[QUOTE=rogue;260315]BTW, is there anyone here who thinks that his proof could possibly be correct?[/QUOTE]

I've thought about it but would disagree based on the blazy constant value if he can change it to work in some other form maybe I'll care.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;260328]I've thought about it but would disagree based on the blazy constant value if he can change it to work in some other form maybe I'll care.[/QUOTE]

So you still think that using 0/0 is valid in is proof? Do you still think this transformations are still valid?

[QUOTE=rogue;260329]So you still think that using 0/0 is valid in is proof? Do you still think this transformations are still valid?[/QUOTE]

no. on his site they don't seem to show up anywhere else that has been linked to and I never found those transformations I've quoted as correct. what I'm saying is outside of a few things i understand what he's getting to somewhat on the last linked site.

[QUOTE=rogue;260315]The hope is that he finally sees the errors in his proof, retracts the proof and apologizes to everyone. Blame for me expecting too much from him.[/quote]
Me, too. That's what I am aiming for as well.
[QUOTE]He stated that he works in a high school. I hope it is as a janitor and not as a teacher. If as a teacher, it doesn't speak well for the state of education.[/QUOTE]
There is no such implication[SUP]1[/SUP]. He's the night watchman. He claims to be a supervisor, but that has nothing to do with ability at math, and probably more to do with age. Ever hear of the Peter Principle?
[quote]BTW, is there anyone here who thinks that his proof could possibly be correct?[/QUOTE]
Nobody in the 10-year history of his campaign has agreed with the proof. Some have said they see correct aspects in it, like the logarithmic expansion. Some have said they can't (and they add they aren't qualified to) find a fault. But none have agreed.

[SUP]1[/SUP]But the state of education isn't what it could/should be. My son, who was similarly "gifted" and "advanced" in his math courses as I was in High School, almost never asked for help with homework because he never needed it. But one day, he came to me with what seemed to be tears in his eyes, and asked: "Dad, which is better, the Law of Sines or the Law of Cosines?" I did a Bugs-Bunny-like double-take, and spent 20 minutes of back-and-forth trying to figure out what he could possibly mean.

It turns out they they were solving triangles from three of the six possible measurements. But the teacher would round each answer to the three digits listed in the answers in the back of the book, and use that number in the next calculation. When one of the angles was ~89.5 degress, that led to significant round-off error for the sine, but not the cosine. As a result, the Law of Sines produced an answer that was 30% off of the book's answer. So the teacher (who had been promoted to department head, I hope to minimize her contact with students) said the Law of Cosines was "better" and should be preferred whenever possible.

[QUOTE=Condor;260334]

[SUP]1[/SUP]But the state of education isn't what it could/should be. My son, who was similarly "gifted" and "advanced" in his math courses as I was in High School, almost never asked for help with homework because he never needed it. But one day, he came to me with what seemed to be tears in his eyes, and asked: "Dad, which is better, the Law of Sines or the Law of Cosines?" I did a Bugs-Bunny-like double-take, and spent 20 minutes of back-and-forth trying to figure out what he could possibly mean.

It turns out they they were solving triangles from three of the six possible measurements. But the teacher would round each answer to the three digits listed in the answers in the back of the book, and use that number in the next calculation. When one of the angles was ~89.5 degress, that led to significant round-off error for the sine, but not the cosine. As a result, the Law of Sines produced an answer that was 30% off of the book's answer. So the teacher (who had been promoted to department head, I hope to minimize her contact with students) said the Law of Cosines was "better" and should be preferred whenever possible.[/QUOTE]

ROTFLMAO. A terrific example of the incompetence of today's teachers
and an ever better example of the Andre Toom "mathematics pseudo-education" in America.

When I took pre-calculus, the course covered intro to symbolic logic/boolean
algebra, intro to linear algebra and vectors, intro to modern algebra,
intense intro to limits WITH epsilon-delta proofs, proof based intro to
derivatives, and everything was proof, proof, proof. The course was taught
by a former Nasa woman engineer and she brought out the best in her
students. I am eternally grateful. We learned discipline. This was 1970.

[QUOTE=akruppa;260316]I, for one, wouldn't ban him simply for being wrong. Not even for being appalingly wrong [I]and[/I] smug about it.
[/QUOTE]

Dunning & Kruger in action.

[QUOTE]
However, his more recent post increasingly resorted to countering arguments with insults, so he may enjoy a health dose of banhammer soon, after all.[/QUOTE]

He wants someone with credentials to referee his paper.
I have been a referee for Class A journals and have multiple
publications in Class A journals. I have also been a reviewer
for Math Reviews. I would take him up on his request
and do a line-by-line dissection of his 'proof', but I know that I would
get ignored/insulted for my efforts. I do not want to feed the troll.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;260344]He wants someone with credentials to referee his paper.
I have been a referee for Class A journals and have multiple
publications in Class A journals. I have also been a reviewer
for Math Reviews. I would take him up on his request
and do a line-by-line dissection of his 'proof', but I know that I would
get ignored/insulted for my efforts. I do not want to feed the troll.[/QUOTE]

I'm all for the inappropriate feeding of trolls, but it's really not worth your time.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;260344]He wants someone with credentials to referee his paper.
I have been a referee for Class A journals and have multiple
publications in Class A journals. I have also been a reviewer
for Math Reviews. I would take him up on his request
and do a line-by-line dissection of his 'proof', but I know that I would
get ignored/insulted for my efforts. I do not want to feed the troll.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate that you allowed amateurs like myself the opportunity to prove him wrong. Granted you have had different and undoubtedly more concise arguments, but like the rest of us, you would not have been able to convince him that division by 0/0 is just as invalid in a proof as 1/0. I think it worked out better that members like myself did the dirty work. It gave me opportunities to brush up on a few rusty skills and you could avoid wasting your time on something seemingly trivial. The end result is the same.

I know that this thread went on too long. It was necessary to go through some of the pain so that any reasonable person following the thread could easily conclude what the rest of us has known for weeks.

a disproof of the boundedness
 

lets say you don't know how long you will be living after you become a crank we can then say it might be an infinite amount of time:

given that [TEX]\infty \times n = \infty[/TEX] and that [TEX]\infty +x= \infty[/TEX] with an unknown bound to years of life we can then say that at n crank score per unit time with [TEX]\infty[/TEX] time will give no defined upper bound and hence the scale must be unbounded.

Quoting "xilman":
[QUOTE]...the operation of dividing by zero is undefined unconditionally,
whether the dividend is zero or not.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong!

Quoting "Condor":
[QUOTE]
There is nothing illegal, improper, or "disallowed" about the existence of
a zero in a denominator. Nothing is "disallowed."

[B]Zero cannot divide [U]any[/U] number, [COLOR=red]including itself.[/COLOR][/B]
[/QUOTE]
Wrong on [B][I][U]both[/U][/I][/B] counts, and [B][I][U]contradicts[/U][/I][/B] himself to boot!

Quoting "rogue":
[QUOTE]
n*0=0 does not imply that 0/0 = n.
Division by 0/0 is just as invalid in a proof as 1/0.
[/QUOTE]

Wrong!

Quoting "Batalov":
[QUOTE]
I keep seeing nonsense mathematics like "0/0 = n"
and it is driving me bonkers!
[/QUOTE]
Clearly, he's having trouble understanding that n*0 = 0.

Quoting "science_ma_88":
[QUOTE]
Again, any number [COLOR=red][B]n[/B][/COLOR] multiplied by 0 is 0... so...
every number solves the equation [COLOR=red][B]0/0 = n[/B][/COLOR]
instead of there being a single number
that can be taken as the value of 0/0.

From this one can say... that 0/0 is variate
and hence can be denoted as a variable.
[/QUOTE]

[B]Right![/B]

"science_ma_88" is [COLOR=blue][B]right[/B][/COLOR], and the rest of them are [COLOR=red][B]wrong[/B][/COLOR].

(Heck, even middle-schoolers can understand that
"[B][COLOR=red]0 cannot divide any number[/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue]exept itself[/COLOR][/B]"!)

Thus, in trying to prove me wrong, all they proved is that
none of them would even make a good pimple on my behind.:missingteeth:
(Exept for "science_ma_88, who happened to be [B]right[/B] in this case,
and would therefore make an exellent pimple on my behind !)

Quoting "R.D. Silverman":
[QUOTE]
He wants someone with credentials to referee his paper.

[/QUOTE]
Silverman couldn't "referee" mud wrestling.

Besides, my paper was [B][I]already[/I][/B] refereed by one of the
best journals in the world, and not only garnered some
[B]support[/B] from the referee, but it was also suggested by
the editors that I send it to another good journal!

That's because they found it to be both true and correct!

After all, fine mathematicians like Truss and Partington would [B][I][U]never[/U][/I][/B]
suggest that a "badly flawed proof" be sent to a good journal!

Like I said before, all I want, is an honest, fair and [B][I][U]formal[/U][/I][/B] debate.

[SIZE=3]Since all it would take is [B][I][U]one[/U][/I][/B] fatal flaw to refute my proof[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]let my opponents pick one, and [B][I]only one[/I][/B] issue that they[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]are certain constitutes a "fatal flaw", and let them also pick[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]one and [B][I]only one[/I][/B] "champion" to debate that issue with me,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]in a seperate thread. Let both sides use their real names,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]and let the debate be moderated by someone like Garo.[/SIZE]

Hopefully, my opponent would be the math department
of some prestigious university such as Princeton or U.C.L.A,
and I urge all my opponents here in this forum who are in
college or university to approach [B][I]their[/I][/B] math dept. heads
with my challenge. (What's the matter, are you chicken?) :missingteeth:

I can virtually [B][I]guarantee[/I][/B] that they [B][I][U]will[/U][/I][/B] "chicken out" because
they will [B][I][U]never[/U][/I][/B] be able to find that [B][U]one[/U][/B] "fatal flaw".

All they will be able to come up with are a bunch of silly
"non-issues" like the ones in this thread, and using [B][I]any[/I][/B] of
those silly non-issues will cause them to [B][I][U][SIZE=3][COLOR=red]lose[/COLOR][/SIZE][/U][/I][/B] the debate! :missingteeth:

Thus, if this debate does occur, I win,
and if it doesn't occur, I also win... [B][I]by default[/I][/B]!

Speakig of "non-issues"
Quoting R.D. Silverman:
[QUOTE]
Note also that there ARE solutions to a^x + b^y = c^z for x,z > 2.
e.g. 243 + 100 = 343.
[/QUOTE]

Silverman doesn't even understand that in my proof, to avoid
unnecessary redundancy, the "c" term was chosen [I][B]arbitrarily[/B][/I],
and that the exact same argument can be made for the "a" and "b"
terms using the equations in the "notes" at the end of my paper.

Quoting "rogue":
[QUOTE]
...one could extend your logic to say that there are
no integral solutions to: a^w + b^x + c^y = d^z.

[/QUOTE]
Quoting "Condor":
[QUOTE]
Don's "proof" can be used the exact same way on
four terms instead of three.
[/QUOTE]

That's yet another silly non-issue! For one thing, a,b,c,d must have
no common factor whatsoever. In other words, a,b,c,d must be
[B][I]pairwise[/I][/B] co-prime, as are a,b,c in Beal's Conjecture.

However, my proof [B][I]predicts[/I][/B] that with [B][I]four[/I][/B] terms, at least
[B][I][U]two[/U][/I][/B] of them will [B][I]always[/I][/B] have a common factor if w,x,y,z > 2.

For instance, in 3^3 + 4^3 + 5^3 = 6^3, 4 and 6 have
the common factor 2, while 3 and 6 have the common factor 3.
Thus, (T/T) would [B][I]not[/I][/B] apply to [B][I][U]all[/U][/I][/B] terms as it does in my proof,
but only to the "c" term.

For another thing, in my proof, the term under the radical
applies to any sum or difference of [B][I]two terms only[/I][/B].

So there you have it.
R.D. Silverman and "rogue" manage to "step in it" again,
and "Condor" lays yet another egg! :missingteeth:

Quoting R.D.Silverman:
[QUOTE]
Just IGNORE him.
[/QUOTE]
Silverman [B][I][U][COLOR=red]can't[/COLOR][/U][/I][/B] ignore me! He's totally obsessed with me,
just like Jeff-Jo" aka "Condor" who follows me around
all over cyberspace like some lost puppy!

Quoting "roque":
[QUOTE]
I recommend that the thread be locked and he be banned.
[/QUOTE]

And what a waaah waaaaaaaah crybaby "rogue" turns out to be!!!
He sees this thread growing and growing in popularity, and he
"just can't take it anymore!" WAAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAH!

Anyway, I'm in the middle of buying a house right now,
so I won't have much time for posting.
(Maybe once or twice a week.)

I couldn't give a rats tail if this thread gets locked !
It would be a sheer act of desperation and an admission of defeat! :missingteeth:

Quoting "rogue"
[QUOTE]
I know that this thread went on too long.
[/QUOTE]

Like I said many times before, had I been wrong,
then this thread would have died a long [B][I]long[/I][/B] time ago!
Thus, the sheer lenght of this thread is a testament
to the fact that I am right, and the rest of you are wrong!

Don.

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;260472]
Quoting "science_ma_88":


[B]Right![/B]

"science_ma_88" is [COLOR=blue][B]right[/B][/COLOR], and the rest of them are [COLOR=red][B]wrong[/B][/COLOR].

(Heck, even middle-schoolers can understand that
"[B][COLOR=red]0 cannot divide any number[/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=blue]exept itself[/COLOR][/B]"!)

Thus, in trying to prove me wrong, all they proved is that
none of them would even make a good pimple on my behind.:missingteeth:
(Exept for "science_ma_88, who happened to be [B]right[/B] in this case,
and would therefore make an exellent pimple on my behind !)

[/QUOTE]

the problem is you believe it more than me because even with 0/0 = n then your equations become unsolvable unless you can give an absolute value to n ( which you can't because it's truly not picked before the equation is written out)