Cornell 6 Clarkson 1

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)

Brisson in, Nicholls in, not clear from Schafer's interview on WHCU who's out.

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.

Mihalek and DeSwardt out

is there a video feed available for this game? i can only find audio.

B2 has it. Try B2livetv.com

got it thanks!

3-0. Gotovetz.

Let those floodgates go!

and another!!

4-1 late in second.

Brisson in street clothes per Age tweet.

Devin. 6-1 5 mins left.

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.

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.

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.

Is 0 a prime? I always forget.

No, a prime is divisible by 1 and itself. 0/0 is not legal although I am certain to ignite a math firestorm.

Is 0 even? I always forget.

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.

1 is not a prime.

Ooops.

I forget, why do we care if 1 or 0 are prime?

jkahn

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.

1 is not a prime.

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.

In the goalie manual, 0 is prime.

jtwcornell91

jkahn

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.

1 is not a prime.

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.

This is a lot of things, but it isn't "simple."

Jim Hyla
I forget, why do we care if 1 or 0 are prime?

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?

Because we're a bunch of geeks who have hijacked this thread?

Where else could we discuss prime number theory and hockey in the same place?

ursusminor

Jim Hyla
I forget, why do we care if 1 or 0 are prime?

The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic wouldn't hold if 1 were considered prime. That sounds like a good reason to me.

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.

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.

Jim Hyla

ursusminor

Jim Hyla
I forget, why do we care if 1 or 0 are prime?

The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic wouldn't hold if 1 were considered prime. That sounds like a good reason to me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

Well, that's a reason I can understand: "Because that's the way we defined it."

jtwcornell91
Just ask Riemann and Lobachevsky...

Lobachevsky called. He said "let no one else's work evade your eyes."

Trotsky

jtwcornell91
Just ask Riemann and Lobachevsky...

Lobachevsky called. He said "let no one else's work evade your eyes."

"But remember always please to call it 'research'."

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"

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!"

I think it is time to drop the puck

Towerroad
I think it is time to drop the puck

Is it ever time to not drop the puck?

Amen!

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]

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?

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!

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!

I can tell this is fake because there aren't at least 3 adverbs in front of AWESOME!

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]

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.