Yep, I was right. Don is not interested in debate, only in throwing flames himself. He has not offered a single argument in defense of his proof except "it is so obviously correct that only an ignoramus could doubt it" and uses that to conclude everybody in the world who has ever read it is an ignoramus.

Don, the reason for anonymity is that what you insist on would lend an air of legitimacy that is completely undeserved by the content of your proof, or by your character after outbursts like that. And until you can calm down and demonstrate that you are willing to actually debate, leving the flame which you alone bring behind and including reasons for your arguments that are supportable and not just hyperbole, no one will ever take you seriously.

He does ramble on in an amusing way, though.

"[I]sissy[/I]" is [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkVNKpdrBn0&NR=1&feature=fvwp"]t[/URL] "-|-" [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x__08X2RuQc&feature=related"]c[/URL] ?


|°|

"Condor" is [B][I]afraid[/I][/B] to put his real name on the line.
That means that all he has are "pot shots".
Nothing he can truly stand behind or "back up".

Don.

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;259920]"Condor" is [B][I]afraid[/I][/B] to put his real name on the line.
That means that all he has are "pot shots".
Nothing he can truly stand behind or "back up".

Don.[/QUOTE]

I would give you mine , but I don't see yours ( I see a comment from you that seems to prove you're not don blazy) so someone can say the same about you as you have condor.

Yes, I admit that all I have to back me up is the truth. If Don doesn't believe that, then all he needs to do to "back up" his claims, is provide a reason why choosing M=3 does not make Z=2 "disallowed," and Z=3 "allowed." But he must know he can't win a real debate, where logic and reason are used, which is why he creates artificial reasons to avoid one.

[QUOTE=Christenson;259866]OK, how do I disambiguate myself from the 4 or 5 other people with my first and last name in the country, when I can't even get my first name in my forum ID?

I know that BDodson knows which Christenson I am, but how would anyone else know I'm not the Donald Christenson that edited the IEEE Spectrum for many years? Or the Ward Christenson of Modem7?[/QUOTE]

You are not posting under their names, you are posting under yours. If you were posting under the name of a well-known researcher, and in a forum that relates to his field of work, people would most likely ask you if you are really him, and if not, tell you to stop using his name.

Of course you can argue that the reason for the joke posting was the fact that this thread, or at least Don Blazy's share of it, anything but relates to mathematics. Still I wonder if Don would appreciate his highly recognizable name appearing in a thread like this. I suppose I could have asked but I assume he has better things to do than read this thread. So I played it save and removed the posting. Yes, I'm a spoil-sport like that.

Don, you have not addressed anything from my post, especially the one where I can show that 3^2 = 3 based upon your math.

I will join Bob and the others and just ignore you just as you ignore the many brains on this list, many of whom are much smarter than you.

Quoting "rogue":
[QUOTE]
Don, you have not addressed anything from my post,
especially the one where I can show that 3^2 = 3...
[/QUOTE]No, I [B][I]did[/I][/B] respond to that post. (Post #284)

Don't you remember? When you wrote:

Quoting "rogue":
[QUOTE]First, [TEX]\sqrt{(c^z)^2}[/TEX] has two roots.[/QUOTE]My response was:

Quoting Myself:
[QUOTE]
Apparently, poor "rogue" [B][I]doesn't even know[/I][/B] that a radical without
an index number or sign designates the [B][COLOR=black]positive[/COLOR][/B] square root only!
[/QUOTE]Now, the rest of that post was just as stupid and convoluted,
so in order to spare you further embarrassment, I ignored it.

I thought that by now, you would have seen your mistake,
but apparently you haven't, so in order to put an end to your
whining, pining, crying and complaining, I will now [B][I]show[/I][/B] it to you.

Here it is...

Quoting "rogue":
[QUOTE]
...take this example using your transformations:

[TEX]3^2=\(\frac{3}{3}\)*3^2=
3*(\frac{3}{3})^{\frac {\frac{{3}*{ln(3)}}{ln(3)}-1}{\frac{ln(3)}{ln(3)}-1}} =
3*(1)^{\frac {\frac{{3}*{ln(3)}}{ln(3)}-1}{\frac{ln(3)}{ln(3)}-1}}=3*(1)=3[/TEX]

This means that one of the steps in this,
i.e. your, transformation has a flaw. [/QUOTE]Now do you see how utterly stupid and sloppy you are?!?!

The first two terms have exponents that are inconsistent with
the rest of the derivation and you didn't even evaluate the
logarithmic exponent correctly!

What you should have written was this...

[TEX]3^3=\(\frac{3}{3}\)*3^3=
3*(\frac{3}{3})^{\frac {\frac{{3}*{ln(3)}}{ln(3)}-1}{\frac{ln(3)}{ln(3)}-1}} =
3*(1)^{\frac {\frac{{3}*{ln(3)}}{ln(3)}-1}{\frac{ln(3)}{ln(3)}-1}}=3*(1)^{\frac{2}{0}}=DISALLOWED[/TEX]

[COLOR=red][B]because 0 [I][U]cannot[/U][/I] divide any number[/B] [/COLOR][COLOR=blue][B]exept itself[/B][/COLOR].

Quoting "rogue":
[QUOTE]
I will join Bob and the others and just ignore you,
just as you ignore the many brains on this list,
many of whom are much smarter than you.
[/QUOTE]As you can see, this thread is extrordinarily popular and I am literally
getting inundated and overwhelmed with comments and responses,
not just here, but in my e-mails as well!

Thus, it should be clear that I simply don't have the time to respond
to everybody, so I hope you understand that if I didn't respond to you,
then it was probably due to time constraints.

As for the "many brains on this list", consider this...

It took me [B][I][U]less[/U] [U]than[/U] [U]five[/U] [U]minutes[/U][/I][/B] to figure out that my proof,
which you can find here:

[U][COLOR="Navy"]httр://donblazys.com/03.рdf[/COLOR][/U]

is both true and correct, while the rest of those so called "brains" are
[B][I]still [/I][/B]looking for some "fatal flaw" that can't possibly exist because the
proof is an equation and not an argument!

Thus, this entire thread stands as a testament to how much smarter I
am than the rest of you. I don't say that to be "conceited" or "hurtful".
It's just a fact.

Don.

Quoting "science man":
[QUOTE]...but I don't see yours.[/QUOTE]Don Blazys [B][I][U]is[/U][/I][/B] my real name and [B][I][U]all[/U][/I][/B] my contact information is here:

[U][COLOR="Navy"]httр://donblazys.com/[/COLOR][/U]

Don.

Dear Don Don....

[quote][B]ERA journal ratings for mathematics[/B]

[SIZE=+1] Math journal rating table: • [URL="http://www.ima.umn.edu/%7Earnold/math-journal-ratings/ERA2010_math_journals.xls"]Excel[/URL] • [URL="http://www.ima.umn.edu/%7Earnold/math-journal-ratings/ERA2010_math_journals.ods"]OpenDocument Spreadsheet[/URL] • [URL="http://www.ima.umn.edu/%7Earnold/math-journal-ratings/ERA2010_math_journals.csv"]CSV[/URL] • [URL="http://www.ima.umn.edu/%7Earnold/math-journal-ratings/ERA2010_math_journals.pdf"]PDF[/URL] [/SIZE]
As part of their Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) program, the Australian Research Council rated more than 20,000 peer-reviewed journals. The ratings were released in February 2010. Each journal was assigned one to three fields of research and one of [URL="http://www.arc.gov.au/era/tiers_ranking.htm"]four tiers:[/URL]
A* - one of the best in its field or subfield
A - very high quality
B - solid, though not outstanding
C - does not meet the criteria of the higher tiers

The rating table supplied above (in several formats) contains the ERA journal rankings for the 1,186 journals with at least one assigned field of research in the Mathematical Sciences, the division which covers mathematics, statistics, and mathematical aspects of the physical sciences, and which contains six subgroups: Pure Mathematics, Applied Mathematics, Numerical and Computational Mathematics, Statistics, Mathematical Physics, and Other Mathematical Sciences.
[URL="http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_journal_list.htm"]Much more information[/URL] is available from the Australian Research Council, including the complete Ranked Journal List of more than 20,000 publications.
Note: the math journals rating table posted on this page was excerpted from the ERA 2010 Ranked Journal List and posted by me, [URL="http://www.ima.umn.edu/%7Earnold/"]Douglas Arnold[/URL], with permission. I was not involved in the production of the rankings in any other way.
[LEFT]Updated March 22, 2010[/LEFT]
[/quote]So have you published in any of those journals?

Don still doesn't comprehend - and refuses to because it would force him admit his proof is hopelessly flawed, and his "new" method juvenile - that [b]zero cannot divide [u]any[/u] number, [COLOR="Red"]including itself[/COLOR][/b]. That what is "disallowed" is using any of the properties of division, the only ones he knows from his extensive knowledge of arithimetic but no other discipline, when the denominator evaluates to zero. That includes "dividing out" like terms.

But it can be part of a valid expression in a denominator if certain limits can be calculated. And when the expression is valid, 0/0 isn't always 1. For eaxmple, as x goes to zero:[LIST][*][tex]\frac{e^x-1}{x}=1[/tex]

[*][tex]\frac{e^{2x}-1}{x}=2[/tex]

[*][tex]\frac{e^{x^2}-1}{x}=0[/tex]

[*][tex]\frac{e^{\sqrt{x}}-1}{x}\to\infty[/tex]
[/LIST]So when Don "divides out" the zeros in his numerator and denominator, he is performing a "disallowed" operation and his proof is invalid from that point. But if he uses limits to evaluate it, he gets the same result in a valid way. But then, he can use the same limits and "allow" any other Z as well, so his conclusion is invalid.

This is one of many "fatal flaws" in his proof that he has never addressed. Just like the one I've repeated in posts #260, #286, and #315. And whenever he is presented with them, he tries to deflect the debate to another issue or, eventually, by resorting to infantile name calling. I won't be deflected, Don, and I'm amused by the name-calling.