Dan McQuillan
@normalsubgroup.bsky.social
Mathematician, mathematics educator and mathematics enthusiast. He/him.
Perfect for one of the things. Thanks
August 25, 2025 at 10:33 PM
Perfect for one of the things. Thanks
Is that your first time for Poutine??
July 5, 2025 at 1:40 PM
Is that your first time for Poutine??
Yeah it’s possible I did one at school or such as a kid but just don’t remember. Think you may have been up CN tower one more time than you think. 1979, summer, was when I went up.
July 5, 2025 at 1:39 PM
Yeah it’s possible I did one at school or such as a kid but just don’t remember. Think you may have been up CN tower one more time than you think. 1979, summer, was when I went up.
I guessed the stampede correctly (I also had a chance to go but did not go) but thought you had been to a territory. Guessed Inukshuk was your other one.
July 5, 2025 at 1:30 PM
I guessed the stampede correctly (I also had a chance to go but did not go) but thought you had been to a territory. Guessed Inukshuk was your other one.
I’m guessing the two that you’re missing are both in the 2nd column, one near the top and one near the bottom
July 5, 2025 at 1:26 PM
I’m guessing the two that you’re missing are both in the 2nd column, one near the top and one near the bottom
Maybe a couple more. In Banff, I avoid horned (and horny) very large beasts at close range. Probably all elk. It’s possible I did one of the others without realizing or remembering, I’m so old…
July 5, 2025 at 11:24 AM
Maybe a couple more. In Banff, I avoid horned (and horny) very large beasts at close range. Probably all elk. It’s possible I did one of the others without realizing or remembering, I’m so old…
Cool. I’m only 17.
July 5, 2025 at 11:19 AM
Cool. I’m only 17.
Or the authors tried to get it published, perhaps multiple times, and by way of bad luck (ignorant referees), the paper was always rejected.
Or there are multiple authors who no longer like each other and one is sabotaging the rest by refusing to allow it to be submitted.
Or there are multiple authors who no longer like each other and one is sabotaging the rest by refusing to allow it to be submitted.
July 4, 2025 at 10:42 AM
Or the authors tried to get it published, perhaps multiple times, and by way of bad luck (ignorant referees), the paper was always rejected.
Or there are multiple authors who no longer like each other and one is sabotaging the rest by refusing to allow it to be submitted.
Or there are multiple authors who no longer like each other and one is sabotaging the rest by refusing to allow it to be submitted.
Reposted by Dan McQuillan
If they attempt to enter your home or your workplace, ask for a warrant. Sometimes they will try to use other, non qualifying paperwork. They need a warrant.
You have the right to remain silent. Assert it. You have the right to a lawyer. Ask for one.
You have the right to remain silent. Assert it. You have the right to a lawyer. Ask for one.
January 22, 2025 at 8:30 PM
If they attempt to enter your home or your workplace, ask for a warrant. Sometimes they will try to use other, non qualifying paperwork. They need a warrant.
You have the right to remain silent. Assert it. You have the right to a lawyer. Ask for one.
You have the right to remain silent. Assert it. You have the right to a lawyer. Ask for one.
Glad you’re feeling better!
January 8, 2025 at 12:10 AM
Glad you’re feeling better!
Solution (2 of 2). The other key point is, with d the number of digits in x (choosing x from 1, 16, 166, 1666, etc) the right sides are:
(x)10^{2d}+(1/2)10^{2d}+(2x+1). But 6x+4=10^d. So the right sides are
(x+0.5)(6x+4)^2+(2x+1).
(x)10^{2d}+(1/2)10^{2d}+(2x+1). But 6x+4=10^d. So the right sides are
(x+0.5)(6x+4)^2+(2x+1).
December 1, 2024 at 12:50 PM
Solution (2 of 2). The other key point is, with d the number of digits in x (choosing x from 1, 16, 166, 1666, etc) the right sides are:
(x)10^{2d}+(1/2)10^{2d}+(2x+1). But 6x+4=10^d. So the right sides are
(x+0.5)(6x+4)^2+(2x+1).
(x)10^{2d}+(1/2)10^{2d}+(2x+1). But 6x+4=10^d. So the right sides are
(x+0.5)(6x+4)^2+(2x+1).
Solution. (Part 1 of 2). A key point is that the left sides of the equations have the form:
X^3+(2x+3)^3+(3x+2)^3. Also, for the x we are using (x=1, 16, 166, etc), 6x+4 is a power of 10, and therefore, so is (6x+4)^2.
X^3+(2x+3)^3+(3x+2)^3. Also, for the x we are using (x=1, 16, 166, etc), 6x+4 is a power of 10, and therefore, so is (6x+4)^2.
December 1, 2024 at 12:35 PM
Solution. (Part 1 of 2). A key point is that the left sides of the equations have the form:
X^3+(2x+3)^3+(3x+2)^3. Also, for the x we are using (x=1, 16, 166, etc), 6x+4 is a power of 10, and therefore, so is (6x+4)^2.
X^3+(2x+3)^3+(3x+2)^3. Also, for the x we are using (x=1, 16, 166, etc), 6x+4 is a power of 10, and therefore, so is (6x+4)^2.
I agree with this except I’ve tended to use “proposition”* for technical things that may not be of interest elsewhere. But yes, lemma is ideally a reusable neat tool. And vibes. Mostly vibes.
*I almost never use proposition.
*I almost never use proposition.
November 18, 2024 at 8:13 PM
I agree with this except I’ve tended to use “proposition”* for technical things that may not be of interest elsewhere. But yes, lemma is ideally a reusable neat tool. And vibes. Mostly vibes.
*I almost never use proposition.
*I almost never use proposition.
I remember in the late 1980s, my prof coming to Putnam practice and laughing about how every calc book uses trapezoids, and a Monthly article had just pointed out how rectangles using midpoints are more accurate.
November 16, 2024 at 3:16 PM
I remember in the late 1980s, my prof coming to Putnam practice and laughing about how every calc book uses trapezoids, and a Monthly article had just pointed out how rectangles using midpoints are more accurate.