Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by Trotsky
Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: November 06, 2010 06:29PM
1 13:42 Cor Kary 1 (Miller, Nicholls)
2 08:06 Cor Birch 1 (Kary, Craig)
2 11:44 Cor Gotovets 1 (Nicholls)
2 12:34 Cor pp Jillson 1 (Collins, Whitney)
2 16:07 Clk DeFazio 3 (Oakley, Borowiecki)
3 10:58 Cor Mowrey 3 (Jillson, Kennedy)
3 14:40 Cor J. Devin 1 (Gotovets, Miller)
2 08:06 Cor Birch 1 (Kary, Craig)
2 11:44 Cor Gotovets 1 (Nicholls)
2 12:34 Cor pp Jillson 1 (Collins, Whitney)
2 16:07 Clk DeFazio 3 (Oakley, Borowiecki)
3 10:58 Cor Mowrey 3 (Jillson, Kennedy)
3 14:40 Cor J. Devin 1 (Gotovets, Miller)
Edited 17 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2010 09:10PM by Trotsky.
Re: Cornell 0 Clarkson 0 (pregame)
Posted by: ACM (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: November 06, 2010 06:35PM
Brisson in, Nicholls in, not clear from Schafer's interview on WHCU who's out.
Re: Cornell 0 Clarkson 0 (pregame)
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: November 06, 2010 06:47PM
Schafer spoke about "holding guys responsible for not playing physically" and "being the type of team that's difficult to play against."
So, Eddie Shore.
So, Eddie Shore.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2010 06:51PM by Trotsky.
Re: Cornell 0 Clarkson 0 (pregame)
Posted by: ACM (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: November 06, 2010 07:01PM
Mihalek and DeSwardt out
Re: Cornell 0 Clarkson 0 (pregame)
Posted by: snert1288 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: November 06, 2010 07:12PM
is there a video feed available for this game? i can only find audio.
Re: Cornell 0 Clarkson 0 (pregame)
Posted by: TimV (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: November 06, 2010 07:14PM
B2 has it. Try B2livetv.com
___________________________
"Yo Paulie - I don't see no crowd gathering 'round you neither."
"Yo Paulie - I don't see no crowd gathering 'round you neither."
Re: Cornell 0 Clarkson 0 (pregame)
Posted by: snert1288 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: November 06, 2010 07:16PM
got it thanks!
Re: Cornell 2 Clarkson 0 (2nd period)
Posted by: jeff '84 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: November 06, 2010 08:10PM
3-0. Gotovetz.
Re: Cornell 3 Clarkson 0 (2nd period)
Posted by: LaJollaRed (---.c3-0.hnc-ubr1.chi-hnc.il.cable.rcn.com)
Date: November 06, 2010 08:11PM
Let those floodgates go!
Re: Cornell 2 Clarkson 0 (2nd period)
Posted by: jeff '84 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: November 06, 2010 08:11PM
and another!!
Re: Cornell 2 Clarkson 0 (2nd period)
Posted by: jeff '84 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: November 06, 2010 08:20PM
4-1 late in second.
Re: Cornell 5 Clarkson 1 (3rd period)
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: November 06, 2010 08:58PM
Brisson in street clothes per Age tweet.
Re: Cornell 5 Clarkson 1 (3rd period)
Posted by: jeff '84 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: November 06, 2010 09:06PM
Devin. 6-1 5 mins left.
Re: Cornell 5 Clarkson 1 (3rd period)
Posted by: margolism (---.nyc.res.rr.com)
Date: November 06, 2010 09:11PM
I wouldn't have thought that our offense would be this decent, especially this early in the season. (We were ranked #15 in offense coming into tonight's game, and that stat included being blanked last night.) I expected us to be strong in defense coming into the season, and highly questionable on offense. So far, it's been the opposite.
Glad to see our defense holding up tonight.
Glad to see our defense holding up tonight.
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Roy 82 (128.18.14.---)
Date: November 07, 2010 09:58PM
The number of goals score by our opponents in the first 4 games are:
7, 5, 3, 1.
After careful analysis, I detected a trend. I predict that in the next game we will allow -1 goals.
7, 5, 3, 1.
After careful analysis, I detected a trend. I predict that in the next game we will allow -1 goals.
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Towerroad (---.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
Date: November 08, 2010 07:25AM
Roy 82
The number of goals score by our opponents in the first 4 games are:
7, 5, 3, 1.
After careful analysis, I detected a trend. I predict that in the next game we will allow -1 goals.
However, they are all prime so be careful as there are other less appealing candidates.
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: November 08, 2010 08:20AM
Is 0 a prime? I always forget.
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Towerroad (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: November 08, 2010 08:42AM
No, a prime is divisible by 1 and itself. 0/0 is not legal although I am certain to ignite a math firestorm.
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: November 08, 2010 08:52AM
Is 0 even? I always forget.
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: jkahn (---.73.146.216.biz.sta.networkgci.net)
Date: November 08, 2010 09:34AM
1 is not a prime.Towerroad
Roy 82
The number of goals score by our opponents in the first 4 games are:
7, 5, 3, 1.
After careful analysis, I detected a trend. I predict that in the next game we will allow -1 goals.
However, they are all prime so be careful as there are other less appealing candidates.
___________________________
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Jeff Kahn '70 '72
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Towerroad (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: November 08, 2010 09:42AM
Ooops.
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: November 08, 2010 09:53AM
I forget, why do we care if 1 or 0 are prime?
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: November 08, 2010 10:12AM
jkahn
1 is not a prime.Towerroad
Roy 82
The number of goals score by our opponents in the first 4 games are:
7, 5, 3, 1.
After careful analysis, I detected a trend. I predict that in the next game we will allow -1 goals.
However, they are all prime so be careful as there are other less appealing candidates.
Officially 0 and 1 are neither prime nor composite, even though 1 seems to fit the spirit of the definition of prime and 0 likewise "feels" composite. I think this is because it makes the statement of various theorems about prime numbers simpler.
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Killer (---.c3-0.nat-ubr5.sbo-nat.ma.cable.rcn.com)
Date: November 08, 2010 11:37AM
In the goalie manual, 0 is prime.
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: November 08, 2010 12:09PM
This is a lot of things, but it isn't "simple."jtwcornell91
jkahn
1 is not a prime.Towerroad
Roy 82
The number of goals score by our opponents in the first 4 games are:
7, 5, 3, 1.
After careful analysis, I detected a trend. I predict that in the next game we will allow -1 goals.
However, they are all prime so be careful as there are other less appealing candidates.
Officially 0 and 1 are neither prime nor composite, even though 1 seems to fit the spirit of the definition of prime and 0 likewise "feels" composite. I think this is because it makes the statement of various theorems about prime numbers simpler.
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: ursusminor (---.nrl.navy.mil)
Date: November 08, 2010 12:31PM
The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic wouldn't hold if 1 were considered prime. That sounds like a good reason to me.Jim Hyla
I forget, why do we care if 1 or 0 are prime?
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: November 08, 2010 07:48PM
Because we're a bunch of geeks who have hijacked this thread?Jim Hyla
I forget, why do we care if 1 or 0 are prime?
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Towerroad (---.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
Date: November 08, 2010 08:13PM
Where else could we discuss prime number theory and hockey in the same place?
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: November 08, 2010 09:59PM
But I've never understood why that fails if 1 were considered prime. If 1 were prime, I suppose adding it to any calculation such as their example "6936 = 23 x 3 x 172 x 11" just doesn't seem right? Also, if 1 were prime you'd not have to construct "other than prime" additions to the other theorems.ursusminor
The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic wouldn't hold if 1 were considered prime. That sounds like a good reason to me.Jim Hyla
I forget, why do we care if 1 or 0 are prime?
Anyway, you could just rewrite the theorem as "Any number can be written as a unique product of prime numbers other than 1. There probably is a place where it falls apart, I just don't know it.
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: ursusminor (---.res.east.verizon.net)
Date: November 09, 2010 01:34AM
I probably used the wrong smiley. It would just require an additional phrase like the one you used "other than 1" there and in other places.Jim Hyla
But I've never understood why that fails if 1 were considered prime. If 1 were prime, I suppose adding it to any calculation such as their example "6936 = 23 x 3 x 172 x 11" just doesn't seem right? Also, if 1 were prime you'd not have to construct "other than prime" additions to the other theorems.ursusminor
The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic wouldn't hold if 1 were considered prime. That sounds like a good reason to me.Jim Hyla
I forget, why do we care if 1 or 0 are prime?
Anyway, you could just rewrite the theorem as "Any number can be written as a unique product of prime numbers other than 1. There probably is a place where it falls apart, I just don't know it.
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Towerroad (---.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
Date: November 09, 2010 07:41AM
Wikipedia has a nice article on primes. [en.wikipedia.org]
1 used to be a prime number (hence my error as I learned math by counting dinosaurs) but Ursusminor correctly point out that 1 has fallen out of fashion as a prime to meet the needs of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic which states that any number can be expressed as a unique product of primes or is prime itself. 1 poses a problem in that if included it would not lead to unique products of primes. 6=2X3, 6=2X3X1, 6=2X3X1X1 etc.
This is not entirely satisfying and could easily lead us into the realm of arithmetic not being axiomatic.
1 used to be a prime number (hence my error as I learned math by counting dinosaurs) but Ursusminor correctly point out that 1 has fallen out of fashion as a prime to meet the needs of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic which states that any number can be expressed as a unique product of primes or is prime itself. 1 poses a problem in that if included it would not lead to unique products of primes. 6=2X3, 6=2X3X1, 6=2X3X1X1 etc.
This is not entirely satisfying and could easily lead us into the realm of arithmetic not being axiomatic.
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: November 09, 2010 08:16AM
Towerroad
Wikipedia has a nice article on primes. [en.wikipedia.org]
1 used to be a prime number (hence my error as I learned math by counting dinosaurs) but Ursusminor correctly point out that 1 has fallen out of fashion as a prime to meet the needs of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic which states that any number can be expressed as a unique product of primes or is prime itself. 1 poses a problem in that if included it would not lead to unique products of primes. 6=2X3, 6=2X3X1, 6=2X3X1X1 etc.
This is not entirely satisfying and could easily lead us into the realm of arithmetic not being axiomatic.
Well, it's like the silly "PWR is subjective" argument. Math and logic are well-defined given a consistent set of axioms, but you have to choose which axioms to start with. Just ask Riemann and Lobachevsky...
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: November 09, 2010 08:20AM
Well, that's a reason I can understand: "Because that's the way we defined it."jtwcornell91
Towerroad
Wikipedia has a nice article on primes. [en.wikipedia.org]
1 used to be a prime number (hence my error as I learned math by counting dinosaurs) but Ursusminor correctly point out that 1 has fallen out of fashion as a prime to meet the needs of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic which states that any number can be expressed as a unique product of primes or is prime itself. 1 poses a problem in that if included it would not lead to unique products of primes. 6=2X3, 6=2X3X1, 6=2X3X1X1 etc.
This is not entirely satisfying and could easily lead us into the realm of arithmetic not being axiomatic.
Well, it's like the silly "PWR is subjective" argument. Math and logic are well-defined given a consistent set of axioms, but you have to choose which axioms to start with. Just ask Riemann and Lobachevsky...
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: November 09, 2010 08:27AM
Lobachevsky called. He said "let no one else's work evade your eyes."jtwcornell91
Just ask Riemann and Lobachevsky...
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: November 09, 2010 08:41AM
Trotsky
Lobachevsky called. He said "let no one else's work evade your eyes."jtwcornell91
Just ask Riemann and Lobachevsky...
"But remember always please to call it 'research'."
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Towerroad (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: November 09, 2010 08:49AM
I taught my kids math when they were young and at some point for fun (danger nerd alert) we got to the set of all sets problem. I told them about Russell and Godel and how arithmetic was not as pure as one might think but I warned them "Just because Arithmetic is not axiomatic does not mean you should not balance your checkbook"
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: November 09, 2010 08:54AM
Towerroad
I taught my kids math when they were young and at some point for fun (danger nerd alert) we got to the set of all sets problem. I told them about Russell and Godel and how arithmetic was not as pure as one might think but I warned them "Just because Arithmetic is not axiomatic does not mean you should not balance your checkbook"
There's a reason it's called "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem" and not "ZOMG teh mathz is brok3z0rz!1!!1!!oneone!!eleven!"
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Towerroad (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: November 09, 2010 09:07AM
I think it is time to drop the puck
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: November 09, 2010 09:15AM
Is it ever time to not drop the puck?Towerroad
I think it is time to drop the puck
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
Re: Cornell 6 Clarkson 1
Posted by: Towerroad (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: November 09, 2010 09:17AM
Amen!
Highlights
Posted by: Chris '03 (38.104.240.---)
Date: November 09, 2010 11:41AM
Just noticed the ECAC site is posting video highlights of (most?) conference games, which I don't remember seeing before this season. Here are the highlights from Saturday:
[www.ecachockey.com]
[www.ecachockey.com]
___________________________
"Mark Mazzoleni looks like a guy whose dog just died out there..."
"Mark Mazzoleni looks like a guy whose dog just died out there..."
Re: Highlights
Posted by: scoop85 (173.84.100.---)
Date: November 09, 2010 12:49PM
Good stuff. I especially enjoyed seeing how after Gotovets scored and he jumped against the glass, some blond woman smacked the glass in disgust. Perhaps that was the insufferable Goldie Knight from the Clarkson Roundtable?
Re: Highlights
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: November 09, 2010 01:41PM
scoop85
Good stuff. I especially enjoyed seeing how after Gotovets scored and he jumped against the glass, some blond woman smacked the glass in disgust. Perhaps that was the insufferable Goldie Knight from the Clarkson Roundtable?
Our Knights are AWESOME!
Re: Highlights
Posted by: Robb (---.198-178.cust.bluewin.ch)
Date: November 09, 2010 03:01PM
I can tell this is fake because there aren't at least 3 adverbs in front of AWESOME!jtwcornell91
scoop85
Good stuff. I especially enjoyed seeing how after Gotovets scored and he jumped against the glass, some blond woman smacked the glass in disgust. Perhaps that was the insufferable Goldie Knight from the Clarkson Roundtable?
Our Knights are AWESOME!
Re: Highlights
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.net)
Date: November 09, 2010 04:02PM
That was good entertainment right there. Winning at Lynah East is all very well and good, but for me there's a special joy in seeing the team go on the road and light it up against somebody who has actual fans there in the rink. Part of the whole dream-crushing soul-devouring juggernaut thing, maybe.Chris '03
Just noticed the ECAC site is posting video highlights of (most?) conference games, which I don't remember seeing before this season. Here are the highlights from Saturday:
[www.ecachockey.com]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.