jabee

Not only did I see the shirt...I had to ask people to speak up so i could hear them over it I did hear someone talking about a near record Conger up at LA in October....strangely, he also had on a funny shirt

I did hear a rumour about a Striped Red Mullet..............some bloke in a funny shirt was telling me about it

Glory Hunter

See ya Jon!

Nice one Stan btw...those Everol guides really do look the business Will send those transfers up this week

Enough already

Anyone interested in a 'how to replace a rod ring' (amateur style....I'll leave the pro advice to StanM )

--> QUOTE(Norm B @ Dec 7 2006, 09:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I've been asked if I know of a good site for boat rig diagrams and I'm sure some one here knows of a few, I hope. I think there's a few on World Sea Fishing

Oi

Davy I'll bring some up next time......but be warned, they are a messy bait!

Who me.....but I can't even prove that -1*-1=+1

In mathamatical terms, It has been proved in that the 'wrong' answer is disproved and then applying the correct answer to the first equation, thus proving it to be so. To provide a proof in practical terms is quite difficult, in that we are applying thoery to events....Do not fall in to the trap of viweing a negative value as simply less than nothing. A negative value is a number within the framework of mathamatics theory. In my example of an employer paying your tax, being expressed as the equation -12*-100=£1200. Who is to say definitively that the period in which the payments are made on your behalf should be expressed as -12, however, the expression; -12 * -100 = £1200 does represent a reality in that you will have received £1200 worth of benefit for no cost! -12 * 100 = £1200, or even 12 * -100 = £1200 is incorrect (remember this is proved incorrect by 1*x=x)

The way i see it, you have [1*(x+y vicars)]+(pet shop)+(owner)+[parrot+(2*z)]; x and y being unknown variables, and z being strings of unknown length attached to legs of said parrot!

I am sat at home with the flu, bored, f**k all on telly, so…….. -2 * -3 = (-1)(2)(-1)(3) -2 * -3 =(-1)(-1)(2)(3) -2 * -3=(-1)(-1)(6) To solve this equation we must therefore know the value of (-1)(-1) The solution that is applied in mathamatics is that the answer is +1, which can be confirmed in that any other answer simply would not work; if we applied an assumption that the answer was negative, then the distributive property of multiplication would give the following answer when solving the equation below; Unfortunately, here I have to insert an assumption, being that, a positive number multiplied by negative number, gives a negative; This can be considered safe, in that it is proved by the equation 1*x=x, so 1*-1=-1. So, using the 'incorrect' assumption that the product of two negative numbers is a negative; (-1)(1+ -1) = (-1)(1) + (-1)(-1) (-1)(0) = -1+-1 0=-2 Which is clearly wrong, therfore disproving the 'incorrect' assumption! However, applying the correct assumption that –1*-1=1; (-1)(1+-1) = (-1)(1)+(-1)(-1) (-1)(0)=-1+1 0=0 So, going back to the first equation: -2 * -3 = (-1)(-1)(6) 6 = 1*6 QED! And I'm stuck here with my Beechams powders

PS...over the weekend, I might just find myself looking through some old maths books

Actually Dave's example does work with a little adjustment. Lets say that you pay income tax on benefits each month of £100 which is deducted from your salary. On the basis that the deduction is represented as a negative, the equation would be; 12 * -£100 = -£1200 Representing reality, in that your 'potential' wealth has been reduced by £1200 over the course of a year. Now lets say that your employer kindly agrees to pay your tax bill on benefits for you (lets not get into discussion about tax rules, but under certain circumstances, this is possible). We can represent the 'removal' of this deduction as a negative; -12 * -£100 = £1200 Again reflecting the reality that your potential wealth is now increased by £1200 (remembering that you are continuing to receive the taxable benefits, without personally meeting the tax burden for the period).

the second proof demonstrates the following; On the basis that xy is positive and xy - (-x)(y) = 0, then (-x)(y) is the additive inverse of xy, therefore negative! I will though have a go later at answering your specific question Dave....I think if it were someone working for me, I might call it falsifying expenses.....where did I put that red card

Don't get me wrong Les....I don't earn anything like £90 per hour, but the company I work for receive a damn site more than that from customers for my time

A quote from Einstien; "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality" And a maths joke; Did you hear the one about the statistician? .....Probably And finally, bringing us back to the subject in hand; A mathematician and a biologist are sitting in a street cafe watching people going in and coming out of the house on the other side of the street. First they see two people going into the house. Time passes. After a while they notice three people coming out of the house. The biologist says "they have reproduced" but the mathematician replies "no, when exactly one person enters the house then it will be empty again." I'll get my coat again

All they need to do now is get rid of the ex Safeway Peduncles behind the tills and they'll be fine. Go to Sainsburys and it's all smiles and hellos and do you want help with your packing. At Morrisons they sit there with faces like a slapped arse looking at customers like they're an inconvenience!

At the end of the day, mathamatics is based on theorems, however, most of these have practical applications.....calculus got men on moon etc. The concept of negative values is essential for the operation of all our economic, financial and accounting systems for a start! Bet you wish you had never started this one

Ahhh, but they don't multiply, they accumulate, therfore your into Barcs for 2 grand

Right then, we'll try x and y then; Assuming 0 * x = 0 and logically y+(-y)=0, and also assuming that x and y are both positive (greater than 0). then [y+(-y)] * x = 0 * x; xy+(-y)(x) = 0 * x therfore xy+(-y)(x)=0 Assuming positive multiplied by positive equals a positive, then the value of xy must be positive. if this is the case and the addition of (-y)(x) gives the value zero, then (-y)(x) must be the inverse of xy, in other words, negative! Invoice in the post!

£90 per hour...since when did people expect me to work on the cheap

he's not.....just sounds like it