From: derek
Date: Mon Aug  2 16:50:46 MST 2004
Subject: 

yeah

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: dbonilla
Date: Mon Aug  2 22:14:14 MST 2004
Subject: || = Same Slope

Usually "meet" is not synonymous with "bump into" in these cases. You guys are getting out of control, and having WAY too much fun. Ye need not invoke geometry. If when they meet, the trains are on different (non-intersecting) tracks then there's no problem; they will not crash. But if they're on the same track when they meet, then it is okay to implicate terrorist motives in the word-problem writer. But, "Do not assume that all math teachers are evil." - Math 7:1

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: keibru
Date: Thu Aug  5 18:59:56 MST 2004
Subject: dear fellow...

Edit this response
Write a response

From: dbonilla
Date: Sat Aug 14 23:15:34 MST 2004
Subject: More Math

The statement of James that parallel lines never intersect has an important exception. Mike alluded to a dependent system of two equations. This is a situation somewhat exemplified by certain intersections in Tucson, and I'm admitting Karen's "cultural bias in this car-ridden western land" here. The intersections of Kolb and Grant and of River and Thornydale are, at least on a map, parallel line segments that intersect. There is perhaps a better "road example" in Phoenix where I-17 and I-10 are one and the same freeway for several miles, although they are not always straight lines. A more beautiful example is the system {x + y = 1 and 2x + 2y = 2} because the two lines represented by these equations are identical and therefore intersect at EVERY point along their length! (I'm sorry, Derek, if you do not share my excitement over this, lol.)

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: derek
Date: Tue Aug  3 18:19:10 MST 2004
Subject: logic

Here's the deal. Not to take myself out of the fold, but I disagree. I believe that the two trains are on a collision course for one reason. Necessity. Because I don't care how far apart the trains are unless there is a necessity to avoid castastrophe. What is the point otherwise? To get an interesting picture out the window of one train? I don't care nearly enough about photography for that. Sorry, Benji. And beyond that, I've displaced my entire understanding of mathmatical principals from those of logic. Logic I leave in the mighty hands of philosophy and theology. I could never understand advanced mathmatics until I began to think of it in the context of language. That is to say, there is no logic, only communication. I do the problem correctly to communicate properly with the teacher, just as I would in any other class using my English skills. Unless I'm taking Spanish classes, in which case I'm pretty much just screwed. So, I refuse to enter into a debate of logic regarding the mathmatical validity of intersecting or perpendicular tracks, or even of being ushered into safety by my co-conspirator in this debate. I choose to stay on the train tracks. It is a matter of language, not of logic. My point will be communicated fully as the trains collide into my waiting body. . .

Edit this response
Write a response Email the author

From: benjipark
Date: Wed Aug  4 00:27:20 MST 2004
Subject: Photography