[QUOTE=science_man_88;249079]I could see how this could work the colder area (the Arctic) takes heat from the warmer area, meanwhile their pressures nearly equalize the arctic getting warmer increases ice melting raising sea level, the latitudes until the lower states get colder the storm forms in the area around the equator then as it moves north it's intensity gets increased and as it enters farther into the cold zone the water vapor turns to snow and gives areas not usually with harsh winters the harsher winters they've been feeling.[/QUOTE]

If I read this correctly, I think this analysis means the earth's weather
patterns and geologic-related configurations are now and forever in
a steady-state process, barring something like a nuclear winter (freeze)
or a meteoric impact or solar expansion (burn).

The effects of AGW are minimal at most.

[QUOTE=lavalamp;248598]I asked you to explain what the code does. I have absolutely no idea what it could be.

What's all this 10^(8-length(Str(x)) business? All it does is add progressively smaller amounts to x as x itself increases. When x hits 8 digits, you have an inner loop that doesn't even run!

As for how to use pari, I've attached a screen shot. As you can see, I use notepad, but you can use any editor you like. Notepad++ is a free editor for which there is an autosave plugin.[/QUOTE]

thanks I may download it now. can't get past a update so it won't let me.

[QUOTE=MooMoo2;250014]Try telling that to this guy:
[URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7537521/James-Lovelock-humans-are-too-stupid-to-prevent-climate-change-says-maverick-scientist.html[/URL]
"I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. [B]It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.[/B]"[/QUOTE]

I might pass it on to him if I can contact by email but I can't find it.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;250013]thanks I may download it now. can't get past a update so it won't let me.[/QUOTE]

problem solved I uninstalled reinstalled then when it wouldn't let me I went tot he site it gives to get ti downloaded it then figured out which version of the dll was compatible with the version of notepad++ I have.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;250126]The problem here is that there is no credible evidence that either of these routes occurs in the types of experiments in question. Unless our soon-to-be-famous-obscure-researchers somehow managed to swap out the electrons in their experiment with muons and simply forgot to mention that wee technical detail.

(p.s. One can also use tauons in place of muons, as these squeeze the atomic nuclei of the atoms they occupy even more closely ... there is just the little problem of the extremely short half-life).[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you didn't get to my Finite Neutrionic Descent theory
in my cosmology first draft? I was hinting at controlled fusion ...
(among other things).

[QUOTE=MooMoo2;250014]Try telling that to this guy:
[URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7537521/James-Lovelock-humans-are-too-stupid-to-prevent-climate-change-says-maverick-scientist.html[/URL]
"I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. [B]It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.[/B]"[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=science_man_88;250028]I might pass it on to him if I can contact by email but I can't find it.[/QUOTE]

This just proves vicious politics is behind the AGW fraud, right?

It's the economies, smarties.

Blood on our (US) hands? Nonsense.

Freedom for US and Then the world.

The De Facto US gold standard.

Some wise words to consider in this soapbox .....

buing a lboa.
 

pinappl juic ok on

all fucki hi im

avi

Just a recap of this part as an example of the process I
wish to discuss in the Cyclic Group HW Problem thread.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;250094]It is true. sigma(r^(s-1)) = 1 + r + r^2 + .... + r^(s-1) = (r^s - 1)/(r-1)

Primitive Prime divisors of r^s - 1 are 1 mod s, (Lagrange's Thm)
and since s is prime, there are no algebraic factors. q = s is impossible.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R. Gerbicz;250098]r=7;q=s=3 is a counter-example for your proof.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;250101]Ah, yes. I had forgotten about intrinsic prime factors. Mea Culpa.

If q | (r^s-1), then q^2 | ( r^(sq) - 1).

So if q | (r-1), then r^q - 1 is divisible by q^2.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R. Gerbicz;250107]And where can I see the conclusion that q=s ?

Anyway here it is my proof for the rest of the part:
If r==1 mod q and q|sigma(r^(s-1)) then
0==sigma(r^(s-1))=1+r+...+r^(s-1)==1+1+...+1=s mod q
So q|s this implies that s=q.

Well, it can be well known for odd number specialists (I have not read all articles in this area), but for me it was new.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;250108]If q | (r-1), then q | r^q - 1. but we want q | r^s-1, whence
q | GCD(r^q-1, r^s-1) whence q | (r^GCD(q,s) - 1). GCD(q,s) = 1
when q!=s or GCD(q,s) = s when q=s.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;250115]I made an omission. I [I]wrote[/I] if q|(r-1) then q|(r^q - 1).

But as I wrote in a previous post:

if q | (r-1) then q^2 | (r^q-1) [or equivalently q | ((r^q-1)/(r-1))]
(and we can keep lifting; q^3 | (r^q*q - 1) etc.....

I am not sure what you mean when you ask "why is it interesting".

You asked for a demonstration that q=s could be true.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R. Gerbicz;250117]OK, now I understand your proof, really nice.

Just writing the proof in one post:

If q|(r-1) and q|sigma(r^(s-1)) then s=q. (q,r,s are primes).

Indirect proof, suppose that s!=q.
q|sigma(r^(s-1))=(r^s-1)/(r-1), but q|(r-1) is also true so (q^2)|(r^s-1).
From q|(r-1) we know also that q^2|(r^q-1).
So q^2|GCD(r^q-1,r^s-1)=r^GCD(q,s)-1=r-1 (here GCD(q,s)=1 because q!=s).
So we get that q^2|(r-1) is also true, and we can continue this lifting, proving
that q^3|(r-1), q^4|(r-1) etc. Contradiciton.[/QUOTE]

Not quite a complete proof, since (and I know this is arguable)
the fact that "q is prime" implies "q > 1" (hence "q != 1"), i.e.
the other case of the "q == 1 or q == s" part of the theorem
(as I would read it) isn't within the proof. Of course we all know
that 1 is not prime and 2 is the smallest prime, but our starting
points could all be made explicit.

Since no one wants to continue here yet, I'll just make a brief post:

Check out the ENTIRE original book by Hofsteader (Godel et al).

Then check out the references of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (GIT).

Then look up recursive functions, church's thesis, and all of that
preliminary work in the Theory of Proofs.

(If you need to look into an intro to predicate calculus or advanced set
theory, you probably should).

When you've done all that (I did long ago and some again recently)
you can ask me why I suggest that GIT leaves open its own truth.

[QUOTE=davar55;250180]Perhaps you didn't get to my Finite Neutrionic Descent theory
in my cosmology first draft? I was hinting at controlled fusion ...
(among other things).[/QUOTE]

... but then I have to incorporate other new info into my cosmological
framework before I finish draft two, considering how well draft one has
gone over so far.

Since I'm in math and CS primarily, my chemistry, physics, and
cosmology started only at college level, not post doc, and I had
to start over when I discovered some things. The monograph's
successor draft is in progress but behind a few higher priorities.
Draft 1 of "A New Cosmology - Heart Of Reality" is in one of the
Element Puzzles I contributed to the Puzzles sub-forum here,
in an attachment to a high-numbered post in that thread.