I am back!!!

[یاسمینه]

Well I was surprised by his willingness to shere his prepublications. Lots to learn, not only in math

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Well I was surprised by his willingness to shere his prepublications. Lots to learn, not only in math

lol I was surprised he's a Assistant Professor without having anything already published.

[IamDZJ]

isn't nima an iranian name?

[Nima Khan Abdali]

but something cannot be a quotient if it is 0<= m < 1 because 0 is not a rational number, you can't divide by 0.

Your papers will get discarded if you make errors like that, although you can claim they'e errata

yes sure but only if you have published papers. Maybe I'll send some of mine. But if I show them, don't reveal my real name.

m here is the section part of q; For example, for q = 5.2, m = 0.2 and a rational. But q = 5 is also a rational and m = 0 will be its section part, and so is rational. For a number to be rational it is not neccessary that it can be divided by some other number. These are the foundations of mathematics! 0 is rational since it can be shown for any t \belong Z such as 0/t. Rational numbers are defined like this. Go figure. Professional papers will not have this kind of things into argument, since their path of argument has been resolved long ago.

No, I won't reveal your real name.

Also, you didn't tell me what level a mathematician you are. I told you mine in detail. Maybe even you were my teacher in university, huh?

Also, send me a private message to tell me your e-mail, so I can send you the papers.

[یاسمینه]

here you need to have some publications before you start your Ph.D...
Or maybe it is Reader's Digest affiliation or something like that

[Nima Khan Abdali]

Hmm... what kind of science are you involved in? After publishing 17 papers I can's say that I am an expert but somehow I can't remember that sending prepublications was a common practice. On the contrary, it was something to avoid. In fact only P.I. and co-authors could see prepublications.
You deal with science in a strange way.

I trust him, that's why. Also, he's already a professional, I think. What will he do with my humble papers?

he says he does appllied math research with group theoretic bundles which are described as Fourier Series. This is used for fiber optics and quantum computng

lakin rikhtia ....hagha darwagh wayee aw bel member dai lol

No, it's Pure Mathematics. I hate applied sciences. I only do and I only rely on theory.

Well I was surprised by his willingness to shere his prepublications. Lots to learn, not only in math

What's there to be surprised? If mankind did not share things with each other, there would be no economy today.

lol I was surprised he's a Assistant Professor without having anything already published.

I have 12 published papers. 3 prepublications that I think I have to review. I will send you as many of them as possible. Maybe you can give me some advices on my prepublications what I should change or add or remove before sending them to be published.

isn't nima an iranian name?

Yes, it is a Persian name.

[Nima Khan Abdali]

here you need to have some publications before you start your Ph.D...
Or maybe it is Reader's Digest affiliation or something like that

I have twelve published.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

m here is the section part of q; For example, for q = 5.2, m = 0.2 and a rational. But q = 5 is also a rational and m = 0 will be its section part, and so is rational. For a number to be rational it is not neccessary that it can be divided by some other number. These are the foundations of mathematics! 0 is rational since it can be shown for any t \belong Z such as 0/t. Rational numbers are defined like this. Go figure. Professional papers will not have this kind of things into argument, since their path of argument has been resolved long ago.

No, I won't reveal your real name.

Also, you didn't tell me what level a mathematician you are. I told you mine in detail. Maybe even you were my teacher in university, huh?

Also, send me a private message to tell me your e-mail, so I can send you the papers.

sorry I meant to write that saying is between 0 =< m < 1 is not how it is defined as rational because you can also have 3/2 and this is also rational. 0 is always rational. Also

Then the section d ^ m / dx ^ m * f (x).

taking mth derivative of a function has nothing to do with nesting. It is just basic calculus; all it describes is the order of the derivative. I mean, all this is fractional calculus, but it has nothing to do with nesting.

the way you were defining rationals was wrong in your previous post..

[یاسمینه]

Again strange - don't you have your mentor or professor to discuss your papers, to guide you? Your every answer makes me more and more surprised.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I trust him, that's why. Also, he's already a professional, I think. What will he do with my humble papers?



No, it's Pure Mathematics. I hate applied sciences. I only do and I only rely on theory.

Well Actually in Modern Theoretical Mathematics.there's no difference between pure and applied math; especially in this field because they deal with properties of applied things, but using theoretical construct of abelian groups to prove them.

however the specific subject you deal with is categorized as applied mathematics.

I have 12 published papers.

show us your published papers

send a link to my IM box.

[Breshna]

bit late to be concerned about this womans image. it is a much admired image and has been in the public arena, since the 80's.

I know its been...around

for a very long...time.

Steve made a lot...money

from her...picture.

[Nima Khan Abdali]

sorry I meant to write that saying is between 0 =< m < 1 is not how it is defined as rational because you can also have 3/2 and this is also rational. 0 is always rational. Also

taking mth derivative of a function has nothing to do with nesting. It is just basic calculus; all it describes is the order of the derivative. I mean, all this is fractional calculus, but it has nothing to do with nesting.

the way you were defining rationals was wrong in your previous post..

No, it was not wrong. I was not defining a rational, it was you suggesting that. I took the section part of q, a rational number, which is (m) and then the rest (exact part - that is, q - m) so as to differentiate q - m times f, then to differentiate m times the result.

For example, for q = 5.2, I need 0.2. Then I would differentiate f 5 times and then the result 0.2 times.

[Nima Khan Abdali]

Again strange - don't you have your mentor or professor to discuss your papers, to guide you? Your every answer makes me more and more surprised.

Just because you love your mother, can't you love somebody else too?

[Breshna]

It is a famous picture of national geographic
It's sharbat gula, she became a symbol

I know who she...is.

I know the village she lives...in.

My point was not...that.

My point is...your a man,

why do you have her...photo

as your...avatar?

Shes not a Indian...pin

up...girl.

She had no...rights.

Where her photo...went?

She had no say..in,

who can publish..it?


Anyway end of...discussion.

Bharati.



Sorry Nima khan...for

flooding...your thread.

[Nima Khan Abdali]

I know who she...is.

I know the village she lives...in.

My point was not...that.

My point is...your a man,

why do you have her...photo

as your...avatar?

Shes not a Indian...pin

up...girl.

She had no...rights.

Where her photo...went?

She had no say..in,

who can publish..it?


Anyway end of...discussion.

Bharati.



Sorry Nima khan...for

flooding...your thread.

No worries, yar. You gave his answer perfectly, by the way.