in your finite wisdom, should be able to prove this without me holding your hand.

CHECK or CHECK FOR YOURSELF:

This is the boring part of the proof, so you can do it on your own time.

SKETCH OF A PROOF:

I couldn't verify all the details, so I'll break it down into the parts I couldn't prove.

HINT:

The hardest of several possible ways to do a proof.

BRUTE FORCE (AND IGNORANCE):

Four special cases, three counting arguments, two long inductions, "and a partridge in a pair tree."

SOFT PROOF:

One third less filling (of the page) than your regular proof, but it requires two extra years of course work just to understand the terms.

ELEGANT PROOF:

Requires no previous knowledge of the subject matter and is less than ten lines long.

SIMILARLY:

At least one line of the proof of this case is the same as before.

CANONICAL FORM:

4 out of 5 mathematicians surveyed recommended this as the final form for their students who choose to finish.

TFAE (The Following Are Equivalent):

If I say this it means that, and if I say that it means the other thing, and if I say the other thing...

BY A PREVIOUS THEOREM:

I don't remember how it goes (come to think of it I'm not really sure we did this at all), but if I stated it right (or at all), then the rest of this follows.

TWO LINE PROOF:

I'll leave out everything but the conclusion, you can't question 'em if you can't see 'em.

BRIEFLY:

I'm running out of time, so I'll just write and talk faster.

LET'S TALK THROUGH IT:

I don't want to write it on the board lest I make a mistake.

PROCEED FORMALLY:

Manipulate symbols by the rules without any hint of their true meaning (popular in pure math courses).

QUANTIFY:

I can't find anything wrong with your proof except that it won't work if x is a moon of Jupiter (Popular in applied math courses).

PROOF OMITTED:

Trust me, It's true.

Lo importante es el contenido

Descubre La vida del enésimo

Descubre La vida del enésimo

Autor: The thing

Fecha: 9/03/2003 02:34

I'm bored :

Theorem:

The world is divided into two classes:

people who say "The world is divided into two classes",

and people who say: The world is divided into two classes:

people who say: "The world is divided into two classes",

and people who say: The world is divided into two classes:

people who say ...

Fecha: 9/03/2003 02:34

I'm bored :

Theorem:

The world is divided into two classes:

people who say "The world is divided into two classes",

and people who say: The world is divided into two classes:

people who say: "The world is divided into two classes",

and people who say: The world is divided into two classes:

people who say ...

Lo importante es el contenido

Descubre La vida del enésimo

Descubre La vida del enésimo

Autor: The thing

Fecha: 9/03/2003 02:36

The other :

Salary Theorem

The less you know, the more you make.

Proof:

Postulate 1: Knowledge is Power.

Postulate 2: Time is Money.

As every engineer knows: Power = Work / Time

And since Knowledge = Power and Time = Money

It is therefore true that Knowledge = Work / Money .

Solving for Money, we get:

Money = Work / Knowledge

Thus, as Knowledge approaches zero, Money approaches infinity, regardless of the amount of Work done.

Fecha: 9/03/2003 02:36

The other :

Salary Theorem

The less you know, the more you make.

Proof:

Postulate 1: Knowledge is Power.

Postulate 2: Time is Money.

As every engineer knows: Power = Work / Time

And since Knowledge = Power and Time = Money

It is therefore true that Knowledge = Work / Money .

Solving for Money, we get:

Money = Work / Knowledge

Thus, as Knowledge approaches zero, Money approaches infinity, regardless of the amount of Work done.

Lo importante es el contenido

Descubre La vida del enésimo

Descubre La vida del enésimo

Autor: The thing

Fecha: 9/03/2003 02:25

Hello this joke for you Schrödinger:

An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician are staying in a hotel.

The engineer wakes up and smells smoke. He goes out into the hallway and sees a fire, so he fills a trash can from his room with water and douses the fire. He goes back to bed.

Later, the physicist wakes up and smells smoke. He opens his door and sees a fire in the hallway. He walks down the hall to a fire hose and after calculating the flame velocity, distance, water pressure, trajectory, etc. extinguishes the fire with the minimum amount of water and energy needed.

Later, the mathematician wakes up and smells smoke. He goes to the hall, sees the fire and then the fire hose. He thinks for a moment and then exclaims, "Ah, a solution exists!" and then goes back to bed.

Fecha: 9/03/2003 02:25

Hello this joke for you Schrödinger:

An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician are staying in a hotel.

The engineer wakes up and smells smoke. He goes out into the hallway and sees a fire, so he fills a trash can from his room with water and douses the fire. He goes back to bed.

Later, the physicist wakes up and smells smoke. He opens his door and sees a fire in the hallway. He walks down the hall to a fire hose and after calculating the flame velocity, distance, water pressure, trajectory, etc. extinguishes the fire with the minimum amount of water and energy needed.

Later, the mathematician wakes up and smells smoke. He goes to the hall, sees the fire and then the fire hose. He thinks for a moment and then exclaims, "Ah, a solution exists!" and then goes back to bed.

Lo importante es el contenido

Descubre La vida del enésimo

Descubre La vida del enésimo

Autor: Goldstein

Fecha: 9/05/2003 11:43

A VER SI TAMBIEN ESCRIBIMOS EN FRANCES PARA QUE ME ENTERE, O ME MANDAS UNA TRADUCCION A MI CORREO, QUE LUEGO NO SE POR DONDE VAN LOS TIROS¡¡¡¡

Fecha: 9/05/2003 11:43

A VER SI TAMBIEN ESCRIBIMOS EN FRANCES PARA QUE ME ENTERE, O ME MANDAS UNA TRADUCCION A MI CORREO, QUE LUEGO NO SE POR DONDE VAN LOS TIROS¡¡¡¡

Lo importante es el contenido

Descubre La vida del enésimo

Descubre La vida del enésimo

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests