Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:How? (Score 1) 147 147

Furthermore, this guy is asking for a "complete and consistant" definition.

In the Incompleteness Theorem, a system of axioms is complete if, for all statements in the system, either the statement or its negation is provable from the axioms. A system is consistant if there exist no statements for which both the statement and its negation are provable.

Basically, his "proof" is "Hey, we don't want a contradictory or unfinished definition, right? And those words mean the same thing as consistant and complete! So, Godel!"

Comment: How do they know? (Score 2, Insightful) 118 118

Astronomers are having difficulty pinning down the galaxy's exact mass, but it's clearly the biggest bruiser within 1.5 billion light years of home

I mean, it's the largest galaxy they've seen at this point. But, if a galaxy of that size can go undiscovered for this long, how do they know there's not another one within 1.5 billion light years that's larger? Did they look at all of it, and just leave this little section for last?

Or is the summary just fabricating things that aren't in the article?


+ - Millenium Prize awarded - Poincaré conjecture->

epee1221 writes: The Clay Mathematics institute has announced its acceptance of Dr. Grigoriy Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture and awarded the first Millenium Prize. Poincaré questioned whether there exists a method for determining whether a three-dimensional manifold is a spherical: is there a 3-manifold not homologous to the 3-sphere in which any loop can be grdually shrunk to a single point? The Poincaré conjecture is that there is no such 3-manifold, i.e. any boundless 3-manifold in which the condition holds is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere. A sketch of the proof using language intended for the lay reader is available at Wikipedia.
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Actually the 47th (Score 1) 232 232

And it's easily proven:

If 2^x - 1 is prime, then neither 2^x - 1 nor 2^x is divisible by 3. Of any 3 consecutive integers, one must be divisible by 3. Therefore 2^x + 1 is divisible by 3.

Therefore 2*(2^x+1) = 2^(x+1) + 2 is divisible by 3, and so is 2^(x+1) - 1.

A (completely useless) counterexample: Let x = 2.

Comment: Re:I understand these modern times and all... (Score 1) 875 875

... but seriously, how is access to a broadband Internet connection a legal right? Somebody please explain this to me, because the article doesn't give any supporting logic.

They made a law that says everyone gets it. Isn't that all something needs to be a legal right?

If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. -- Norm Schryer