"Fermat's Last Theorem" Disproved?
cjcountess
Take a square that is cut in half diagonally, to give us a 90 degree
triangle, of two equal right angular sides, and one longer hypotenuse,
or slanted side.
Label each of the right angular straight sides, “a” and “b”, and the
longer slanted hypotenuse, “c”.
Next, applying the Pythagorean Theorem, square each of the 3 sides,
turning each of the one dimensional lines to 2 dimensional squares,
and we find that, a^2 + b^2 = c^2
Now to take it to a higher level, in order to test “Fermat's Last
Theorem”, which states that this ( a^n + b^n = c^n), formula, only
works for numbers of which the exponent is = to “2”.
Lay each of the “2 D” sides on their sides and square them, also
upward, at 90 degrees, which instead of extending the whole “1D” line
upward a length equal to its self equaling a 1 inch square, will
extend the 2D square upward a length equal also to itself..
If the Pythagorean theorem still holds, (the square of “a^2” + the
square of “b^2”, = the square of c^2), and sense the square of each
square is a cube, a^3 + b^3 = c^3
"FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM" which was recently said to be proven, is not.
Conrad J Countess
Frederick Williams
So now find three integers greater than nought that satisfy a^3 + b^3 =
c^3.
--
I can't go on, I'll go on.
David C. Ullrich
Why? I don't see what that has to do with Fermat's Last Theorem...
Mark Murray
> “FERMAT”S LAST THEOREM”, disproved?
>
>
> Take a square that is cut in half diagonally, to give us a 90 degree
> triangle, of two equal right angular sides, and one longer hypotenuse,
> or slanted side.
>
> Label each of the right angular straight sides, “a” and “b”, and the
> longer slanted hypotenuse, “c”.
>
> Next, applying the Pythagorean Theorem, square each of the 3 sides,
> turning each of the one dimensional lines to 2 dimensional squares,
> and we find that, a^2 + b^2 = c^2
Or, if you want to be a bit more accurate, and keeping the sides separate
a^2 + a^2 = 2 a^2
2 sides of length a, and a hypotenuse of length sqrt(2 a^2), where
sqrt(x) means "the positive square root of x".
Thus, you have 2 squares of area a^2, that do indeed equal the area
of the square on the hypotenuse - 2 a^2.
> Now to take it to a higher level, in order to test “Fermat's Last
> Theorem”, which states that this ( a^n + b^n = c^n), formula, only
> works for numbers of which the exponent is = to “2”.
>
> Lay each of the “2 D” sides on their sides and square them, also
> upward, at 90 degrees, which instead of extending the whole “1D” line
> upward a length equal to its self equaling a 1 inch square, will
> extend the 2D square upward a length equal also to itself..
For each side of length a, we have a cube of volume a^3.
For the hypotenuse, we have a cube of volume sqrt(2 a^2)^3.
2 a^3 is not equal to sqrt(2 a^2)^3.
> If the Pythagorean theorem still holds, (the square of “a^2” + the
> square of “b^2”, = the square of c^2), and sense the square of each
> square is a cube, a^3 + b^3 = c^3
The square of a square is NOT a cube. It is a power of FOUR. Apart from
that, the above statement is somewhere betwen wrong and meaningless
(hard to tell which due to unclear writing).
> "FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM" which was recently said to be proven, is not.
Not even close.
M
--
Mark "No Nickname" Murray
Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
spudnik
> For the hypotenuse, we have a cube of volume sqrt(2 a^2)^3.
thus&so: <deletives impleted>
just don't leave a time-tunnel in the vicinity
of your grandfather, if he is still alive, because
he might configure what you "were about" to do, and
hi to the future to prevent you, or the past
to give a condom to your dad.
"Granpa, it was going to be an accident ... I mean...."
"But, Dad, we're Catholic!"
> Scientific concensus today isn't your great grandaddy's scientific
thus&so:
grammar is just a part of the three Rs,
the minimum you have to know, to be a literate slave --
and what some so-called Republicans call, "the basics,"
to impart learning-disorders amongst the rabble's youth,
viz Murray and What's-his-name.
thus&so:
first of all, bloodletting has some current back-up ... or,
at least, leeches are pretty useful in surgery. secondly,
someone "above" made some statement about graphs (that is,
quantification) in the harder sciences (although it seems that
the soft ones use tons of statistical algorithms), and I'd like
to cite the NYTimes weatherpage as a source of subliminal
justification
for the algorithms of the GCMers.
the more qualitative aspect of that page,
is the daliy vignettes on various things about weather --
n'est, mesoclimate. my random reading of this shows that
cold records are at least as common as hot records,
whereby goes my primary (nonquant) take on the phrase,
global warming. just say,
the climate, she a-changin', and rest easy!
> errors as blood letting "scientists" is ridiculous.
--Rep. Waxman's "new" cap&trade, same as his circa '91?...
Is the House Banking Bill, before Senate, cap&trade?...
les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
Virgil
Would not the finding of 3 such integers be a disproof by counterexample
of FLT?
curious george
"cjcountess" <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f63cb198-95e1-4ad2...@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
“FERMAT”S LAST THEOREM”, disproved?
>If the Pythagorean theorem still holds, (the square of “a^2” + the
>square of “b^2”, = the square of c^2), and sense the square of each
>square is a cube, a^3 + b^3 = c^3
>Conrad J Countess
can you clarify what you mean by " since a square of each square is a cube "
I am sure you do not mean (a^2)^2= a^3.
cjcountess
> "cjcountess" <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
.
When I say square the square I am looking at it geometrically this
way.
Let me be clear. Just as you take a 1 dimensional line and square it
to make a 2 dimensional surface, it is as layering line upon line of
equal measure, until they stack up to equal to length of original
line.
Now if we lay that 2 dimensional surface “accumulation of equal
stacked lines”, flat and extend the entire surface into the 3rd
dimension also to that same height, it is as extending each of the
lines used to create the flat 2 d surface, into the 2d in the 90
degree angular direction to the flat surface the same amount, and the
accumulative effect should be that of a cube.
The volume of the cube made from “a”, + the volume of the cube made
from “b”, = the volume of the cube made from “c”.
Has anyone taken two cubes, created from two equal and right angular
lines of triangle, and one made from cube of hypotenuse, and measured
their volumes, to see if the “c” cube equals the “a” cube + the “b”
cube?
Has this ever been done that anyone knows of ?
That would be the proof.
So yes although (a^2)^2 = a^4 in normal mathematics from this
perspective (a^2)^2= a^3.
It is analogous to saying that just as (1x1=1) in linear math, (1 unit
length x 1 unite length in 90 degree angular direction = 1 square
inch) in geometry and (1 velocity vector in linear direction x 1 equal
and 90 degree angular velocity vector creates v^2 and a balance of
centrifugal/centripetal forces for circular motion in more dynamic
forms of mathematics.
I don't know of any other way of saying it except as the square of the
square when looked at this way even thought it conflicts with
conventional math.
But with appropriate explanation it should be clear that the cube can
be seen as the square of a square.
Conrad J Countess
Virgil
<73543717-90cd-4a70...@j13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 4:05 pm, "curious george" <bu...@bunch.net> wrote:
> > "cjcountess" <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:f63cb198-95e1-4ad2...@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> > łFERMAT˛S LAST THEOREM˛, disproved?
> >
> > >If the Pythagorean theorem still holds, (the square of ła^2˛ + the
> > >square of łb^2˛, = the square of c^2), and sense the square of each
> > >square is a cube, a^3 + b^3 = c^3
> > >Conrad J Countess
> >
> > can you clarify what you mean by " since a square of each square is a cube "
> > I am sure you do not mean (a^2)^2= a^3.
>
> .
> When I say square the square I am looking at it geometrically this
> way.
>
> Let me be clear. Just as you take a 1 dimensional line and square it
> to make a 2 dimensional surface, it is as layering line upon line of
> equal measure, until they stack up to equal to length of original
> line.
>
> Now if we lay that 2 dimensional surface łaccumulation of equal
> stacked lines˛, flat and extend the entire surface into the 3rd
> dimension also to that same height, it is as extending each of the
> lines used to create the flat 2 d surface, into the 2d in the 90
> degree angular direction to the flat surface the same amount, and the
> accumulative effect should be that of a cube.
>
> The volume of the cube made from ła˛, + the volume of the cube made
> from łb˛, = the volume of the cube made from łc˛.
>
>
> Has anyone taken two cubes, created from two equal and right angular
> lines of triangle, and one made from cube of hypotenuse, and measured
> their volumes, to see if the łc˛ cube equals the ła˛ cube + the łb˛
> cube?
>
> Has this ever been done that anyone knows of ?
>
> That would be the proof.
>
> So yes although (a^2)^2 = a^4 in normal mathematics from this
> perspective (a^2)^2= a^3.
Nonsense!
To get from a line to a square (or, more generally, a rectangle) one
moves the line in a direction perpendicular to the line, which increases
the dimension by 1.
Similarly, moving a square (or rectangle) in a direction perpendicular
to it sweeps out a cube (rectangular parallelopiped or box shape), but
there is no "square of a square" in that process anywhere.
And your non-math certainly does not prove or disprove anything about
anything mathematical.
cjcountess
> In article
> <73543717-90cd-4a70-ac7e-5fa82c5ee...@j13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> cjcountess<cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 14, 4:05 pm, "curious george" <bu...@bunch.net> wrote:
> > > "cjcountess" <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:f63cb198-95e1-4ad2...@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >If the Pythagorean theorem still holds, (the square of ³a^2² + the
> > > >square of ³b^2², = the square of c^2), and sense the square of each
> > > >square is a cube, a^3 + b^3 = c^3
> > > >Conrad J Countess
>
> > > can you clarify what you mean by " since a square of each square is a cube "
> > > I am sure you do not mean (a^2)^2= a^3.
>
> > .
> > When I say square the square I am looking at it geometrically this
> > way.
>
> > Let me be clear. Just as you take a 1 dimensional line and square it
> > to make a 2 dimensional surface, it is as layering line upon line of
> > equal measure, until they stack up to equal to length of original
> > line.
>
> > stacked lines², flat and extend the entire surface into the 3rd
> > dimension also to that same height, it is as extending each of the
> > lines used to create the flat 2 d surface, into the 2d in the 90
> > degree angular direction to the flat surface the same amount, and the
> > accumulative effect should be that of a cube.
>
> > from ³b², = the volume of the cube made from ³c².
>
> > Has anyone taken two cubes, created from two equal and right angular
> > lines of triangle, and one made from cube of hypotenuse, and measured
> > cube?
>
> > Has this ever been done that anyone knows of ?
>
> > That would be the proof.
>
> > So yes although (a^2)^2 = a^4 in normal mathematics from this
> > perspective (a^2)^2= a^3.
>
> Nonsense!
>
> To get from a line to a square (or, more generally, a rectangle) one
> moves the line in a direction perpendicular to the line, which increases
> the dimension by 1.
>
> Similarly, moving a square (or rectangle) in a direction perpendicular
> to it sweeps out a cube (rectangular parallelopiped or box shape),
Precisely
but
> there is no "square of a square" in that process anywhere.
Wrong
When we square a 1 D line, we extend that 1 D line at right angle into
2 dimensions, and when we cube a line we further extend that same 2 D
square into 3 dimensions in right angular direction, in effect
repeating the same process we did with the line, to the square.
Thus in fact we are squaring the square, just as we squared the line.
Its the same process, call it what you want.
>
> And your non-math certainly does not prove or disprove anything about
> anything mathematical.
But I proved the theorem untrue with my non conventional math.
Comment on the measurement of volume, will the volume of "a^3" + the
volume of "b^3" = the volume of "c^3"?
Conrad J Countess
Mike Terry
news:f63cb198-95e1-4ad2...@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> “FERMAT”S LAST THEOREM”, disproved?
>
>
> Take a square that is cut in half diagonally, to give us a 90 degree
> triangle, of two equal right angular sides, and one longer hypotenuse,
> or slanted side.
>
> Label each of the right angular straight sides, “a” and “b”, and the
> longer slanted hypotenuse, “c”.
>
> Next, applying the Pythagorean Theorem, square each of the 3 sides,
> turning each of the one dimensional lines to 2 dimensional squares,
> and we find that, a^2 + b^2 = c^2
>
> Now to take it to a higher level, in order to test “Fermat's Last
> Theorem”, which states that this ( a^n + b^n = c^n), formula, only
> works for numbers of which the exponent is = to “2”.
>
> Lay each of the “2 D” sides on their sides and square them, also
> upward, at 90 degrees, which instead of extending the whole “1D” line
> upward a length equal to its self equaling a 1 inch square, will
> extend the 2D square upward a length equal also to itself..
>
> If the Pythagorean theorem still holds,
Well it doesn't. Pythagorean is proved only when squares are involved, not
cubes. So that's the end of your disproof.
Mike.
Rick Decker
<snip>
>>
>>> Has anyone taken two cubes, created from two equal and right angular
>>> lines of triangle, and one made from cube of hypotenuse, and measured
>>> their volumes, to see if the łc˛ cube equals the ła˛ cube + the łb˛
>>> cube?
>>
>>> Has this ever been done that anyone knows of ?
>
Presumably (since I just did, for example).
>
> But I proved the theorem untrue with my non conventional math.
>
Non-conventional, perhaps; wrong, certainly.
> Comment on the measurement of volume, will the volume of "a^3" + the
> volume of "b^3" = the volume of "c^3"?
Certainly not. In fact, a^3 + b^3 will be *less* than c^3 using your
construction, for any (non-degenerate) right triangle with shorter
sides of length a, b, and hypotenuse c.
>
Regards,
Rick
Virgil
<af16ef18-8ac1-4c53...@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That would, at most, only makes it untrue in non-conventional
mathematics, , but has no effect on its truth in conventional
mathematics. Where the current proof of FLT remains in full force.
>
> Comment on the measurement of volume, will the volume of "a^3" + the
> volume of "b^3" = the volume of "c^3"?
Not if a, b and c are all to be integral.
If you were ever able to produce integers a, b and c such
that a^3 + b^3 = c^3, you would only then have a case,
but you can't and you don't.
Tim Little
> Has anyone taken two cubes, created from two equal and right angular
> lines of triangle, and one made from cube of hypotenuse, and
> measured their volumes, to see if the “c” cube equals the “a” cube +
> the “b” cube?
Yes, they have. It doesn't.
- Tim
bert
A few points for you, which previous answerers
may have, I think, not made completely clear:
(1) Mathematicians separate "numbers" into several
categories: integer, rational, irrational, algebraic,
transcendental. You don't, and you should have.
(2) Fermat's Last Theorem applies to INTEGERS (and
by a simple mathematical argument, also to rationals).
The numbers in your counter-example are algebraic,
so it doesn't apply to FLT.
(3) Just for your interest, the Pythagorean example
with the diagonal of a square is one which has no
solution in integers or rationals, only in algebraic
numbers. This was proved by Euclid about 500 BC, and
G.H. Hardy in his autobiographical "A Mathematician's
Apology" quotes the proof as an example of what
mathematics is about and how it's really done.
(4) Similarly, what Andrew Wiles has proved is that
while Fermat's equation has solutions in algebraic
numbers (which you have also shown), it has none in
integers or in rationals.
--
David C. Ullrich
Good question. Leads to another question: Are you familiar
with the expression "whoosh..."?
Frederick Williams
>
> Has anyone taken two cubes, created from two equal and right angular
> lines of triangle, and one made from cube of hypotenuse, and measured
> their volumes, to see if the “c” cube equals the “a” cube + the “b”
> cube?
>
> Has this ever been done that anyone knows of ?
>
> That would be the proof.
a, b and c need to be positive integers to disprove FLT.
> So yes although (a^2)^2 = a^4 in normal mathematics from this
> perspective (a^2)^2= a^3.
At the risk of sounding impolite, _that_ is utter bollocks.
The case n = 3 of FLT was (almost) dealt with by Euler in the sixteenth
century, Legendre filled a gap. A proof may be found in Hardy & Wright
section 13.4. They also give a reference to Dickson's History for
Legendre's contribution. Wikipedia has copious references.
Thomas Nordhaus
> The case n = 3 of FLT was (almost) dealt with by Euler in the sixteenth
> century
Make that the eighteenths century.
--
Thomas Nordhaus
Chip Eastham
Apart from the OP's failure to construct solutions
of a^3 + b^3 = c^3, there is also Conrad's failure
to address the requirement that a,b,c be nonzero
integers. Certainly nonzero real a,b,c exist that
solve the equation, even if Conrad's geometry does
not correspond to a solution.
--c
Maarten Bergvelt
> Frederick Williams schrieb:
>
>> The case n = 3 of FLT was (almost) dealt with by Euler in the sixteenth
>> century
>
> Make that the eighteenths century.
>
No, Euler was such a genius, he proved it before his mother was born.
--
Maarten Bergvelt
Frederick Williams
>
> Frederick Williams schrieb:
>
> > The case n = 3 of FLT was (almost) dealt with by Euler in the sixteenth
> > century
>
> Make that the eighteenths century.
Oops! Sorry.
tonysin
> "Has anyone taken two cubes, created from two equal and right angular lines of triangle, and one made from cube of hypotenuse, and measured their volumes, to see if the “c” cube equals the “a” cube + the “b” cube?"
Well, let's do it now and make sure.
In your isosceles right triangle, the lengths of the three sides are
x, x, and x*sqrt(2).
The areas of their squares are x^2, x^2, and 2x^2, satisfying the
Pythagorean Theorem.
The volumes of their cubes are x^3, x^3, and 2x^2*x*sqrt(2). The sum
of the cubes of the short sides is 2x^3, which does not equal the cube
of the third side, which is 2x^3*sqrt(2). So even though you violated
the conditions of Fermat's Theorem by using non-integral lengths, the
numbers still don't add up.
What about that is not clear?
cjcountess
Theorem”, which states that the “Pythagorean Theorem”, which states
that “a^2 + b^2 =c^2”, only works for numbers of which the exponent is
2, and no other.
I asserted that just as we square a 1 dimensional line by extending it
in 2D at right angle to the first at equal length as the original
line, we can again repeat the same process to cube the square by lying
it on its side and square it from there in same manner, and
furthermore that if Pythagorean theorem continues to hold, the square
of the square “a” + the square of the square “b”, should = the
square of the square “c”. This would in fact mean that a^3 + b^3 = c^3
and thus Fermat's Last Theorem is broken down and Pythagoras theorem
is extended into the 3D
Well to my dismay it did not hold which means that I was totally wrong
provided the wrong experiment for reason I will explain and /or am
right by extension since the Pythagorean Theorem did not hold for
squaring the square.
But if there is no such thing as squaring the square, as one reader
suggested, than I am wrong on that point, but if there is, than I am
correct on count of both Pythagorean Theorem and Fermat’s Last Theorem
break down when extended into 3D, because while Pythagoras says its
true that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 , Fermat backs it but adds that it is only
true for squares.
I must admit that the original idea came to me while contemplating
"E=mc^2". It occurred to me that as this equation states the energy
content of matter of 3D form, it must extend into 3D space, And as I
traced the measurement of energy from E=hf/c^2 to E=mc^2, one can see
that the energy moves from a relatively straight line at its lowest
form, to waves that contract, gaining energy exponentially. This means
that each time frequency doubles, wavelength halfs, and energy
increase 4 times.
This is also called an energy increase to the square of the frequency.
I further investigated this and found it analogical, logically,
mathematically, geometrically, and statistically probable that,
analogous to a line of 1 inch in linear direction x 1 inch in 90
degree angular direction to create a square inch, when energy reaches
c^2 to form matter, this is c in the linear direction x c in the 90
degree angular direction, which creates circular and or spherical
motion, through a balance of centrifugal /centripetal forces. Thus
circular motion is also sometimes referred to as v^2, and the same
equation that measures objects falling to earth, or moving period, can
also apply to circular motion, which are (F=mv^2, F=mv/r^2 and F=mv^/
r).
It is precisely because all these are related that the same equations
apply.
I believe that the formation of a spherical particle from energy at
c^2 indicates that the squaring of energy extends into the third
dimension, by continual squaring. And that just as physical objects
are not compose of square shaped energy, but circular and spherical
are more likely the shape of elementary particles, and a cube is the
squaring of a square and the Pythagorean and Fermat theorems break
down there.
see:
Conrad J Countess
smallfrey
Virgil
<1898eadf-7a46-485e...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yesterday I made an assertion that I could disprove łFermatąs Last
> Theorem˛, which states that the łPythagorean Theorem˛, which states
> that ła^2 + b^2 =c^2˛, only works for numbers of which the exponent is
> 2, and no other.
That is not łFermatąs Last Theorem˛ that many of us know and love, but
an incomplete misstatement of it.
The correct statement also requires that a, b and c be integers, i.e.,
whole numbers only. And that added restriction makes your claimed proof
into mere irrelevant nonsense.
cjcountess
“A few points for you, which previous answerers
may have, I think, not made completely clear:
(1) Mathematicians separate "numbers" into several
categories: integer, rational, irrational, algebraic,
transcendental. You don't, and you should have.
(2) Fermat's Last Theorem applies to INTEGERS (and
by a simple mathematical argument, also to rationals).
The numbers in your counter-example are algebraic,
so it doesn't apply to FLT.
(3) Just for your interest, the Pythagorean example
with the diagonal of a square is one which has no
solution in integers or rationals, only in algebraic
numbers. This was proved by Euclid about 500 BC, and
G.H. Hardy in his autobiographical "A Mathematician's
Apology" quotes the proof as an example of what
mathematics is about and how it's really done.
(4) Similarly, what Andrew Wiles has proved is that
while Fermat's equation has solutions in algebraic
numbers (which you have also shown), it has none in
integers or in rationals.”
This from Chip “Eastham”
“Apart from the OP's failure to construct solutions
of a^3 + b^3 = c^3, there is also Conrad's failure
to address the requirement that a,b,c be nonzero
integers. Certainly nonzero real a,b,c exist that
solve the equation, even if Conrad's geometry does
not correspond to a solution.”
--c
and this from “smallfrey”
“In 1897, Hilbert proved that Fermat's equation for "regular" prime
exponents has only the trivial solution in the cyclotomic field
Q(zeta). So, even saying there are real solutions is dicey.”
The above examples may point me in the right direction of finding a
legit proof, as well as let me know to take into account the
restrictions to the theorems.
Although my example was the wrong one, except if I can prove that “a
cube is the square of a square”, which indirectly might disprove the
theorem, I suspected that there is an exception to this rule
somewhere.
But if the square of a square is a forth power instead of a cube, than
how is that geometrically shaped. It does not even exist except
conceptually, unless you consider the forth dimension to be time. I
have seen equations of relativity (E^2=m^2c^4+p^2v^2) which use the
Pythagorean theorem, and includes a forth power. Would this exclude
Fermat’s Theorem? Probably not, since people probably took that into
account, and re defined the theorem.
Fermat himself could not have known of it, since it is a recent
discovery compared to Fermat's time and I dought he would have
fashioned his theorem around it
Conrad J Countess
Virgil
<a6884a8b-575a-4100...@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Although my example was the wrong one, except if I can prove that ła
> cube is the square of a square˛, which indirectly might disprove the
> theorem, I suspected that there is an exception to this rule
> somewhere.
In the real number system, -8 is a cube which is not even a square, much
less the square of a square.
Frederick Williams
> But if the square of a square is a forth power instead of a cube, than
> how is that geometrically shaped. It does not even exist except
> conceptually, unless you consider the forth dimension to be time.
Don't confuse the "n" in "x to the power n" with the n-th dimension of
physical space-time.
Tim Little
> And as I traced the measurement of energy from E=hf/c^2 to E=mc^2,
> one can see that the energy moves from a relatively straight line at
> its lowest form, to waves that contract, gaining energy
> exponentially.
I find Archimedes Plutonium to be much more interesting in the
position of combined math/physics crackpot than you. Though not all
is lost, you could contend with BURT for the position of incoherent
comic relief.
- Tim
cjcountess
So do I, I find Archimedes Plutonium very intertaining and intelegent,
and bold enougth to propose the idea of the universe as an atom.
There is much more truth in such an intertaining analogy than many
realize.
But tell me,
What is your claim to fame,
What is your contribution to the knowlendge base of humanity,
What is your realization or revolution, that can contribute to the
shining of light of discovery on reality?
Or are you just a pest mascarading as a threat.
I discovered that (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and/or sphered), and (c=
natural unite, sqrt of natural unite -1) or electron, and that (h/2pi/
2) is no longer measure of uncertainty, it is the certain measure of
an electron, thereby cancelling out "uncertainty principle,
renomalization, runing coupling constants problem, complex inacurate
dimensional analisis, and a host of other problems to list some of its
practical aplications. as well as bringing (sqrt -1) out of realm of
imaginary numbers, into real world of real numbers.
Analogous to (a line of 1 inch in linear direction x a line of 1 inch
in 90 degree angular direction, c in the linear direction x c in 90
degree angular direction = c^2), as a balence of "centripital/
centrifugal", forces. resulting in circular and or spherical rotation
and rest mass. Therefor the EM or electromagnetic spectrum, is also
the EM or energy/ matter spectrum.
Give Achie some respect, he is a bold thinker, and more right about
some things than people give him credit for, and so am I.
This "Fermat's Theorem" chalenge, was something I did off the top of
my head, and I admit I made a mistake in the chosing of examples.
But I have discovered something else that you may not have been aware
of because of it which I will share shortly with the group.
I am not afraid to question statements that I suspect, not afraid to
sugest new ideas, and certainly not afraid of critisism from weak
people like you, who have nothing to say but critisism
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
Well here are at least 3 ways
1. Geometrically, if you take a line of 1 inch in the linear
direction, and multiply it by a line of 1 inch in the 90 degree
angular direction, you get a square inch
2. In equation “F=mv^2”, the force or (F), is equal to the mass or
(m) times the velocity or (v) ^2 or squared. This means that, each
time velocity doubles, force quadruples.
3. And finally, ‘a velocity vector in the linear direction, x an
equal and 90 degree angular velocity vector = v^2 = circular motion as
a balance of centrifugal centripetal forces, and can also use equation
F=mv^2, F=mv^2/r or F=mv/r^2
The formula F=mv^2 means that each time velocity doubles force
quadruples,
the term v^2 or velocity squared can also mean that a velocity vector
in the linear direction x a velocity vector in 90 degree angular
direction leads to circular motions as a balance of centrifugal
centripetal forces. and F=mv^2/r can be used for this motion as in
orbital motions also, and a unite length squared, can mean 1 unite
length in linear direction x 1 unite length in 90 degree angular
direction to create a square of that unite.
How do all these related?
Well, if we drop a mass from the upper atmosphere toward the earth,
the formula (F=mv^2/r), dictates that the force will quadruple, each
time the velocity doubles as the radius between mass and earth
shortens as mass approaches the earth, which it does at 32fps^2, and
if allowed to fall to the center unencumbered, it will spin at a
constant v^2. Likewise, if an object is shot into orbit from earth, if
it reaches a centrifugal velocity at 90 degree angle to and equal to
the centripetal force of the gravity of the earth, without
overshooting and reaching an escape velocity, it will orbit the earth.
An object moving across the earth or falling toward the earth will
increase in speed and corresponding relative mass, kinetic energy, at
32ftps^2, and if allowed to fall straight through the earth until it
reaches the center will either bounce back and forth like a pendulum
until it comes to a spinning stability at the earths center. As such
v^2 goes from an increasing linear motion with corresponding increase
relative mass and kinetic energy, to a circular motion just as
orbiting the earth orbiting the earth or spinning at center of earth.
And both linear and circular motion can use the formula F=mv^2, F=mv/
r^2, or F=mv^2/r. And so liner motion and circular motion converge
through v^2. And as I pointed out before, so does spherical motion, as
a geometrical interpretation of E=mc^2 reveals that a photon that
begins as a relatively straight line bends into a wave as it is
squeezed against the light barrier becoming more particle like as it
gains mass energy and momentum and at c^2 attains rest mass through
circular and or spherical motion. c^2 is also a measure of the energy
in all 3D spacial objects, even on macro level.
To me even if not to others, it is obvious that the same process one
uses to square a unite length, is exactly the same as that used to
extend that same square into 3D space, and as such, a cube can be
viewed geometrically, as the square of a square.
Posters have pointed out to me that the square of a square is a forth
power and not a cube. That does relate to F=mv^2,as the force increase
4 x each time velocity doubles. But it does not relate well in my mind
to geometrical 3D space of which we know that E=mc^2 is a measure of
the energy of. Furthermore, what is the volume of a 4D object, unless
as I said, the time dimension is involved. And, is this square to the
forth power more that a cubic space in volume? If the square of a
square = 4 squares would that obey the Pythagorean theorem?
If we take a 90 degree triangle of length 3 for one right angle , 4
for the other and 5 for the hypotenuse and square each side we get a
3 inch square a 4 inch square and a 5 inch square and if we apply the
Pythagorean theorem we get 9 + 16 =25, which satisfies the theorem. If
we furthermore square the sides by multiplying them by 4 we get 36 +
64 = 100. And so the theorem is extended to powers beyond that of 2 to
4 and beyond.
One poster said that the Fermat theorem only referred to integers, but
we are discussing 1D geometrical unite lengths, as the sides of a
right triangle, and that is geometry. That said, the Fermat theorem
does break down at the square of the square, weather it be the
increase from 1 to 4 squares, or the extending of a square into 3D
space as a cube.
If we take the equation E=hf/c^2 which pertains to the energy of
photons, it states that energy equals Planck’s constant or (h), time
the frequency of (f) divided by c^2. Furthermore that said energy
increases with the square of the frequency which is 4 time each time
frequency doubles. Yet the energy doesn't reach the level of “c^2” to
create matter or rest mass, until the end of the EM spectrum, where as
deBroglie discovered, “E=hf=mc^2”. And so the doubling of the
frequency over and over again which is like doubling of speed as the
cycles of the photon and its corresponding quadrupling of the mass/
energy continues and does not reach “c^2” even as the frequency
increased a thousand fold until the end of the EM spectrum.
The quadrupling of the mass/energy as the frequency doubles, may be
analogous to the square of the square as it increases 4 times but
still does not equal the square of the square as a cube. In other
words, just as it takes more than 4 lines stacked upon each other to
make a square of that unite length, it also takes more than 4 squares
stacked upon each other to square a square, geometrically to make a
cube. The cube in this sense is analogous to “c^2” at end of EM
spectrum, which is more than the square of the square as an increase
of 4 squares, which would be analogous to an increase in frequency.
Well how is it that c^2 leads to 3D material world?
In plain geometry we can extend a 2D object into 3D space by repeating
the same process we did to extend a 1D line into 2D, we square it.
This requires raising the object the same length in all 3 dimensions,
which requires adding more material to the square to make a cube. But
on quantum level “c^2” as c in circular motion, as a 2 D circle, is
extended into 3D space, by folding itself in half, and making two
rotations at right angle, to complete one wave cycle. This creates a
3D standing spherical wave, out of a 2 D circle, by folding, and
without adding any more material to it.
Still no matter how you slice it, the 3D world is composed of energy
squared and as such so is a cube. Furthermore, to create a 3D cube
from a 2D surface, one has to do the same exact thing one does to
extend a 1D line to a 2D surface, square it.
And although the cube may not follow the Pythagorean or Fermat
theorems, it is not because the cube is not the result of
squaring.
Conrad J Countess
spudnik
thus:
3 choices, 2 choices, 1 choices (3?, or "three summorial" .-)
yeah, direction cosines are nice & homogenous, but
why not stay with vectors (quaternions' inner & outer products) ??
thus: IFF probably is "if & only if," that is to say,
Liebniz's neccesity & sufficiency, used in literate manner!
> Iff ... then ...
--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
--Stop BP's cap&trade looting!
http://wlym.com
Frederick Williams
>
> Just what does it mean to square something?
If you mean square a number, it just means multiply it by itself.
> Well here are at least 3 ways
>
> [nonsense snipped]
cjcountess
Considering this
Fermat's Last Theorem states that no three positive integers a, b,
and c can satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of
n greater than two.
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem
But it may just as well be true that
"no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation an +
bn = cn for any integer value period", if the unites involved are not
geometrical unites lengths related to Pythagorean Theorem and sides of
a right triangle.
And unite lengths are just as different from abstract non dimensional
integers as 1x1=1 is to 1D geometric line in horizontal direction x 1D
geometrical line in vertical direction = a 2D square unit, and as such
"Fermat's Last Theorem", can not be based on integers, with n > 2 or
otherwise, and is therefore ?
As integers can be separate from geometry, but converge with geometry
at point where "a^2 + b^2 = c^2" can we really say that at this point
of convergence that it is still separate from geometry, and would
therefore still be the case that "a^2 + b^2 = c^2", if not for this
convergence with geometry that may or may not be separated from it.
In other words can "a^2 + b^2 = c^2" hold true without dimensional
geometry and therefore are they truelly dimensionless integers?
Conrad J Countess
Kermit Rose
Jul 14, 2010 5:18 PM
> Has anyone taken two cubes, created from two equal and
> right angular lines of triangle, and one made from cube
> of hypotenuse, and measured their volumes, to see if
> the ?c? cube equals the ?a? cube + the ?b? cube?
> Has this ever been done that anyone knows of ?
> That would be the proof.
In fact this has been done many times.
3^3 + 4^3 + 5^3 = 6^3.
027
064
125
---
216
= 6^3
Since in a cube there are 3 diagonals,
there needs to be three terms in the sum of cubes,
not 2.
Maybe you have hit on another approach to prove
in fact that Fermat's last theorem is true.
Kermit Rose.
cjcountess
but looking at this geometrically, I cannot help but to notice that
the "a b and c" that are to be squared, refer to geometrical unite
lengths, that are not just dimensionless integers. This seems to me to
make a difference.
Even if, as one poster said, the theorem does not apply to triangle
with diagonal of square as hypotenuse, because "sqrt2", is not non
zero positive integer, this tell me that if theory applies to all but
exception to the rule, than the rule is not universal.
And if its roots are in dimensional geometry as opposed to
dimensionless non zero positive integers, as I suspect, than I must
still question the theorem.
Conrad J Countess
Virgil
<41c9de7e-adc7-4e06...@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Since you still do not seem to understand the distinction between real
numbers, which represent arbitrary lengths, and integers, which don't,
and FLT is about integers, you are merely confused.
To disprove FLT is way beyond your capacity.
Gerry Myerson
Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
To disprove FLT is beyond anyone's capacity (given certain plausible
consistency assumptions).
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
Virgil
Gerry Myerson <ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote:
Unless Wiles proof proves flawed it certainly is beyond anyone's
capacity, but even if Wiles proof proves to be flawed (which I very much
doubt), cjcountess would clearly be in in way over his/her/its head, at
least without several years of hard study, in attempting a disproof.
bert
> And if its roots are in dimensional geometry as opposed to
> dimensionless non zero positive integers, as I suspect, then
> I must still question the theorem.
Well, if they were, you well might; but they
aren't. The theorem about a^n, b^n and c^n
is in dimensionless numbers, whose squares,
cubes, fourth powers and so on are also
dimensionless numbers. Your geometrical
view of it is simply misleading you.
--
Frederick Williams
>
> And unite lengths are just as different from abstract non dimensional
> integers
Integers don't have a dimension, do they? Maybe they have dimension 0.
I know nothing about these things. So that something which we have in
common.
My spell checker tells me that your name should be spelt "coconuts".
cjcountess
I appreciate your comments and see your points
Frederick,
I appreciate yours too, except for that last sentence, which is
childish.
Have you ever questioned anything, tried to take it too its logical
limits, to see for yourself, if what people say is true, and if you
may in fact discover something that they missed, even if you don't
find what you originaly started looking for?
Well, you ought to try it, you just might learn something, and have a
little more respect for those of us who do.
By the way Virgil, it would be "way over HIS head", if it is indeed
not completely true, for me to find the flaw, so you say.
But you are not sure. Just because you don't you don't see a reason to
question the theorem doesn't mean that there is non.
And just because I don't find a disproof for the theorem as presently
written, doesn't mean that the soundness of the theorem doesn't stand
on a choice of words, that if changed or extended in meaning, would
disprove it.
The comment about not understanding the difference between real
numbers which represent arbitrary lengths, and integers, which don't,
may or may not be true. Maybe the differences are more unreal than
real.
I happen to think that the choice of words:
no three positive integers a, b,
and c can satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of
n greater than two.
may indeed be flawed because there are no such "dimensionless
integers", apart from things except in the mind, because in the
natural world where E=mc^2, a(mc^2) + b(mc^2) = c(mc^2) no matter how
many times its squared, and to me that means something.
Because in natural unites, which are the only true building blocks of
nature, any amount of objects squared, cubed and so on, could be
translated to E=mc^2.
And really that was my basic motivation, to see how the Pythagorean
and Fermat theorems relate to E=mc^2, F=mv^2, E=m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 and
other physics concepts.
And by the way. I still say that the cube is the square of a square,
even if not viewed that way concerning non dimensional integers.
The reason being is, if you square a 1D line by extending it at 90
degree angle, into 2D, the same height as it is long, to repeat the
same process with the 2D square, is to extend it into 3D as a cube.
Geometrically, a cube is the square of a square.
And furthermore, I think that the theorem only holds true for integers
that correspond to 1D geometrical unite lengths, related to right
triangle, as an extension of "Pythagorean theorem", and as such, has
no reality apart from that.
Conrad J Countess
Michael Stemper
>Have you ever questioned anything, tried to take it too its logical
>limits, to see for yourself, if what people say is true, and if you
>may in fact discover something that they missed, even if you don't
>find what you originaly started looking for?
That's a fundamental part of doing mathematics.
>And just because I don't find a disproof for the theorem as presently
>written, doesn't mean that the soundness of the theorem doesn't stand
>on a choice of words,
Of course it does. The theorem is based precisely on its statement.
> words, that if changed or extended in meaning, would
>disprove it.
If you change the statement of the theorem, you don't disprove the
theorem as originally stated. You get a new statement, one which
might be true or false.
>The comment about not understanding the difference between real
>numbers which represent arbitrary lengths,
Real numbers are not defined as representing lengths. They can be
used to represent lengths, or durations, or masses, or frequencies.
That's what makes them useful, but it's not part of their definition.
>numbers which represent arbitrary lengths, and integers, which don't,
>may or may not be true.
It sure seems that way. It's pretty simple to disprove, though. Just
give us a definition of "integer" and we'll believe you.
>I happen to think that the choice of words:
>
>no three positive integers a, b,
>and c can satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of
>n greater than two.
>
>may indeed be flawed
Whether you like the choice of words or not is irrelevant. That is
what the statement of the theorem is. If you choose to change words
or redefine them, you might very well come up with something that
is false. But, that something will not be Fermat's Last Theorem,
because it's something else.
> there are no such "dimensionless
>integers", apart from things except in the mind,
There's your problem. That's exactly where mathematics exists --
in the mind.
> because in the
>natural world where E=mc^2, a(mc^2) + b(mc^2) = c(mc^2) no matter how
>many times its squared, and to me that means something.
Incoherent babble, bringing in an irrelevant equation.
> which are the only true building blocks of
>nature, any amount of objects squared, cubed and so on, could be
>translated to E=mc^2.
More parroting of things that you've heard but don't comprehend. Squaring
and cubing objects doesn't turn them into an equation. Even if it does
happen to involve squaring.
>And really that was my basic motivation, to see how the Pythagorean
>and Fermat theorems relate to E=mc^2, F=mv^2, E=m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 and
>other physics concepts.
They have nothing to do with each other.
>And by the way. I still say that the cube is the square of a square,
Well, you're wrong.
>And furthermore, I think that the theorem only holds true for integers
>that correspond to 1D geometrical unite lengths, related to right
>triangle, as an extension of "Pythagorean theorem", and as such, has
>no reality apart from that.
Well, you're partly right here. The theorem is only about positive
integers. It's pretty obvious that, if you extend it to reals, there
are infinitely many solutions for any n.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party
reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.
Virgil
<60453070-4ffc-4bc7...@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Virgil, Gary, Bert,
>
> I appreciate your comments and see your points
>
>
> But you are not sure. Just because you don't you don't see a reason to
> question the theorem doesn't mean that there is non.
If your mean "none", there is also no reason to question a proof that
has been repeatedly vetted by experts well beyond your own powers of
discrimination unless you have a positive reason to suspect that it is
flawed.
>
> And just because I don't find a disproof for the theorem as presently
> written, doesn't mean that the soundness of the theorem doesn't stand
> on a choice of words, that if changed or extended in meaning, would
> disprove it.
The words in which the theorem is stated have been studied for other
meanings by many better men than either of us for over 3 centuries, and
there is no reason to suppose they have missed anything relevant that
you are competent to discover.
>
> I happen to think that the choice of words:
>
> no three positive integers a, b,
> and c can satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of
> n greater than two.
>
> may indeed be flawed because there are no such "dimensionless
> integers"
The natural numbers, as described by the Peano Postulates, exist quite
free of any necessity of dimensionality.
spudnik
of digitization, has always been implicit
to le theorem <<derniere>> de Fermatttt, as
well as to les courbes de ... duh.
> > no three positive integers a, b,
> > and c can satisfy the equation an + bn = cn
> > for any integer value of n greater than two.
thus:
where did that PDF go, of M&M's paper,
where they show the soi-dissant "null resultage?..." anyway,
I thank the dood that posted it.
thus:
I've been saying thus-like for years,
after reading of it apres XXXValdez:
Typically, there are enough microbes in the ocean to consume half of
any oil spilled in a month or two, says Howarth. Such microbes have
been found in every ocean of the world sampled, from the Arctic to
Antarctica. But there are reasons to think that the process may occur
more quickly in the Gulf than in other oceans.
--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-8-the-permian-basin-gang/
--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
cjcountess
Take the numbers 3, 4, and 5, and square them as 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2,
and you have 9 + 16 = 25.
This turns out to be correct, but why 3^2 + 4^2 does not = 7^2 why
not ?
I say that it is because these are not non dimensional integers but
dimensional geometric unites related to Pythagorean theorem and this
is how you can tell.
Take each of the 3 numbers and represent them with things, preferably
uniform objects such as spheres , triangles, or square blocks, they
should be all the same and symmetrical.
Now group each set of unites ‘objects” in order of 3x3, 4x4 and 5x5.
As you will notice, they form three squares representative of a
Pythagorean triangle.
Is not this evidence that these came from geometry as certainly
geometry came from them, for how can something without dimensions give
rise to something with dimensions?
Conrad J Countess
Virgil
<3ac2ba32-b881-4797...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> PROOF of DIMENSIONALITY
>
>
>
> Take the numbers 3, 4, and 5, and square them as 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2,
> and you have 9 + 16 = 25.
>
> This turns out to be correct, but why 3^2 + 4^2 does not = 7^2 why
> not ?
Because of the way that addition and multiplication of natural numbers
( and more generally real numbers) are requred to work together in order
to provide a useful arithmetic.
>
> I say that it is because these are not non dimensional integers but
> dimensional geometric unites related to Pythagorean theorem and this
> is how you can tell.
You say wrongly. When using only positive integers, one need not look
any further than counting for one's model. No dimensions are needed.
>
> Take each of the 3 numbers and represent them with things, preferably
> uniform objects such as spheres , triangles, or square blocks, they
> should be all the same and symmetrical.
The whole point of numbers is that they do not have any "things"
necessarily attached to them, not are they necessarily attached to any
sort of "things".
So any attempt to constrain numbers in the way you suggest is totally
inappropriate and foolish.
>
> Now group each set of unites Śobjects˛ in order of 3x3, 4x4 and 5x5.
>
> As you will notice, they form three squares representative of a
> Pythagorean triangle.
>
> Is not this evidence that these came from geometry as certainly
> geometry came from them, for how can something without dimensions give
> rise to something with dimensions?
NO!
>
>
> Conrad J Countess
spudnik
each with different dimensional attributes.
iff you don't study Fermat's numbertheorie,
you're up Shitz Creek without a paddle; however,
it is better to start with his "reconstruction
of Euclid's porisms," although they are just planar
(synthetic geometry: see "Geometrical Fragments,"
belowsville .-)
> NO!
thus:
and, the other half d'oil evaporates, as has
been shown of late (again) in the newspapers. Congress and
the Administration are a bit behind, in using Iran Oil's
big blow-out in the Gulf, to leverage BP's cap&trade nostrum;
eh?
a-yup:
Such microbes have
been found in every ocean of the world sampled, from the Arctic to
Antarctica. But there are reasons to think that the process may occur
more quickly in the Gulf than in other oceans.
--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net/online-books/
--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
spudnik
of the pythag.thm., you'll get it; now,
can it be applied to the 3d theorems.
yeah, dood; prove a theorem!
thus: <stuff about Zionosphere/WWx, redacted>
here are some speeches about the British World Wars,
collected in one book on http://tarpley.net:
How the Venetian System Was Transplanted Into England
New Federalist, June 3, 1996
The British Empire Bid for Undisputed World Domination, 1850-1870
Schiller Institute Food For Peace Conference, Chicago, February 22-23,
1992
Lord Palmerston’s Multicultural Human Zoo
ICLC Conference, February 20, 1994
King Edward VII: Evil Demiurge of the Triple Entente and World War 1
ICLC Conference, February, 1995
Sir Edward Grey Turned Sarajevo Crisis Into War
Printed in The American Almanac, March, 1995
The Versailles Thesis: The Roots of WWI, and WWII
Conference Speech by Webster Tarpley, Schiller Institute Food
For Peace Conference, Chicago, Illinois, February 22-23, 1992.
The Versailles Treaty: The War Guilt Clause
Printed in the American Almanac, March, 1995
British Financial Warfare: 1929; 1931-33;
How The City Of London Created The Great Depression
thus: we're all einsteinians, if not fanatic; you are the one,
who insists upon his reification of the corpuscle,
a willy-nilly interpretation of "quantum
of light," vis-a-vu Planck's great idea and
mere electronic traces of a photo-electrical effect.... well,
his and Infeld's acoustic fridge was pretty cool!
thus: there're two 3d versions of the pythag.thm.,
each with different dimensional attributes.
iff you don't study Fermat's numbertheorie,
you're up Shitz Creek without a paddle; however,
it is better to start with his "reconstruction
of Euclid's porisms," although they are just planar
(synthetic geometry: see "Geometrical Fragments,"
belowsville .-)
thus: and, the other half d'oil evaporates, as has
cjcountess
How much does “Fermat's Last Theorem”, depend on integers being
dimensionless if at all?
Because if it does, it’s done.
And which of these statements from http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.fermat.html
is actually what Fermat said?
this one
In the margin of his copy of a book by Diophantus, Pierre de Fermat
wrote that it is possible to have a square be the sum of two squares,
but that a cube can not be the sum of two cubes, nor a fourth power be
a sum of two fourth powers, and so on. Further, he wrote that he had
found a truly marvelous proof which the margin was too small to
contain.
Or this one
Fermat's Last Theorem states that
xn + yn = zn
has no non-zero integer solutions for x, y and z when n > 2.
With the first I can even argue as I did at very beginning, that “the
square of a square”, is where the theorem breaks down, whether I use
the cube as the square of a square or a forth power.
And with the second, if the “non zero positive integers”, absolutely
must be dimensionless, my attempt to disprove the theorem has new
life.
This is because, even if we use so called “dimensionless points”, to
represent the integers, they still form “3 squares” as borders of a
“Pythagorean triangle”, when laid out 3x3, 4x4, and 5x5, and as such
are truly dimensional.
Conrad J Countess
Again let me humbly ask, "How much does “Fermat's Last Theorem”,
depend on integers being dimensionless if at all?
BECAUSE IF IT DOES, IT IS DONE.
cjcountess
> How much does “Fermat's Last Theorem”, depend on integers being
> dimensionless if at all?
>
> Because if it does, it’s done.
>
Just wanted to restate this:
Concerning right triangle with 2 equal side2 = 1, and hypotonuse =
sqrt2, the very fact that "sqrt2", is involved, which is not interger,
somehow makes it not related to Fermats theorem. But is that the soul
reason?
If other 2 side are equal "1", this shows also that sense 1 in this
case is also not an interger, because (1x1 does not = 1) but instead =
"1square unite", as it is geometrical measure of "1 in linear
direction x 1 in 90 degree angular direction = 1 square unit".
This should be evidence that by extension, all other measurements
concerning other triplets, are also geometrical, as nothing separates
them but size of number.
Conrad J Countess
spudnik
than Descartes, if only planar, and the Fermat curves fully
embody the 2d pythagorian and n > 2 cases. a lot of crap is strewn
about concerning "dimension," expecailly following Minkowski,
who was a fantastic Nd geometer, otherwise.
anyway, it's simply innumerate to worry about it,
without actually peeking at l'OEuvre de Fermatttt, but
Hipparchus (or Hippochrates?) lunes proof is all
that you need for the dimensionality of the 2d pythag. thm.,
if not the 3d pair (quadruplets).
the main thing, though, is that Fermat didn't have
to prove n=3, since his proof apparently applied
to all of the odd primes; only the special case
of n=4 does not fall to teh well-known lemma
for composite exponents, and this he showed,
in one of his rare expositions.
> > With the first I can even argue as I did at very beginning, that “the
> > square of a square”, is where the theorem breaks down, whether I use
> > the cube as the square of a square or a forth power.
> Concerning right triangle with 2 equal side2 = 1, and hypotonuse =
> sqrt2, the very fact that "sqrt2", is involved, which is not interger,
> somehow makes it not related to Fermats theorem. But is that the soul
> reason?
thus: too bad, the unit associated with the pound, had
to be associated with The newton -- the plagiarist,
the spook, the freemason, the corpuscular "theorist" ...
> A gram is a unit of mass.
--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-8-the-permian-basin-gang/
Virgil
<28020d59-d50f-4360...@m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Concerning right triangle with 2 equal side2 = 1, and hypotonuse =
> sqrt2, the very fact that "sqrt2", is involved, which is not interger,
> somehow makes it not related to Fermats theorem. But is that the soul
> reason?
"interger" should be "integer"
"soul" should be "sole"
>
> If other 2 side are equal "1", this shows also that sense 1 in this
> case is also not an interger
Just what do you think is the difference between being an "interger"
and a not being an "interger"? Is it so much different from being an
integer?
> because (1x1 does not = 1) but instead =
> "1square unite", as it is geometrical measure of "1 in linear
> direction x 1 in 90 degree angular direction = 1 square unit".
Numbers do not have any implicit unit of measurement associated with
them. If a unit of measure is to be associated, it must be explicit or
at least implicit in the particular usage, which is NOT the case in FLT.
>
> This should be evidence that by extension, all other measurements
> concerning other triplets, are also geometrical, as nothing separates
> them but size of number.
Why are they not weights or angles or something other than distances?
It may be that in physics or engineering all numbers are assumed to have
some associated unit of measurement tied to them, but FLT and the
Pythagorean Theorem are in mathematics, and not in either physics or
engineering. And in mathematics, numbers are ordinarily assumed to be
without any units attached.
So why are you assuming otherwise?
spudnik
he and I both concern ourselves with "circling," instead
of "tatragoning." that is, "Einstein's proof" via similarity,
which he probably found at the gymnasium
in Euclid, is merely diagrammatic as he gave it;
the actual construction *is* the lunes proof
(Hippocrates', I think, but different than the Oath's .-)
> So why are you assuming otherwise?
thus:
in spite of his slogan about phase-sppace,
Minkowski was a fantastic Nd geometer. anyway,
it's downright innumerate to worry about it,
without actually peeking at l'OEuvre de Fermatttt, but
Hipparchus' (or Hippocrates') lunes proof is all
that you need for the dimensionality of the 2d pythag. thm.,
if not the 3d pair of them (quadruplets).
the main thing, though, is that Fermat didn't have
to prove n=3, since his proof apparently applied
to all of the odd primes; only the special case
of n=4 does not fall to teh well-known lemma
for composite exponents, and this he showed,
in one of his rare expositions.
thus: too bad, the unit associated with the pound, had
to be associated with The newton -- the plagiarist,
the spook, the freemason, the corpuscular "theorist" ...
--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biograph...
cjcountess
> In article
OK: so you want to give me a math lesson, but you'll settel for a
spelling leson
> "interger" should be "integer"
> "soul" should be "sole"
>
> Just what do you think is the difference between being an "interger"
> and a not being an "interger"? Is it so much different from being an
> integer?
>
> Numbers do not have any implicit unit of measurement associated with
> them. If a unit of measure is to be associated, it must be explicit or
> at least implicit in the particular usage, which is NOT the case in FLT.
If the object is to square a value than the implicite unite must be a
length or something analogous to a length.
>
> Why are they not weights or angles or something other than distances?
On the quantum level these unites can indeed be unified
> It may be that in physics or engineering all numbers are assumed to have
> some associated unit of measurement tied to them, but FLT and the
> Pythagorean Theorem are in mathematics, and not in either physics or
> engineering. And in mathematics, numbers are ordinarily assumed to be
> without any units attached.
Ordinarily assumed to be, you say, but not nessesarily all the time.
So what about the exceptions?
> So why are you assuming otherwise?
Because I am looking for the exceptions.
I think I"ve proved my point
Conrad J Countess
Virgil
<1e346815-40f6-41f5...@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 5:05 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > In article
> > <28020d59-d50f-4360-8c08-8eb085236...@m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> OK: so you want to give me a math lesson, but you'll settel for a
> spelling leson
>
> > "interger" should be "integer"
> > "soul" should be "sole"
>
> >
> > Just what do you think is the difference between being an "interger"
> > and a not being an "interger"? Is it so much different from being an
> > integer?
> >
> > Numbers do not have any implicit unit of measurement associated with
> > them. If a unit of measure is to be associated, it must be explicit or
> > at least implicit in the particular usage, which is NOT the case in FLT.
>
> If the object is to square a value than the implicite unite must be a
> length or something analogous to a length.
That would still be nonsense, even if your "than" were "then" and your
"unite" were "unit".
>
> >
> > Why are they not weights or angles or something other than distances?
>
> On the quantum level these unites can indeed be unified
What have "quantum levels" to do with pure numbers.
>
> > It may be that in physics or engineering all numbers are assumed to have
> > some associated unit of measurement tied to them, but FLT and the
> > Pythagorean Theorem are in mathematics, and not in either physics or
> > engineering. And in mathematics, numbers are ordinarily assumed to be
> > without any units attached.
>
> Ordinarily assumed to be, you say, but not nessesarily all the time.
> So what about the exceptions?
>
> > So why are you assuming otherwise?
>
> Because I am looking for the exceptions.
If you wish to try and prove or disprove a statement that only involves
numbers with no units then you are to allowed to impose units on them as
a part of your proof. What holds for measurements need not hold for pure
numbers.
And FLT is about pure numbers.
>
> I think I"ve proved my point
You think wrongly.
>
>
> Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
> In article
> That would still be nonsense, even if your "than" were "then" and your
> "unite" were "unit".
So you still want to play with words because your numbers won't
cooporate
> If you wish to try and prove or disprove a statement that only involves
> numbers with no units then you are to allowed to impose units on them as
> a part of your proof. What holds for measurements need not hold for pure
> numbers.
>
> And FLT is about pure numbers.
And as I showed you, the numbers are not pure, they are geometric and
include lengths
> > I think I"ve proved my point
>
> You think wrongly.
>
Oh yeah, well lets get something straight.
You mean to tell me that all I have to do is prove that the unites are
not dimensionless and the theorem is disproved, or must at least be
reworded?
Conrad J Countess
spudnik
as a neccesary condition, but
that certainly wouldn't disprove Fermat's "last" theorem
(iff it was the key to his Method
in "descartesian" geometry .-)
> You mean to tell me that all I have to do is prove that the unites are
> not dimensionless and the theorem is disproved, or must at least be
> reworded?
thus:
the "two groups" of the PR team are well in evidence;
a like example is the promotion of Cheeny's policy
of the 3rd Invasion of Sudan. the celebrities are enough, but
the real carrying of the policy is the "free curriculum,"
deployed in middleschools by AllstateTM.
yes, I really, really believe that
oilcos are utterly against BP's cap&trade derivatives --
same as the old cap&trade derivatives!
thus: the Liberal Media, oWned by consWervatives?
> not only did the consortium actually prove that
> Gore shot his feet off in Florida, but it did not
> even *mention* what happened to him in Michigan and Arkansas
thus: water vapor is the greatest glasshouse gas, and
also the primary problem in GCMs, since CO2 is not present
on Earth in all four phases.
actually, the main problem is conceptual, as
they only deal with "concentration of emmissions,"
as well as attempts at clouds & snowvoer (albedo),
as opposed to anything that *causes* the emmissions
(viz the jet-stream .-)
thus: the same can be said for F. Sred Finger;
they just don't want to look at his CV, if
they can beleive that he is getting big bucks from an oilco
-- like they really oppose the Kyoto Protocol, or
Waxman's old '91 cap&trade.
> The submissions Inhofe recieved are undoubtly from scientists.
thus: I remain, yr humble servant ... even though, nevermind!
> looked up "vis viva," and it is not Coriolis's thing, as
> I stated. nor was your linear ideal of Galileo, but
> apparently from Descartes and Isaac "non fingo" Newton....
> anyway, the "bending of light," per Bernoulli's brachistoshrone,
> is really of a "photon" per se, not the 3d waveform; that is,
> the problem was stated as ray-tracing, or "geometrical optics."
thus: there are no photons; do you beleive that sound
is particulate, because of a mathematical use of "phonons,"
that is to say, a quantum of sound?
as for antimatter, there is no antilight, so
it's a bit of a stretch to say that "every thing is not antimatter."
> Speed of c nature only gives to messanger particles.
thus: iff Universe is expanding faster & faster,
there goes any programme d'espace!... (for those
of you, who believe in Pascal's Plenum,
like herr doktor-professor Albert .-)
> Contradicted by observations.
thus: how can a massless & momentumless "photon" have polarity,
let-alone wavelength & frequency?
didn't Young essentially overthow Newton's untheory
(wherein corpuscles go faster in denser media) ??
> (NMR)
> signal generation and reception, and even in accepted texts, it is
> frequently described in terms of absorption and emission of radio
> waves, or radiation, by a two-level quantum system. … This difficulty
> is examined, and an explanation of the signal given whereby Faraday's
> law is explained simply in terms of an exchange of virtual photons. …
thus: ah, so; light is relatavistic, because
its waves "go" through no medium, or redshifts are dopplerian,
if the object is going at some fraction of lightspeed
-- not velocity -- w.r.t "free space?"
I may have muddled this, or you have.
> That's what distinguishes relativistic Doppler from the Doppler in
> medium-carried signals. Different basis, similar outcome.
thus: the pytahgorean theorem is perfectly dimensional, as
he and I both concern ourselves with "circling," instead
of "tatragoning." that is, "Einstein's proof" via similarity,
which he probably found at the gymnasium
in Euclid, is merely diagrammatic as he gave it;
the actual construction *is* the lunes proof
(Hippocrates', I think, but different than the Oath's .-)
thus: in spite of his slogan about phase-space,
Minkowski was a fantastic Nd geometer. anyway,
it's downright innumerate to worry about it,
without actually peeking at l'OEuvre de Fermatttt, but
Hipparchus' (or Hippocrates') lunes proof is all
that you need for the dimensionality of the 2d pythag. thm.,
if not the 3d pair of them (quadruplets).
the main thing, though, is that Fermat didn't have
to prove n=3, since his proof apparently applied
to all of the odd primes; only the special case
of n=4 does not fall to teh well-known lemma
for composite exponents, and this he showed,
in one of his rare expositions.
thus: too bad, the unit associated with the pound, had
to be associated with The newton -- the plagiarist,
the spook, the freemason, the corpuscular "theorist" ...
--les ducs d'oil!
Virgil
<ff9460f6-62b6-48cd...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2:52 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1e346815-40f6-41f5-ae8e-7140087a1...@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > That would still be nonsense, even if your "than" were "then" and your
> > "unite" were "unit".
>
> So you still want to play with words because your numbers won't
> cooporate
Did you mean "cooperate"?
>
> > If you wish to try and prove or disprove a statement that only involves
> > numbers with no units then you are to allowed to impose units on them as
> > a part of your proof. What holds for measurements need not hold for pure
> > numbers.
> >
> > And FLT is about pure numbers.
>
>
> And as I showed you, the numbers are not pure, they are geometric and
> include lengths
You will not sully MY numbers. They started pure and will stay pure.
>
> > > I think I"ve proved my point
> >
> > You think wrongly.
> >
>
> Oh yeah, well lets get something straight.
>
>
> You mean to tell me that all I have to do is prove that the unites are
> not dimensionless and the theorem is disproved, or must at least be
> reworded?
You would at least have to prove that no number can ever be
dimensionless, which, since it is not true, would be difficult to prove.
cjcountess
THE CONVERGENCE of QUANTUM and INTEGER NUMBERS
Looking at the idea of dimensionless integers, it seems that the
reason they are called dimensionless is because they can be applied to
any unite such as (length, mass, time, and so on ...), but the reason
for their universality may not be because they are dimensionless, but
because of the very opposite reason that, “they include all
dimensions”.
As an example: on the quantum level of particles, these particles such
as electrons, are said to be dimensionless point particles and
probability waves. This is in part because they are to small to
measure directly. But with newer research, it is seen to be logical
and mathematical, that these particles are fully dimensional, and as
such provides a basic measure of all dimensions, length, mass, charge,
time, temperature, and so on.
If this is the case, than the idea of so called pure numbers,
concerning non dimensional integers, and the idea of quantum particles
as basic unites of measure, merge here. This is because, it is here
that we can see that, just as quantum particle can provide basic
measurement of any, or at least multiple, unites, it is not because
they are dimensionless, but the very opposite fact that they provide
the basic unite where all these unites converge.
Therefore as such, these particles as well as there pure number
counterparts, or analogies, are not dimensionless but instead
multidimensional.
Conrad J Countess
Virgil
<53f3038c-59f4-4fa7...@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> THE CONVERGENCE of QUANTUM and INTEGER NUMBERS
>
> Looking at the idea of dimensionless integers, it seems that the
> reason they are called dimensionless is because they can be applied to
> any unite such as (length, mass, time, and so on ...), but the reason
> for their universality may not be because they are dimensionless, but
> because of the very opposite reason that, ³they include all
> dimensions².
Nonsense. Units may be certainly appended to numbers but if all numbers
already "include" all units then 2^2 would have to represent 2 kilograms
to the 2 meters power and simultaneoulsy 2 dynes to the 2 ohms power,
etc..
Gerry Myerson
Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> In article
> <53f3038c-59f4-4fa7...@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > THE CONVERGENCE of QUANTUM and INTEGER NUMBERS
> >
> > Looking at the idea of dimensionless integers, it seems that the
> > reason they are called dimensionless is because they can be applied to
> > any unite such as (length, mass, time, and so on ...), but the reason
> > for their universality may not be because they are dimensionless, but
> > because of the very opposite reason that, łthey include all
> > dimensions˛.
>
> Nonsense. Units may be certainly appended to numbers but if all numbers
> already "include" all units then 2^2 would have to represent 2 kilograms
> to the 2 meters power and simultaneoulsy 2 dynes to the 2 ohms power,
> etc..
Be it ever so umble, there's no place like ohm.
spudnik
even if an equation suppresses the constants in shorthand,
they always have to conform to "dimensional analysis,"
which is just algebra, and presented in several, short monographs.
(I'd recommend the ones that get into permitivity & permeability
of "free space," which is thus seen not to be a vacuum .-)
thus:
so, what is the largest conspiracy on Earth via etymology?
although they have the best general-interest science magazine
http//:21stcenturysciencetech.com
one does not have to agree with all of their political conspiracies,
although I did learn from them that the Presdient set-up CCX
in '03, as the lawyer who rounded-up the foundation money. so,
maybe that just would *seem* like a conspiracy, and
I hardly blame him, because I'm sure that the President and
my Congressman Waxman both think that it's very good -- and
so does Wall St. and "the city" of London -- just like his '91 bill.
thus quoth:
The disparity between the tropospheric and surface temperature
trends measured by balloons and satellites, and the greenhouse
models’ predictions, was recently discussed by S. Fred Singer
in a letter rejected by Nature, and published on Feb. 13, 2007 on
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2007/02/climate report.html.
As stated by Singer, “Greenhouse models indicate that the
tropics provide the most sensitive location for their validation:
trends there [should] increase strongly with altitude, peaking
at around 10 kilometers. Actual observations, however, show
the opposite: flat or even decreasing tropospheric trend.” This
comparison of models with balloon and
satellite data, contradicts the most important
conclusion of IPCC that the current
warming is “very likely” the result of human
activities.
thus: for comparison, see F. Sred Finger's *old* metastudy
on glaciers, most of which have very little observation;
that is the gist of the study, I think.
thus: I said, your holy PS#1 doodness, that
water is found in all phases on Earth, and is thus not
as controllable by humans as CO2, which is mostly gas and
dissolved in water (carbonic acid).
although, of course, desertifiaction will have a big effect
on the trace/glasshouse gas #1, H2O.
thus: most of the biological activity of the oceans is just off of
the land, and
therein llay a few theories, viz-a-vu Arctica and Anarctica.
thus: note that, by the time these middleschoolers turn eighteen,
we could be well into the 3rd British invasion of "the Sudan" --
as you will still here it called, by some of the Harry Potter PS-
trained Sudanese who promote this ****, Trickier Dick Cheeny [**]'s
foriegn policy, as told by Jon Pendergast in conversation
wtih Don Cheedle at a presentation for middleschoolers and
their parents in Los Angeles, underwritten by Allstate.
> the "two groups" of the PR team are well in evidence;
> a like example is the promotion of Cheeny's policy
> of the 3rd Invasion of Sudan. the celebrities are enough, but
> the real carrying of the policy is the "free curriculum,"
> deployed in middleschools by AllstateTM.
thus: what is the "prosecutor's fallacy,
that doesn't need Bayes' theorem?"
> http://www.ams.org/notices/201007/rtx100700822p.pdf
thus: let me anull the notion that Einstein could not
have come-up with that proof of pythag., because
it is so monumentally elementary, although
Hippocrates lunes proof is not presented in the Euclid version,
as far as I know.
Virgil
Gerry Myerson <ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote:
Shocking!!!
Bart Goddard
news:Virgil-3DA22F....@bignews.usenetmonster.com:
>> > Nonsense. Units may be certainly appended to numbers but if all
>> > numbers already "include" all units then 2^2 would have to
>> > represent 2 kilograms to the 2 meters power and simultaneoulsy 2
>> > dynes to the 2 ohms power, etc..
>>
>> Be it ever so umble, there's no place like ohm.
>
> Shocking!!!
Watt's this nonsense? Either I are squared, or
you guys need mho timeout.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Gerry Myerson
Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
Resistance is futile.
Pubkeybreaker
wrote:
> In article <Xns9DC9B7AC22F23goddardbenetscape...@74.209.136.82>,
Resistance is V/I.
cjcountess
> In article
> Nonsense. Units may be certainly appended to numbers but if all numbers
> already "include" all units then 2^2 would have to represent 2 kilograms
> to the 2 meters power and simultaneoulsy 2 dynes to the 2 ohms power,
> etc..
No because these are man made arbitrary unites, but just as a photon
has measure of "mass" and "energy", that are equal, as well as
"length", that is inversely proportional to it, and "time cycle" also
associated with those measurements, an electron has these as well as
"temp", "charge" and "gravity rest mass" all related through
maathematical conversion factor c^2.
This being the case the electron or c^2 might serve as natural
conversion factor and basic natural unit related to many units of
measurement.
As far as dimensional analisis is concerned "sputnik", (E=mc^2)
trancends "dimensional analisis", in the triditional sense, because
conversion factor which is "c^2", is dimensional, and this conversion
factor is between dimensions of E,m.T,t,,Q.
Conrad J Countess
spudnik
"mass times length time length per time times time?"
the shape that one uses to diagram is not so important, although
the circle has a clear meaning to propogation of light
-- great circle of the wavefront --
which is Bucky's "analysis."
also, "E=mcc" isn't neccesarily the best formulary!
> As far as dimensional analisis is concerned "sputnik", (E=mc^2)
> trancends "dimensional analisis", in the triditional sense, because
> conversion factor which is "c^2", is dimensional, and this conversion
> factor is between dimensions of E,m.T,t,,Q.
thus:
the climate is changing rapidly, and, yet,
"glasshouse warming" is totally differential from front to back
w.r.t Sun, or from poles to equator, "globally."
thus: I've read of Muslim places where deforestation is a nearly
totalistic endeavor, for lumber, and that is probably the biggest
factor.
and, "global" warming actually is predominantly tropical,
and that is just a big, fat Duh.
thus: no; I want to know what they say about it,
not the "yeah or neigh" and the CVs -- lies, polls, statistics.
> Anyone wants to guess who the 3 dissending climatologists are ?
thus: there is no such a thing as a Nobel in econ., probably
for the same reason that there isn't one for math, but
I don't know that Krugman knows this, or that
his editor would allow him to publish it. however,
the official title is "the Swedish Bank Prize [etc.]."
--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
Light, A History!
http://wlym.com
Virgil
<70a49f46-86ca-4831...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 3:34 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > In article
> > <53f3038c-59f4-4fa7-8c56-6372ee107...@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Nonsense. Units may be certainly appended to numbers but if all numbers
> > already "include" all units then 2^2 would have to represent 2 kilograms
> > to the 2 meters power and simultaneoulsy 2 dynes to the 2 ohms power,
> > etc..
>
> No because these are man made arbitrary unites, but just as a photon
> has measure of "mass" and "energy", that are equal, as well as
> "length", that is inversely proportional to it, and "time cycle" also
> associated with those measurements, an electron has these as well as
> "temp", "charge" and "gravity rest mass" all related through
> maathematical conversion factor c^2.
> >> Be it ever so umble, there's no place like ohm.
> >
> > Shocking!!!
>
> Watt's this nonsense? Either I are squared, or
> you guys need mho timeout.
Resistance is futile.
>
> This being the case the electron or c^2 might serve as natural
> conversion factor and basic natural unit related to many units of
> measurement.
> >> Be it ever so umble, there's no place like ohm.
> >
> > Shocking!!!
>
> Watt's this nonsense? Either I are squared, or
> you guys need mho timeout.
Resistance is futile.
>
> As far as dimensional analisis is concerned "sputnik", (E=mc^2)
> trancends "dimensional analisis", in the triditional sense, because
> conversion factor which is "c^2", is dimensional, and this conversion
> factor is between dimensions of E,m.T,t,,Q.
> >> Be it ever so umble, there's no place like ohm.
> >
> > Shocking!!!
>
> Watt's this nonsense? Either I are squared, or
> you guys need mho timeout.
Resistance is futile.
And her grace, the countess, is still wrong!!!
>
> Conrad J Countess
porky_...@my-deja.com
>
> If this is the case, than the idea of so called pure numbers,
> concerning non dimensional integers, and the idea of quantum particles
> as basic unites of measure, merge here. This is because, it is here
> that we can see that, just as quantum particle can provide basic
> measurement of any, or at least multiple, unites, it is not because
> they are dimensionless, but the very opposite fact that they provide
> the basic unite where all these unites converge.
>
This meaningless crap has as much to do with mathematics as chicken
dance - to ballet.
> Therefore as such, these particles as well as there pure number
> counterparts, or analogies, are not dimensionless but instead
> multidimensional.
>
> Conrad J Countess
As our contributor poet-philosopher Aya-Oba would have said,
Q.E.D.
Bart Goddard
news:7be826e5-c57c-41c5...@d17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 3, 11:32 am, cjcountess <cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> If this is the case, than the idea of so called pure numbers,
>> concerning non dimensional integers, and the idea of quantum particles
>> as basic unites of measure, merge here. This is because, it is here
>> that we can see that, just as quantum particle can provide basic
>> measurement of any, or at least multiple, unites, it is not because
>> they are dimensionless, but the very opposite fact that they provide
>> the basic unite where all these unites converge.
>>
>
> This meaningless crap has as much to do with mathematics as chicken
> dance - to ballet.
Yeah, it seems like we need to add a "comma to period" ratio
to the crackpot index calculation. If every sentence you
write has 5 commas in it, then it's guaranteed that your
own brain is repeatedly distracting you from whatever thought
you started with.
cjcountess
For your information I am a mam, and it is his grace, "Mr Countess" is
RIGHT.
A friend of mine and fellow poet "Janita Jackson" once read my work
and interpretaed the EM spectrum as the Energy/Matter spectrum instead
of the Electromagnetic spectrum.
I informed her that she was wrong in calling the EM spectrum the
Energy/Matter instead of the Electromagnetic tecnicaly as far as the
term is popularly used but that she was in fact right in spite of that
because the electromagnetic spectrum is the very spectrum in which
energy turns to matter when its reaches the critical frequency/
wavelength of c^2.
She also use to let us know that "thoughts", are things to, and as
such we should pay more attention and respect to our ideas.
The very nature of things which includes thoughts, that exist have by
their very nature dimensionsThis include thoughts of things that
supposedly have no dimensions such as so called dimensionless
intergers.
This being the case, there are no such things that exist, thoughts of
things or otherwise, that have no dimensions.
That is the long and the short of it.
One poster emailed me saying that although Fermats theorem resembled
geometry it is because at that time nuber theory was not as
sophisticated as to use the dimensionless interger as is presently
used today, more or less, and not because it is in fact based on
geometry.
But let me state that just as number theory advanced to the point
where the dimensionless interger is used between than and now it could
have very well advanced further to include the fact that all things in
existence that indeed do exist do indeed have dimensions even if not
obvious at first or numerous glances.
E=mc^2 lets us know that even thoughts that are composed of energy
have dimensions.
And furthermore in case you did not know E=mc^2 transended the
conservation laws of energy and mass as was than understood and
likewise transends dimensional analisis ideas which are presently
understood also.
I will explain in more detail later.
There is a new sheriff in town and he 's bringing the new law
Conrad J Countess
spudnik
numbertheory is the only place where numbers are dimensionless,
and a lot of us prefer to stay with rationals, thereinat,
like Fermatttt. although
fine scientists like Bellman assert that matrices (linear algebra)
is the "higher arithmetic," it is numbertheorie, or Gauss's "queen
of the sciences," with the consort being left to implication.
(for instance, look at Stevin's _The Decimals_ .-)
one has only to look at the Fermat curves, to see that
his "last" theorem is indeed geometrical, as also seen
in teh abstruse Wiles proof using "elliptic curves."
> There is a new sheriff in town and he's bringing the New Math.
thus:
the climate is changing rapidly, and, yet,
"glasshouse warming" is totally differential from front to back
w.r.t Sun, or from poles to equator, "globally."
thus: I've read of Muslim places where deforestation is a nearly
totalistic endeavor, for lumber, and that's a big factor.
and, "global" warming actually is predominantly tropical,
and that is just a big, fat Duh.
thus: no; I want to know what they say about it,
not the "yeah or neigh" and the CVs -- lies, polls, statistics.
> Anyone wants to guess who the 3 dissending climatologists are ?
thus: there is no such a thing as a Nobel in econ., probably
for the same reason that there isn't one for math, but
I don't know that Krugman knows this, or that
his editor would allow him to publish it. however,
the official title is "the Swedish Bank Prize [etc.]."
--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com
Virgil
<5c11859f-a8b9-46b9...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Virgil
>
> For your information I am a mam, and it is his grace, "Mr Countess" is
> RIGHT.
If you are indeed a "mam", as you have indicated, then "Mr" anything
would be inappropriate.
Also,purely mathematical numbers are free of any and all units.
While physics may differ, this is not a physics NG.
James Waldby
> For your information I am a mam, and it is his grace, "Mr Countess" is
> RIGHT.
But, Countess, all mam's are women. You are a mixed up dude.
Numerous misspellings appear in what you wrote. Don't you have a
spellchecker?
> ... interpretaed ... tecnicaly ... intergers ... Fermats ...
> nuber theory ... interger ... interger ... transended
> ... transends ... analisis ...
[and "unite" that should be "unit", repeatedly in previous posts]
Of course, you might not care about misspellings. That is your
privilege; there are no laws against looking stupid.
> I will explain in more detail later.
> There is a new sheriff in town and he 's bringing the new law
You seem to misunderstand mathematics and to know nothing of what
mathematics is about.
Have you given any thought to what people have been telling you?
--
jiw
spudnik
to leave commas to the imagination of the reader,
perhaps because that's how Eliz. does it, or some thing.
> If every sentence you
> write has 5 commas in it, then it's guaranteed that your
thus:
the perfect box problem missed one of the lengths, and
I couldn't "see" what you meant by a "4d brick."
http://unsolvedproblems.org/
spudnik
the dood is Dutch, I think, and spellchekcers are a sure way
to lose one's ability to spell.
otherwise, he seems to be hoisting his own petard
to various heights of "not even wrongsville."
incidentally, the perfect box problem is of the same sort,
as le theoreme <<dernier>> de Fermatttt, and obviously
both Diophantine and geometrically dimensional.
> You seem to misunderstand mathematics and to know nothing of what
> mathematics is about.
thus:
that's kind-of a British thing,
to leave commas to the imagination of the reader,
perhaps because that's how Eliz. does it, or some thing.
> If every sentence you
> write has 5 commas in it, then it's guaranteed that your
thus: the perfect box problem missed one of the lengths,
but I couldn't see what you meant by a "4d brick."
porky_...@my-deja.com
> E=mc^2 lets us know that even thoughts that are composed of energy
> have dimensions.
The dimensions of my thoughts is 2 to the power of the cardinality of
dimensions of your thoughts.
>
> There is a new sheriff in town and he 's bringing the new law
>
> Conrad J Countess
Bum! Bum! You're dead.
cjcountess
Let me assure all of you, that, I am a man, male, Mr.
I have more respect for the women that participate in the group than I
have for you “Virgil”, who said that your numbers are pure and will
stay pure. True to your name, right?
James Waldby,
I do have a lot of misspellings and I apologize for that, but don’t
disrespect me with that “homo crap”, that Vigil started, and as we all
know, that is a sure sign of lack of confidence in ones manhood or
sexuality period.
Just when I am about to put the final touch to this argument Virgil,
porgy-pig and a few others are pulling out all the stops.
Do not let this guy clarify himself. Interject and keep the argument
as muddled and sullied as possible
Who’s really sullying the conversation Virgil?
ARE YOU AFRAID?
I am going to prepare an argument so simple and clear that the
evidence speaks for itself. It will provide such a clear contrast,
that those who oppose it will also have to be also clear, or clearly
be seen as making unreasonable arguments.
The stakes are high
Just what would it mean to disprove “Fermat’s Last Theorem”? Or what
would it mean to simply proved that there are no such things as
dimensionless numbers?
We will soon see
To me this is more important than exchanging words to see who is more
macho or rude, or can sustain an empty emotional and disrespectfully
argument.
And it will again clearly separate those who are more concerned about
“who is right and gets credit for it, than what is right and
contributes to the knowledge base of humanity”
Conrad J Countess
Pubkeybreaker
> And it will again clearly separate those who are more concerned about
> “who is right and gets credit for it, than what is right and
> contributes to the knowledge base of humanity”
>
> Conrad J Countess
I have seen your posts.
So far, you have contributed nothing except nonsense and gibberish.
spudnik
if only because I made it, two, a long, long, long time,
ago!
anyway, monsieur Countess,
how do you say that "counting is dimensional?"
do androids dream of dimensional sheep?
> I have seen your posts.
--les ducs d'oil!
Virgil
<6c57a49c-322f-47c0...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> People, this debate is degrading into something disrespectful.
>
> Let me assure all of you, that, I am a man, male, Mr.
>
> I have more respect for the women that participate in the group than I
> have for you łVirgil˛, who said that your numbers are pure and will
> stay pure. True to your name, right?
>
> James Waldby,
>
> I do have a lot of misspellings and I apologize for that, but donąt
> disrespect me with that łhomo crap˛, that Vigil started, and as we all
> know, that is a sure sign of lack of confidence in ones manhood or
> sexuality period.
>
> Just when I am about to put the final touch to this argument Virgil,
> porgy-pig and a few others are pulling out all the stops.
>
> Do not let this guy clarify himself. Interject and keep the argument
> as muddled and sullied as possible
> Whoąs really sullying the conversation Virgil?
>
> ARE YOU AFRAID?
>
> I am going to prepare an argument so simple and clear that the
> evidence speaks for itself. It will provide such a clear contrast,
> that those who oppose it will also have to be also clear, or clearly
> be seen as making unreasonable arguments.
>
> The stakes are high
>
> Just what would it mean to disprove łFermatąs Last Theorem˛? Or what
> would it mean to simply proved that there are no such things as
> dimensionless numbers?
>
> We will soon see
>
> To me this is more important than exchanging words to see who is more
> macho or rude, or can sustain an empty emotional and disrespectfully
> argument.
>
> And it will again clearly separate those who are more concerned about
> łwho is right and gets credit for it, than what is right and
> contributes to the knowledge base of humanity˛
>
> Conrad J Countess
In physics, one may quite reasoably assume that many, if not most,
numbers carry dimensional information, but all such dimensional numbers
are the result of measurements of one sort or another involving the
counting of some units of measure.
But when counting things which are not and do not involve units of
measure, what units of measure are required?
NONE!
In pure mathematics, the counting numbers are objectified via either the
Peano postulates, members of a certain set in ZFC, or something similar,
and are never necessarily associated with any unit of measure whatsoever.
All other numbers in pure mathematics can be generated purely
mathematically from those counting numbers, so that those other numbers
are not necessarily associated with any unit of measure either.
So wherever your notion that all numbers are necessarily associated with
units comes from, it fails to apply in pure mathematics.
cjcountess
Thank you for bringing the conversation back to a civil state
The very fact that a so called “pure, dimensionless number”, can be
considered “positive”, is acknowledgment of at least dimension in
positive space.
Spudnik
I am glad that you did not see my observation as totally useless,
although I did not like that dutch remark. But lets not degenerate
again, and I did find something you said interesting
The idea of dimensionless constants might be a good place to start a
comparison with dimensionless numbers.
Vigil and spudnik,
I am going to prepare a more thought out response for you and report
back shortly.
Conrad J Countess
Marshall
>
> The very fact that a so called “pure, dimensionless number”, can be
> considered “positive”, is acknowledgment of at least dimension in
> positive space.
The very fact that a so called “pure, dimensionless number”, can be
used to count apples is acknowledgment of at least fruit in a basket.
This idea of trying to tie geometry to numbers is clearly off track;
obviously numbers are about inventory!
Marshall
Ostap Bender
> “FERMAT”S LAST THEOREM”, disproved?
>
> Take a square that is cut in half diagonally, to give us a 90 degree
> triangle, of two equal right angular sides, and one longer hypotenuse,
> or slanted side.
>
> Label each of the right angular straight sides, “a” and “b”, and the
> longer slanted hypotenuse, “c”.
>
> Next, applying the Pythagorean Theorem, square each of the 3 sides,
> turning each of the one dimensional lines to 2 dimensional squares,
> and we find that, a^2 + b^2 = c^2
Fermat required that all three - a, b and c - be INTEGERS, you moron.
In your case, a = b and c = sqrt(2)*a.
> Now to take it to a higher level, in order to test “Fermat's Last
> Theorem”, which states that this ( a^n + b^n = c^n), formula, only
> works for numbers of which the exponent is = to “2”.
>
> Lay each of the “2 D” sides on their sides and square them, also
> upward, at 90 degrees, which instead of extending the whole “1D” line
> upward a length equal to its self equaling a 1 inch square, will
> extend the 2D square upward a length equal also to itself..
>
> If the Pythagorean theorem still holds, (the square of “a^2” + the
> square of “b^2”, = the square of c^2), and sense the square of each
> square is a cube, a^3 + b^3 = c^3
>
> "FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM" which was recently said to be proven, is not.
>
> Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
You are late, we already dealt with that, moron
But sense you want to get involved, what do you have to add to this
besides childish remarks?
Shed some light on this subject or shut up.
Marshall,
I appreciate your comments, but have you considered this?
There are many independent subjects of study in the world. Many of
them when examined in detail, reveal an underlining reality, that
connects to some other subject of study, that when itself studied,
will help in the understanding of original subject, and vice versa. In
other words, one thing leads to another, the study of one, which
enhances the study of the other.
This is happening in all fields, at an ever increasing rate, and it
would be naive for the strict mathematician, to assume that "Number
Theory", is immune, or would not in fact benefit from it eventually.
It is quite understandable that one might feel threatened by a hostile
takeover of ones subject by another, analogous to the hostile
takeovers of one company by another which would mean downsizing of
needed workers and threatening ones job and livelihood.
But the fact is that this is happening, and no amount of denial will
make it go away.
Why should “Number Theory” be immune? Why should numbers themselves,
be so independent from the rest of the world, as to deny their
interrelationship with it and the very existence of dimensions?
Numbers are not independent of the rest of the world, and therefore
devoid of dimensions. When examined in detail, numbers themselves will
show to be just as dimensional as any other aspect of the cosmos,
otherwise they could not match the dimensions of the measured.
The very fact that numbers can match up to count the dimensions of an
object reflects its own dimensions, and the fact that it can match so
many different dimensions of measurement, reflects its multi
dimensionality.
This will become clearer in time
Conrad J Countess
spudnik
don't read Fermat et al & *be happy* with your self.
> This will become clearer in time
thus:
compared to "yeah, nine tenths of all glaciers are melting,"
we have the extra decimal place of alleged veracity,
"ninety-seven per cent of climate scientists,"
possibly just referrng to GCMers (that is,
students of, y'know .-)
thus: the OP's article mentioned the #1 unexplained anomaly,
that there's more warming at night & winter, and winter nights,
although
this may not actually extend to the poles, except where
they are using rectal thermometers.
> Reading through the above I see "According to the NCDC, the most
> lethal weather catastrophes in the US in the last 30 years were the
> heatwaves of 1980 and 1988 with somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000
> fatalities between them." and "The National Institute on Aging (NIA)
> estimates that over 2.5 million older Americans are especially
> vulnerable to hypothermia, and Dr. Richard Besdine of the Harvard
> Medical School estimates that 25,000 older adults may die from
> hypothermia each year in the United States."
thus: that's in its own "resting" frame of reference,
as with Galilean relativity. I also appreciate the citation
of Huyghens, whhofrom ____ got the math to make the inverse-
second-power law from Kepler's orbital constraints.
all of these things are "invariant" within the object's frame
of rest, so, you can just say that the relativistic increase
of mass etc., is just a matter of trying to stop it.
of course, Minkowski obfuscated every God-am thing
with his little lectures about phase-space; then, he ...
nevermind!
> It has nothing to do with earth.
thus: you were around, what -- a FOX news transmitter?... well,
you'd get more radiation, sitting so close to TV!... so,
anyway, check the UNSCEAR 2000 report; if
it had been redacted of the word, Chernobyl, you wouldn't know
that it was the same hyped-over area.
yes, the SU authorities mistakenly tried to cover it up,
such as they could for a while, and thus also failed
to distrbute the iodine tablet prophylactics for the possiblity
of Cesium-137 poisoning, but that is mostly ameliorated
by not drinking milk from grass-fed cows, for a number of months.
> Bullshit. Unlike you, I was around at the time. The west didn't even know
> something was happening until they detected radioactive elements in the wind
> coming over europe.
thus: ah, yes; resistanceless!... so, for realism,
what'd be the minimum "boost," as the bobsledder
approacheth the antipode at sealevel, to get back
to the start?
I didn't think, though, that the brachistochrone/tautochrone
was cycloidal, but that roundtrip makes me wonder.
> > just drop it.
> Well, well that's just a trivial case ;-) How about a half-pipe
> brachistochrone going from point A 5000km above the ground to
> ground-zero at the antipodal point and ending at point A again going
> once around the equator?
--les ducs du bp!!
Virgil
<62cc4ee3-f901-428d...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Virgil
>
> Thank you for bringing the conversation back to a civil state
>
> The very fact that a so called łpure, dimensionless number˛, can be
> considered łpositive˛, is acknowledgment of at least dimension in
> positive space.
In ZFC, positiveness has nothing to do with dimesionality.
For example using the von Neuman naturals, one has
0 = {}, the empty set and for each natural n, one has n + 1 = {n,{n}}
and one can easily define the usual arithmetic on N inductively
Then in the Cartesian product, NxN one defines the equivalence realtion
(a,b) == (c,d) , for a,b,c,d in N, <==> a+d = b+c as naturals.
The set of equivalence classes for this relation is taken as the set of
integers, Z, and such an integer is negative if and only if each of its
ordered pairs (a,b) has a < b in N.
I see nothing of dimensions in that construction.
Nor in the construction of the set, Q, of rationals from Z, nor from the
constriction of the set, R, of reals from Q.
Virgil
<8841baed-0f7e-430c...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ostrap Bender
>
> You are late, we already dealt with that, moron
If you object to being called moronic, or otherwise dissed, you should
really refrain from doing it to others.
>
> But sense you want to get involved, what do you have to add to this
> besides childish remarks?
Calling other peoples remarks childish?
How do you know your own are not?
>
> Shed some light on this subject or shut up.
You seems to be shedding more heat that light, yourself.
>
> Why should numbers themselves,
> be so independent from the rest of the world, as to deny their
> interrelationship with it and the very existence of dimensions?
Because the way in which the numbers systems have been constructed do
not involve any dimensionality.
>
> Numbers are not independent of the rest of the world
On the contrary. The numbers systems constructed in ZFC or NBG are quite
independent of everything except logic, which is itself devoid of any
dimensionality.
, and therefore
> devoid of dimensions. When examined in detail, numbers themselves will
> show to be just as dimensional as any other aspect of the cosmos,
> otherwise they could not match the dimensions of the measured.
That numbers can be used with units of measure to represent measurings
does not mean that numbers HAVE units of measure.
Otherwise, analogously, using numbers to count people would require
that numbers have people.
And similar nonsense.
cjcountess
I realy don't have to add anything to this conversation, just shorten
it and pick out 2 important points.
You really can learn something about your own subject by studying
other subject, simply because everything is interelated and do share a
common ground state reality.
As such something should have told you before I did that numbers have
dimensions.
Take a lesson from reading descriptions. If something exist it has to
have dimensions.
To describe something is to outline its dimensions even if not
explicitly stated and the more rigprous the description, the more
outlined its dimensions.
Having said that, if you arrange these numbers of any triplet claimed
to represent Fermat's Last Theore, no matter what their form, in
groups of like numbers, for instence 3x3, 4x4, and 5x5, they form
three squares that fit together to form a triangle.
And just as geometry arrise from these numbers, they must arise from
geometry.
I am sorry Virgil, but you cannot win this one.
I revolutionized physics and now without even trying I revolutionized
math.
You see that is why I don't get too mad at you guys when you act
childish
You must fell like a child in my midst
Just joking fellas. I must do that sometimes to keep from getting mad
at some of you.
I cannot believe that it took me to come along and reveal that.
If Fermat"s theorem depends on "dimensionless intergers", I
accomplished what I originaly set out to do, see if I could find a
disproff.
But if it does'nt so be it . It was an interesting ride.
Conrad J Countess
bert
> If Fermat"s theorem depends on "dimensionless intergers", I
> accomplished what I originaly set out to do, see if I could find a
> disproff.
>
> But if it does'nt so be it . It was an interesting ride.
What to you seems a convincing proof - or
disproof - is to everybody else a load of
non-mathematical handwaving and wordplay.
--
Virgil
<befc7208-a7f5-4e77...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
cjcountess <cjcou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wow Virgil, where's your common sense?
My common sense says that anyone who does not spell any better than you
do is unlikely to accomplish much.
>
> If Fermat"s theorem depends on "dimensionless INTERGERS", I
> accomplished what I originaly set out to do, see if I could find a
> DISPROFF.
EMPHASIS added!
cjcountess
> In article
>
> cjcountess<cjcount...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Wow Virgil, where's your common sense?
>
> My common sense says that anyone who does not spell any better than you
> do is unlikely to accomplish much.
>
>
>
> > If Fermat"s theorem depends on "dimensionless INTERGERS", I
> > accomplished what I originaly set out to do, see if I could find a
> > DISPROFF.
>
> EMPHASIS added!
My inperfect spelling is not going to save you.
Bad spelling or not, I am correct.
There are no such things that exist, physicaly or mentaly, which do
not have dimensions.
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
The idea that geometrically, a cube is the square of a square really
fascinates me, even though it may be technically wrong.
Somehow I know that I am correct in a certain sense.
After all, if one squares a line by extending it into the 90 degree
angular direction, the same measure, if one lays that same square on
its side and repeats the exact same process of extending the entire
square into the 90 degree angular direction the same measure, one
obtains a cube.
In so called dimensionless integers, 1 x 1 equals 1, but in geometry,
a line in the horizontal direction of 1 unit x a line of equal measure
in the 90 degree angular direction, equals a square unit.
So what is the square of that square? The square of the 1x1=1 square
would still be 1, but the square of the geometrical square must be
more.
If it is 2 squares because of the sqrt2 being the measure of the
diagonal than it is less in volume and area than if it were placed on
its side and squared in the 90 degree angular direction to create a
cube as I suggested.
The cube as geometrically being, “the square of a square”, on the very
fundamental level of 1 square x 1 square fascinates me.
As a matter of fact, when one considers the natural unite "c" or the
speed of light, c^2 produce a 3D geometrical spherical particle, as
far as the empirical, geometrical, and mathematical, evidence suggest.
Also suggesting that (c^2 = c^3) on the quantum level.
This would even mean that if (c^2 + c^2 = 2c^2) than (c^3 + c^3 =
2c^3), shattering "Fermat's Last Theorem", on quantum level.
It would also mean that (E=mc^2) = (E=mc^circled) = (E=mcSphered) =
(E=mc^3) = (E=mc^triangled as conforming to Pythagorean Theorem yet
shattering The Fermat's Last Theorem), on the quantum level also
That to me is also fascinating
Conrad J Countess
jose l
> The idea that geometrically, a cube is the square of a square really
> fascinates me, even though it may be technically wrong.
Without adjectives, IS WRONG.
> Somehow I know that I am correct in a certain sense.
All right. Find the "certain sense" (if any), and then come back.
Meanwhile ..., please stop the nonsense.
Jose L. Sanchez-Gsrrido
porky_...@my-deja.com
> All right. Find the "certain sense" (if any), and then come back.
A little green man who lives in his head told him he's correct.
spudnik
like the knots in the rope of the harpedaenaptum.
as an exercise, what is the canonical base-one digitization
(by induction on base-ten, say) ??
thus:
wow, the intersection of two quadric (surfaces?);
I was just reading about that in Boyer's history of algebraic
geometry.
(incidentally, I found what may be the first real reference
to tripolars, that I have ever found, in about ten years,
mais il est sans explication .-)
> this paper of Bremner
thus: sorry, what I said about your bridge-sale to PBS, even if
it's true, doctor M.!!
timespace is such a hoary piece of crap, it is really unfortunate
that Minkowski is not known for his actually useful, Nd geometry; that
is,
it leads to the silliness of "rotations in spacetime," whether or not
time is periodical (of course, it always is, subjectively, especially
iff you're a Hindoo in another timespace/lifetime .-)
> Such a universe has a preferred direction (the direction
> "around" the universe). It therefore also has a preferred
> frame (or set of frames) because only in certain special
> frames is the preferred direction purely spatial (as opposed
> to having a temporal component).
--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com
--les ducs d'Enron!
http://tarpley.net
cjcountess
units c and c^2
In linear mathematics, 1x1=1.
In geometry, 1 unit length in linear direction x 1 equal unit length
in 90 degree angular direction = 1 square unit.
In dynamics engineering, 1 velocity vector x 1 equal and 90 degree
angular velocity vector creates circular motion through balance of
centrifugal and centripetal forces with acceleration a=v^2/r.
This is the first equality between v^2 and v^circled.
On the quantum level “c^2” is energy in circular and or spherical
motion. This is how energy attains rest mass at the mathematical
conversion factor of “c^2” in equation (E=mc^2). And as deBroglie
realized (E=hf=mc^2) at level of electron, which he also rightly
projected to be a wave just like a photon, only with more momentum.
Bohr discovered that wave length of electron equals circumference of
circle with momentum of a multiple integer of (h/2pi).
Compton also realized that wavelength of photon and electron was
separated only by momentum.
Now if this wave makes 2 rotations at right angles to each other in
order to complete one wave cycle, as empirical evidence also pointed
to,, its momentum is said to be (h/2pi/2) indicating that it is
(spin1/2).
That equates the c ^sphered with c^circle and c^2.
And sense the electron is a standing spherical wave, it is 3
dimensional, and may well be considered “c^3”, and so this is where
the cube comes in.
And last but not least, “c in linear direction x c in 90 degree
angular direction”, which gives rise to a trajectory which might be
called the hypotenuse of a triangle with c x c as the 90 degree
angular legs, and fact that this does seem to obey “Pythagorean
Theorem”, while at same time shattering Fermat's Last Theorem”, is
where the triangle comes in.
Because c x c or c^2 produces “a standing spherical wave, making two
rotations at right angles to complete one wave cycle, making it
standing spherical wave of spin 1/2, and -1 charged, if the wave
spins counter to its trajectory, is where I got the idea that c is
(natural unit sqrt of natural unit -1).
These are same dimensions as electron, and it would be highly
improbable that all these attributes are produced by this model if it
did not correspond to the electron.
Looking at c^2 as “c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular
direction” which create a 90 degree arc trajectory also directly
matches geometrical description of sqrt -1 that I encountered later
except that I make the 90 degree arc trajectory constant to create a
circle and make the amplitude also constant so that circle make two
rotations at right angles to each other to make 3D spherical wave.
This just happens to directly match description of electron.
someone “spudnik” I think, also suggested that (c=sqrt2), this is also
interesting
According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2
which states: The square root of 2, often known as root 2, is the
positive real number that, when multiplied by itself, gives the number
2.
Geometrically the square root of 2 is the length of a diagonal across
a square with sides of one unit of length; this follows from the
Pythagorean theorem.
How is it that 1x1=1 can jump to 1 unit length x 1 unit length = 1
square unit?
I think something analogous happens when one squares a square of 1
unit, or does it?
If we take 3x3 or 3^2 geometrically, we get a square with 3 squares
in horizontal direction x 3 squares in vertical direction which = 9
squares, and furthermore, if we cube that by turning the squares on
its side and multiply it the same measure we get 27 squares. But if we
increase it to forth power we get 81. OK I get that and realize my
mistake about squaring a square when viewed this way.
But now lets take a square of 1 unit, the kind of which “sqrt2” come
from, and square that.
What does that equal?
Conrad J Countess
spudnik
perhaps because you only have your toe in it.
the surface of the sphere is pi*d*d, and it is four times
the surface of the great circle -- a thing that Bucky
apparently didn't know, oddly enough.
it is pretty laughable, taht you'd think that
you are dysproving F"L"T, because it is clear
from the available stuff that it was the key
to his method (along with the fact that
he basically created numbertheorie, foo .-)