Re: Complex Specified Information - Pitman Formula

On Jul 25, 8:58 am, fropome <monk...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What?

oh I get it, you're having a laugh! ho ho ho! ha ha ha! Ah, sorry it
took me so long. Would you like the opportunity to explain the joke to
the lurkers? Or would you prefer it if I pointed out how what you've
written makes absolutely no sense?

It does (sort of), provided you understand the Pitmanese dialect of
mathematics. Dr Sean seems to be using the factorial sign as a
synonym for its generalisation to arbitrary non-negative real numbers
--i.e the Gamma function evaluated at the factorial's argument
incremented by one: x! =pitmandef Gamma( x+1 ). So 3.17! / 2.755! * 0.415!,
for instance, is just Gamma( 4.17 )/( Gamma( 3.755 ) * Gamma( 1.415 )
= 7.45836852.../(4.4492345954... * 0.8865489992441 ...) = 1.8908443883...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­--
David Wilson

SPAMMERS_fingers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Remove underlines and upper case letters to obtain my email address)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I actually suspect that he was going to _say_ something like that, but
had actually just been working it out on his windows calculator and
didn't realise that n! is actually undefined for n <> integer.
My next question was going to by why he thinks the gamma function is
useful here, other than because it generates large numbers. Either his
maths is very good- in which case he would have a proof for this
formula which he can show us- or his maths is very bad. Using the
gamma function without saying that he is makes me suspect rather
strongly that his maths is very bad, using it without having a proof
of why it's there would make me _know_ his maths was bad.

Are you asking me to "prove" that the gamma function actually works
for filling in the gaps between factorials? I'm not sure what the
problem is here? What are you asking me to prove exactly? If the
gamma function actually does fill in the gaps appropriately, and it
does seem to indeed, what's the problem?

What's your proof for 2+2=4 ?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is the integral of x^^x?
    ... encountered) Gamma function and is a real eye-glazer to look ... an exponentiation. ... I've liked the gamma function ever since I learned it was ... bare pass in maths. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Complex Specified Information - Pitman Formula
    ... CSI = 5.56055 ... My next question was going to by why he thinks the gamma function is ... formula which he can show us- or his maths is very bad. ... gamma function without saying that he is makes me suspect rather ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Gamma Function
    ... I'm having trouble understanding the gamma function. ... I have found various websites detailing the gamma function, but the maths is ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Complex Specified Information - Pitman Formula
    ... confirm that you are using the gamma function here? ... it just contained factorials, this would surely be impossible using ... In mathematics, you can only write something if it clearly follows ... Just add up all the sequences for each ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Complex Specified Information - Pitman Formula
    ... confirm that you are using the gamma function here? ... it just contained factorials, this would surely be impossible using ... In mathematics, you can only write something if it clearly follows ... Just add up all the sequences for each ...
    (talk.origins)