[QUOTE=Don Blazys;257538]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].[/QUOTE]

Ah. So (c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 "holds", but "has different properties" and is "inconsistent with the notion of cancelled common factors".

Care to elucidate? You could start with a definition of your "cancelled common factors" and how they are sensitive to a difference between two expressions that are equivalent for all variable assignments (in R \ {0}). Once you do that, explain in what sense you mean "inconsistent" -- certainly not the usual sense in which a collection of expressions imply [TEX]\bot.[/TEX]

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;257550]Ah. So (c/c)*c^3 = (T/T)*c^3 "holds", but "has different properties" and is "inconsistent with the notion of cancelled common factors".

Care to elucidate? You could start with a definition of your "cancelled common factors" and how they are sensitive to a difference between two expressions that are equivalent for all variable assignments (in R \ {0}). Once you do that, explain in what sense you mean "inconsistent" -- certainly not the usual sense in which a collection of expressions imply [TEX]\bot.[/TEX][/QUOTE]

there's only 87 sites google can find with that exact wording I haven't looked at any but this thread ( which is the top one) I'll see what I can find as a definition.

yet another thing along the lines of this thread:

[url]http://scienceforums.com/topic/15730-a-mathematical-emergency/page__st__15[/url]

I think he's arguing that since c and T don't have a common factor ( a lie they both have 1, it's just not shown),neither can c/c and T/T, and based not hat fact what you do to one can't translate to the other. however a disproof of this is from the fact that:

T*1/T*1 has a factor of 1/1 or 1 and c*1/c*1 has a factor of 1/1 or 1 therefore both fractions have a factor of 1/1 or 1. of course his definition of common factor in [url]http://scienceforums.com/topic/15730-a-mathematical-emergency/page__st__15[/url] doesn't allow for the commonality of 1 to be used as an example.

Quoting NBtarheel_33:
[QUOTE]
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?
[/QUOTE]

Well, first of all, I would tell you that you should first understand
what is being discussed in this (or any) thread before "chiming in".

I would also tell you that you are a retard because

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

= T*(c/T)^((3*ln(c)/(ln(T))-1)/(ln(c)/(ln(T))-1))

demonstrates that we [B][I]can't[/I][/B] let T = c = 5.

Quoting NBtarheel_33:
[QUOTE]
Yeah, probably... *yawn*... Hells bells...
*honest-to-God*... Donnie boy...

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

Did [B][I]Charlie Sheen[/I][/B] teach you to write like that ?

Don.

Quoting science man 88:
[QUOTE]
It's funny how you mess up my name...
[/QUOTE]
If you keep on removing the last letter from my name
(as you did in post 191 and many times before then)
then it's only fair that I remove the last letter from yours.

Quoting science man 88:
[QUOTE]
I think he's arguing that since c and T don't have a common factor
(a lie they both have 1, it's just not shown), neither can c/c and T/T...
[/QUOTE]
That's [B][I]not even close[/I][/B] to what I am arguing or trying to impart!
My ideas are [B][I]new, [/I][/B]so if you really want to understand them,
then the best way is to just ask good specific questions.

Don.

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;257642]Quoting science man 88:

If you keep on removing the last letter from my name
(as you did in post 191 and many times before then)
then it's only fair that I remove the last letter from yours.

Quoting science man 88:

That's [B][I]not even close[/I][/B] to what I am arguing or trying to impart!
My ideas are [B][I]new, [/I][/B]so if you really want to understand them,
then the best way is to just ask good specific questions.

Don.[/QUOTE]

I find it the only logical thing you can be arguing from the definition of what a cancelled common factor is.

5*3/5*2 = 3/2 is what most would do but you would ( if I rememeber what i read on the other site) rather us be taught that instead of cancelling and having cancelled common factors ( like you claim to be using). that we write instead something like:

T(c/T)^((xln(c)/(ln(T))-1)/(ln(c)/(ln(T))-1)) to not allow for cancelling.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;257658]I find it the only logical thing you can be arguing from the definition of what a cancelled common factor is.

5*3/5*2 = 3/2 is what most would do but you would ( if I rememeber what i read on the other site) rather us be taught that instead of cancelling and having cancelled common factors ( like you claim to be using). that we write instead something like:

T(c/T)^((xln(c)/(ln(T))-1)/(ln(c)/(ln(T))-1)) to not allow for cancelling.[/QUOTE]

I find it odd that you would rather go from a form you can cancel things from to another form you can cancel things from.

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;257639](c/c) * c^3 = (T/T) * c^3

= T*(c/T)^((3*ln(c)/(ln(T))-1)/(ln(c)/(ln(T))-1))

demonstrates that we [B][I]can't[/I][/B] let T = c = 5.[/QUOTE]

:loco:

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;257670]:loco:[/QUOTE]

looking closer I think I see what he's saying but I still don't care:

T*(c/T)^((3*ln(c)/(ln(T))-1)/(ln(c)/(ln(T))-1))

lets assume T=c=5 then:

5*(5/5)^((3*ln(5)/(ln(5)-1)/(ln(5)/ln(5))-1))

5^3 oh never mind I've proved him wrong ( which I realized after I remembered what cancelled (but I continued for the fun of it))!!!

[QUOTE=science_man_88;257674]looking closer I think I see what he's saying[/QUOTE]

If he knew basic calculus, he'd say that if c = T then his equation (1) is indeterminate of form [TEX]0^\infty.[/TEX] Of course that says nothing about the validity of (2).

(1) T*(c/T)^((3*ln(c)/(ln(T))-1)/(ln(c)/(ln(T))-1))
(2) (c/c) * c^3 = (T/T) * c^3