Standard crank division by zero thread

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by Condor

Just to be clear, we can make a more general expansion the following way:

Following Don's logic, because of a division by zero C=T is "disallowed" in this expansion unless Z=M. But in that case, you can reduce the internal exponent to 1, there is no zero in any denominator, and Z=M is "allowed." I call this an "incohesive term of order M."

The problem is, with this exansion we are free to choose M. Whatever integer we choose is "allowed" to be Z, and any other integer is "disallowed" to be Z. So every integer is both "allowed" and "disallowed."

Well, Don? If we use order 3 "incohesive terms," your logic says a^2+b^2=c^2 can't be true for co-prime (a,b,c), but a^3+b^3=c^3 is. Please explain, and assume nothing is "obvious" or "clear to everybody." In other words, treat it like a real proof.

I still think my conversion could be fun to play with (even if it is semi trivial).

[xilman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Don is unteachable. I suggest that he be ignored.
He is already on my ignore list.

I agree with the first sentiment. However, making fun of the village idiot has been a traditional activity for a very long time and if others wish to indulge ...


Paul

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by xilman

I agree with the first sentiment. However, making fun of the village idiot has been a traditional activity for a very long time and if others wish to indulge ...


Paul

The last time that I called someone an idiot, I was severely chided by garo.
Do we have a double standard here?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

The last time that I called someone an idiot, I was severely chided by garo.
Do we have a double standard here?

Fair comment. I take it back, apologise unreservedly, and rephrase my intent in more sensitive terms.

Making fun of those who espouse non-mainstream opinions has been a traditional activity for a very long time and if others wish to indulge ...

Paul

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

I still think my conversion could be fun to play with (even if it is semi trivial).

anyone disagree with:

(A^x+B^y=C^z) = ((a^x*p^x)+(b^y*p^y)=(c^z *p^z)) = (p^(x+(logp(a^x)))+p^(y+( logp(b^y))) = p^(z+(logp(c^z))))

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by xilman

Making fun of those who espouse non-mainstream opinions has been a traditional activity for a very long time and if others wish to indulge ...

And a few of them have been right.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

And a few of them have been right.

True enough.

I've had people making fun of me in the past because of some of my non-mainstream opinions. It goes with the territory.

Perhaps they were right to do so.

Paul

[rogue]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Don is unteachable. I suggest that he be ignored.
He is already on my ignore list.

I have the hope that I can teach an "old Don new tricks".

He hasn't responded since Friday, so I suspect that he might finally realize the incorrectness of his proof and thus be too embarrassed to admit it publicly.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by rogue

He hasn't responded since Friday, so I suspect that he might finally realize the incorrectness of his proof and thus be too embarrassed to admit it publicly.

I asked him if he could prove something I said earlier in the thread and so I don't know if he's doing that or not.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by xilman

Fair comment. I take it back, apologise unreservedly, and rephrase my intent in more sensitive terms.

Making fun of those who espouse non-mainstream opinions has been a traditional activity for a very long time and if others wish to indulge ...

Paul

The issue is not 'non-mainstream'. The issue is an unwillingness to learn
from experts who know far more than he does about the subject under
discussion. He simply refuses to learn.

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by rogue

I have the hope that I can teach an "old Don new tricks".

He hasn't responded since Friday, so I suspect that he might finally realize the incorrectness of his proof and thus be too embarrassed to admit it publicly.

You would have my sincere respect (even more than now?!) if you were able to do that, but you should probably start with something simpler like world hunger.