I definitely have been trying to find them. I've been working over a month on some of these, but I'm coming here so someone can show me how its done so I can learn from it. I'm learning out of a book, and I can't ask the book questions or ask it to solve my examples. Essentially having someone to show me how these work is crucial in helping me understand the rest of the example problems (which I always work on alone).
So how does modifying your equation by the factor of 1/2 change things?
Well you've worked for over a month, yet you haven't offered any partial work.
Any rate, the 1/2 changes things a good deal, because all my manipulations started from a false premise, which happened because I wasn't careful enough (as when I copy down a problem wrong and end up solving the wrong problem). If you have a logical chain A1 -> A2 -> .. -> An, and if you subsequently discover A1 is false, obviously you can't trust your conclusion An.
Usually a programming bug is thought to be for some Ai where i > 1, but starting from a wrong premise is also common enough, especially if you're trying to model something or reduce from something complicated to something simple; but that's a bit of a tangent.
Anyway it means I would have to start over... so why not just look at the arXiv article and start over from there instead.
September 9th 2010, 02:09 PM
Okay, well I've reviewed the article as well as your work and also trying to understand your code. I understand how you say the logical chain was broken because of a false assumption. However, I still do not understand why if you modded the code to incorporate the factor of 1/2 that you would have to start the whole thing over. I can imagine that it makes a difference using the factor of 1/2, but I do know know to what extent.