[QUOTE=Don Blazys;257028][QUOTE=CRGreathouse;256979](c/c)*c^3=(T/T)*c^3 is true, provided that neither c nor T is zero.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, that is the [B][I]wrong[/I][/B] answer to my question because that equation
is [B][I]inconsistent[/I][/B] with the notion of cancelled [B][I][COLOR=red]common[/COLOR][/I][/B] factors.[/QUOTE]

Really, do tell. Please provide nonzero real numbers c and T for which (c/c)*c^3 ≠ (T/T)*c^3.

Quoting CRGreathouse:
[QUOTE]
Really, do tell. Please provide nonzero real numbers c and T for which (c/c)*c^3 ≠ (T/T)*c^3.
[/QUOTE]
Yup, (c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 is an "equation" alright!
It represents "c" being cancelled on the left hand side,
and "T" being cancelled on the right hand side!

Who needs that pesky "golden rule" of algebra anyway........... and
who cares if the "rotcafs" that get cancelled are common rotcafs...

Right CRGreathouse?

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;257274]Quoting CRGreathouse:

Yup, (c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 is an "equation" alright!
It represents "c" being cancelled on the left hand side,
and "T" being cancelled on the right hand side!

Who needs that pesky "golden rule" of algebra anyway........... and
who cares if the "rotcafs" that get cancelled are common rotcafs...

Right CRGreathouse?[/QUOTE]

Don Blazy, we are doing the same to each side we are just doing it with different variables each side reduces to 1*c^3 so they are the same !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! god even I'm getting tired of you ( and trust me I'm one for arguing, especially with family).

Blazys: So you don't think what I wrote is "the [b]wrong[/b] answer" now?

Quoting Don Blasius:
[QUOTE]The time has come to reveal my real [URL="http://www.math.ucla.edu/motives/"]motives[/URL]![/QUOTE]

Wow !

What a pleasant surprise, and what an honor !

The great Don Blasius from the U.C.L.A. Department of Mathematics !!!

The last time we spoke was well over a decade ago !

Greetings from your "evil twin" !

Don.

To: science ma 88,

Quoting science ma 88:
[QUOTE]
...we are doing the same to each side
we are just doing it with different variables
each side reduces to 1*c^3 so they are the same !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/QUOTE]

No, they are not the "same".

5000 francs in Bovanian currency is [B][I]not[/I][/B] the same as
5000 francs in Swiss currency, because ..............
there is no country called "Bovania" on this planet!

Similarly, the equation (c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 is [B][I]not[/I][/B] the same as
the equation (T/T)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3, because .........................
there is no equation such as (c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 in mathematics!

[COLOR=red][COLOR=black]In mathematics, [/COLOR][B]cancelled common factors[/B][/COLOR]
[B][I][U][SIZE=3]must[/SIZE][/U][/I][/B] be represented by the same variable.

[SIZE=4][B]Period [/B]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/SIZE]

Like I said before, in mathematics,
when we divide T*a^x + T*b^y = T*c^z by T,
we write (T/T)*a^x + (T/T)*b^y = (T/T)*c^z.

We do [B][I]not[/I][/B] make up a bunch of gibberish and
write something stupid, nonsensical and idiotic like
(p/p)*a^x + (q/q)*b^y = (r/r)*c^z, because to do so
would be to [B][I]lie[/I][/B] about and [B][I]obfuscate[/I][/B] what we actually did!!!!

Don't you know that a mathematician who [B][I]lies[/I][/B] about
what was cancelled or in any way [B][I]obfuscates[/I][/B] the truth about
what was cancelled is not a mathematician at all, but a "hack".

It doesn't matter if the equations "reduce" to the "same thing".
The [B][I][U]fact[/U][/I][/B] remains that one still [B][I]lied[/I][/B] about what was cancelled,
and[B][I] obfuscated [/I][/B]the truth about what was cancelled,
and that's just plain wrong!

[B][COLOR=red]Now, what I'm about to say is very, [I]very[/I] important, [/COLOR][/B]
[B][COLOR=red]so please read it carefully and don't just skim over it. [/COLOR][/B]

This is [B][I][U]not[/U][/I][/B] a trivial matter, because such [B][I]lies[/I][/B] and [B][I]obfuscations[/I][/B]
are actually damaging mathematics and greatly slowing it's progress!

Consider this...

Quoting the Wikipedia article on Equality (mathematics):
[QUOTE]
The equality relation is [B][I]always[/I][/B] defined such that
things that are equal have all and only the [B][I]same properties[/I][/B].
[/QUOTE]

Well, the two sides of your and CRGreathouses fictional "equation"
(c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 do [B][I][U][SIZE=3]not[/SIZE][/U][/I][/B] have the same properties because
not only do the two sides have a [B][I]different[/I][/B] number of seperate variables
and not only do the two sides [B][I]lack[/I][/B] the possibility of reinstating
the reflexive property of equality by means of normal operations,
but... most obviously, most tractably, and therefore, most importantly...

[B]we can't even derive[/B] an identity such as
(T/T)*c^3 = T*(c/T)^((3*ln(c)/(ln(T))-1)/(ln(c)/(ln(T))-1))
[B]from[/B] its so called "equal"
(c/c)*c^3,
which means that the two sides have [B]radically different properties[/B],
especially in how they relate to the properties of logarithms!

This is a [B][I]new[/I][/B] and [B]stunning[/B] revelation that
the math community has yet to understand,
much less acknowledge and disseminate!

You know, the great Barry Mazur in his 2007 article called
"When is one thing equal to some other thing?"
remarked that the notion of equality is "slippery".

Well, clearly, the above result might be used to remove much of
the "oil and vaseline" from that "slippery notion", thereby making it
a lot easier to handle!

Thus, my Proof of Beal's Conjecture is no ordinary proof because
it's equations are an ideal foundation for a new and more powerful
number system that is free of all things ambiguous, ineffectual,
redundant and superfluous.

And thus, it's a "[B]good thing"[/B] that it's both solid and utterly irrefutable.

Don

To: CRGreathouse,

Quoting CRGreathouse:
[QUOTE]
So you don't think what I wrote is "the [B]wrong[/B] answer" now?
[/QUOTE]

The "equation" (c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 is nonsensical for [B][I]many[/I][/B] reasons.
As a construct, it is utterly non-mathematical!
(Its two sides don't even share all of the same properties!)
Thus, the longer you [B][I][U]continue[/U][/I][/B] to uphold and defend it,
the dumber and more inept you prove yourself to be.

Don.

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;257480]Similarly, the equation (c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 is [B][I]not[/I][/B] the same as
the equation (T/T)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3, because .........................
there is no equation such as (c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 in mathematics![/QUOTE]

The amusing thing is that this is true for nonzero c and T over *any* field, not just the real numbers. Why do you think it doesn't hold?

Oh! Even better! Of those mathematicians that you say support (or at least fail to refute) your supposed proof, can you find one that will agree that "there is no equation such as (c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 in mathematics"?

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;257486]The amusing thing is that this is true for nonzero c and T over *any* field, not just the real numbers. Why do you think it doesn't hold?

Oh! Even better! Of those mathematicians that you say support (or at least fail to refute) your supposed proof, can you find one that will agree that "there is no equation such as (c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 in mathematics"?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, probably, Bon Dlazys, his colleague...*yawn*

Hells bells, I've met people who *honest-to-God* argue that due to some technicality in some document somewhere in history, that the state of Ohio does not exist as a separate entity from Michigan. The LOWER Lower Peninsula, I suppose...

Donnie boy, let c = 5 and T = 5. Then what would you tell me about the truth of the equation

(c/c) * c^3 = (T/T) * c^3?

And based on that truth value, what would you tell me about the existence of such an equation in mathematics?

C'mon now, I know your brain is smoking, but I know you can do it...

Quoting CRGreathouse:
[QUOTE]
Why do you think it doesn't hold?
[/QUOTE]

When oh when and where oh where
did I ever say that the silly equation
(c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 "doesn't hold" ?

I [B][I]never[/I][/B] said (or even thought) that it "doesn't hold"!
I said that the two sides have [B][I]different properties[/I][/B].

Everyone here [B]agrees[/B] that it "holds".

However, that's neither the question,
nor the issue on posts 59, 60 and 61,
so clearly, you are either not paying
attention, hallucinating, or both,
because you are way [B][I]way[/I][/B] off topic.

The question, and the issue, are as follows.

If T represents some [B][COLOR=red]cancelled common factor[/COLOR][/B] in the identity
(T/T)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3, then, if we had to substitute c for T,

should we substitute c for T on [B]one side only[/B] and write
(c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 where the two sides now have
radically different properties with regards to logarithms?

Or should we substitute c for T on [B]both sides[/B] and write
(c/c)*c^3 = (c/c)*c^3, where the reflexive axiom of equality
is preserved rather than violated, and both sides now have
exactly the same properties with regards to logarithms?

You and science ma 88 said that we can substitute c for T
on [B]one side only[/B] because "it works",

and I said that we should substitute c for T
on [B]both sides [/B]so that both sides have the same properties.

Face it.

I'm right, and you and science ma 88 are wrong.

Quoting CRGreathouse:
[QUOTE]
...can you find one that will agree that
"there is no equation such as (c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3
in mathematics"?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I have [B][I]never[/I][/B] seen [B][COLOR=red]cancelled common factors[/COLOR][/B]
represented as (c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3. Have you?

Don.

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;257538]Quoting CRGreathouse:


When oh when and where oh where
did I ever say that the silly equation
(c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 "doesn't hold" ?

I [B][I]never[/I][/B] said (or even thought) that it "doesn't hold"!
I said that the two sides have [B][I]different properties[/I][/B].

Everyone here [B]agrees[/B] that it "holds".

However, that's neither the question,
nor the issue on posts 59, 60 and 61,
so clearly, you are either not paying
attention, hallucinating, or both,
because you are way [B][I]way[/I][/B] off topic.

The question, and the issue, are as follows.

If T represents some [B][COLOR=red]cancelled common factor[/COLOR][/B] in the identity
(T/T)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3, then, if we had to substitute c for T,

should we substitute c for T on [B]one side only[/B] and write
(c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 where the two sides now have
radically different properties with regards to logarithms?

Or should we substitute c for T on [B]both sides[/B] and write
(c/c)*c^3 = (c/c)*c^3, where the reflexive axiom of equality
is preserved rather than violated, and both sides now have
exactly the same properties with regards to logarithms?

You and science ma 88 said that we can substitute c for T
on [B]one side only[/B] because "it works",

and I said that we should substitute c for T
on [B]both sides [/B]so that both sides have the same properties.

Face it.

I'm right, and you and science ma 88 are wrong.

Quoting CRGreathouse:

Well, I have [B][I]never[/I][/B] seen [B][COLOR=red]cancelled common factors[/COLOR][/B]
represented as (c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3. Have you?

Don.[/QUOTE]

it's funny how you mess up my name, on the other hand being told I'm wrong almost has no meaning to me anymore on the basis that I've heard it so much.