Hmmm - I'm a common man and I wasn't insulted by it, not in the least. It is, but any time you put this many people together and let them all talk to each other, well there's bound to be some that rub somebody else the wrong way. And there's even more than a few that say I myself rub some the wrong way. And some that might say the same thing about you. I guess the point I'm trying to get across is that if you're gonna interact in a public place like this you're going to have to expect some things like that to happen. And you're also going to have to be mature enough to deal with it. I suppose I could say grow a thicker skin, but that's just another way of saying what I just said. As for this - I'm pretty sure you know exactly what you were chastised for, and it wasn't because you responded to him. You were chastised specifically for the last sentence you made in that post. And this is the specific rule that you violated with that sentence - Threatening other members of CoinTalk, CoinTalk itself, its owner or moderators is absolutely not allowed. This includes threats of violence, either physically or financially, as well as threats of lawsuits. Threats will be treated on a case by case basis, but may result in the immediate and permanent banning of the threatening member. And lastly, let me assure you, Mr. Bellman has received his fair share of being chastised by the moderators of this forum. Far more of it than you have. Now if you wish to continue this discussion then take it to the Support and Feedback section which is where it belongs and post there to your heart's content. But there will be no more of it in this thread.
At the time of the Civil War, congressional apportionment was ~ 1:130,000 which was quite a bit from 1:35,000. Now we are at ~1:1,000,000. By my calculations congress should be increased way beyond 535 and the people should likely have roughly 20 presidents. Bellman for one of the presidents!
Now I know you boys and girls are just fond of me when you make references like this in your replies to me and that's why I never report you for it.
bad recall, modern teaching or they look similar, j=imaginary which starts with an i. yes, an i would have made more sense and they may have changed it for all I know "In contexts where i is ambiguous or problematic, j or the Greek ιa> is sometimes used" back when I did it, j was the only way it was done and to always make sure ambiguity was not an issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_unit
I first came across complex numbers in the early 1970s, and the only symbol I ever saw used to mark the imaginary component was i. It might have been different in engineering.
Fine, have it yall's ambiguous way as if this now-solved theory of cointivity, relative to cleaning, isn't already bizarre enough. I did engineering, multiple disciplines and we only used j for the reasons stated. I have 100 year old advanced math books and they don't even mention i. Cleaning with respect to coins equals i. I really think j sounds better and is more marketable, but, whatever makes yall happy. I think the solution sounds a bit egotistical now, whereas j was humble.
Well, C sub n = i or C sub n = j. Cn=i or Cn=j ??? Just pick one. I'm talking bumper stickers, t-shirts and the whole nine yards.
Cleaning is a subjective simple term, often applied to an object when the desired surface appearance isn't as the observer would prefer. This term is occasionally applied by a TPG when a competitive slabbed object is submitted for "cross-over". There needn't be any objective surface conditions to justify declaration. May be viewed similar to unsupported "fake-news". Define: often, occasionally! My definition of short, simple is using less characters than you've for defining a subject!
How about ; cleaning in relation to coins equals $. (Keeping it simple.) Define cleaning : to remove foreign matter. (Shortened the word materials.)
My dear friend, any fool who can multiply 2 by 2 and -2 by -2 and get 4 knows you can't end up with a negative square root. So what's your point?
"My dear friend", if one is familiar with polar "i"dentities as taught in relative elementary Calculus, I believe they will realize that the result when multiplying certain imaginary polar "i"dentities is a real number, as you have correctly cited when multiplying certain "real" numbers. Without an understanding of these trignometric equations, it would be difficult to fathom the relationship between "real" and "imaginary" "i"dentities. Enough Said! JMHO