Standard crank division by zero thread - Page 29

rajula · 2011-04-27, 12:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Now, this friendly invitation to debate goes out to any mathematician
from any college or university. Heck, I'm even willing to debate any
math department, the more well known and "prestigious", the better.

Why would such a debate be needed? It could be entertaining to some extent, but anyone with decent mathematical background can easily determine if the proof is solid or not. Many of us (mortals with only a Ph.D. in mathematics) are pointing out where the proof goes wrong.

Determining the validity of a proof is not an authority issue and I cannot imagine any of the professors at the most prestigious universities taking part in this.

In any case, please continue discussing the issue here. If it does not get too much into slandering the persons behind the opinions, I think the thread will stay open. The faults in the logic of the proof make it bit more silly than just pointing at a blank page and saying: "Show me the gap in my proof", and this is what makes the thread a bit more entertaining. (Even though I do not think either side will ever concede.)

R.D. Silverman · 2011-04-27, 12:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by rajula

If it does not get too much into slandering the persons behind the opinions

Don has already resorted to this.

CRGreathouse · 2011-04-27, 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

We know that my old friend, the great and highly esteemed Don Blasius
from U.C.L.A. (University of California, Los Angeles) is following this thread.

I don't know that he is. I did see a post from a user account named "Don Blasius", but I don't know who is behind that account. That account has only one post, on April Fool's day.

I'm sure you wouldn't stoop to misrepresenting friendship -- or acquaintanceship -- as an endorsement of your (ahem) math.

akruppa · 2011-04-27, 15:16

The post was not made by the real Don Blasius. Please everyone, don't post under other people's names.

R.D. Silverman · 2011-04-27, 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by akruppa

The post was not made by the real Don Blasius. Please everyone, don't post under other people's names.

The post is evidence of Blazys' inherent dishonesty.

science_man_88 · 2011-04-27, 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

The post is evidence of Blazys' inherent dishonesty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Quoting: lavalamp,

Criminals are removed from society only because they present a danger to society.
The same goes for lunatics who are "criminally insane", because they too are dangerous.

So clearly, the young and innocent Justin Beaver fans in this forum need a "subforum" to warn them
that there is a dangerous "crank" on the loose, who is out to "get them" with his "counting function"!

To the Moderator,
The name "Mersenne forum" led me to believe that this is an adult forum where
grown ups perform computer searches for Mersenne primes, factor Mersenne numbers
and perform other related calculations. I had no idea that this is a "young peoples" forum.

Had I known that, then I would never have come here in the first place!

Please delete both of my topics. I'm done with this forum for good.

Don.

so is this !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Quoting CRGreathouse:

Quoting AntonVrba:

I have known Don Blazys for well over 60 years.

He happens to be a wonderful person who takes care of his family,
helps others and has a great sense of humor!

I guarantee that he is neither a "crank" nor a "troll" and that his proof of the "Tijdeman-Zagier Conjecture"
(much better known as "Beal's Conjecture") is both true and correct!

Indeed, the reason he seems so "convincing" is because he is right!

His proof, which can be found here:

httр://donblazys.com/

is exeedingly simple and clearly beyond reproach.

So, rather than slander this wonderful man behind his back,
anyone who thinks that Don's proof is somehow flawed should invite him participate in a fair,
friendly and fun-filled debate in a neutral public forum, where both sides use their real names
and not juvenile pseudonyms like "Booga Lou" and "Munky Noyze".

That is the courtesy that Don extends to anyone who disagrees with him.

In fact, Don has invited many top notch mathematicians to debate his proof in a neutral public forum,
but they all seem to get "cold feet" and "bow out" just before the debates are about to begin!

That is truly unfortunate.

When Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein had their disagreements about quantum mechanics,
they settled their differences like the gentlemen and scholars that they were.

They showed some courage and conviction and debated those issues!

So, if there "really is" some disagreement about Don's proof, why not put together a panel of experts from some
prestigious universities and let them debate Don in much the same manner? Now that we have the internet,
it would be very easy to arrange such a debate and conduct it at the liberty and liesure of both sides.

Like I said, I know Don very well, and I know that he would be more than willing to participate in such a debate
if only to end, once and for all, the ongoing and growing controversy about his proof.

Don.

and this is impersonation according to the response it got so he's not really don blazys either.

Condor · 2011-04-27, 16:03

We know from experience that the one thing Don is unwilling to do, is debate his proof. He has been presented with many "fatal flaws," and not actually debated a single one. The best attempt he has provided for any of them some form of "It must be so" or "It is obvious my way is right," usually with the only support being the pretty colors that emphasize "must" and "obvious." When he doesn't ignore the flaws completely, his only other response has been childish name-calling and outright slander.

But I will take Don up on it. I will not provide my real name because correct arguments stand by themselves. Or move to another thread because there is no need to clutter the forum index with this drivel. But there is to be no name-calling, or colors, and you must supply reasons that you can support with references everything.

Don, the first point in the debate is to address this point (still ignored from posts #260 and #286):

$C^Z=$\frac{T}{T}C^{\frac{Z}{M}}$^M=$T\(\frac{C}{T}$^{\frac{ln(\frac{C^{\frac{Z}{M}}}{T})}{ln(\frac{C}{T})}}\)^M=$T\(\frac{C}{T}$^{\frac{\frac{ln(\frac{C^{\frac{Z}{M}}}{T})}{ln(T)}}{\frac{ln(\frac{C}{T})}{ln(T)}}}\)^M=$T\(\frac{C}{T}$^{\frac{\frac{ln(C^{\frac{Z}{M}})-ln({T})}{ln(T)}}{\frac{ln(C)-ln(T)}{ln(T)}}}\)^M=$T\(\frac{C}{T}$^{\frac{\frac{{\frac{Z}{M}}*{ln(C)}}{ln(T)}-1}{\frac{ln(C)}{ln(T)}-1}}\)^M$

My support is your "short proof" itself. Change "2" to "M" in your equation #2, and this is the result. Can you provide an actual reason why Z=1 and Z=2 are not "disallowed" by your methods if we choose M=3, or else a reason why can't choose M=3 that does not also apply to M=1 and M=2? If you don't, or can't, your "proof" is proven to be false.

However, it is my guees that Don will avoid actual debate; either by ignoring it, or insisting that it must be done his way.

akruppa · 2011-04-27, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

The post is evidence of Blazys' inherent dishonesty.

It was not Don Blazys who posted it.

Batalov · 2011-04-28, 01:56

That April Fool's joke was in poor taste.

To the real Don Blasius, I apologise unreservedly, and offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused him, or his family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

Christenson · 2011-04-28, 22:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by akruppa

It was not Don Blazys who posted it.

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?

Don Blazys · 2011-04-29, 10:32

Quoting "rajula":

Quote:

Why would such a debate be needed?

To establish an orderly dialogue, without all kinds of "flaming" and silly
"pot shots" being perpetrated by kids with names like "Alley Bubba",
"wumpy dumpy" and "fingerschnoozle".

If my opponent was a well known mathematician or math department
rather than a bunch of silly kids with phoney names posting their
retarded diatribes all at once, then the discussion would take on
a much more serious tone, because both sides would then be using
their real names and putting their reputations on the line.

Quoting "rajula":

Quote:

...anyone with decent mathematical background
can easily determine if the proof is solid or not.

Apparently not!

Indeed, most of the members of this forum have not been able to
determine that the proof is solid, and your insinuation that their
"mathematical backrounds" must therefore be somewhat less than
"decent" is quite insulting.

I'm sure that they all have fine "mathematical backrounds" and it's
not their fault that they lack the raw talent to see at a glance that
my proof is solid.

Quoting "rajula":

Quote:

Many of us (mortals with only a Ph.D. in mathematics)
are pointing out where the proof goes wrong.

Nonsense! The only thing that you have "pointed out" is how silly you are!
This is obvious because if my proof "goes wrong", then neither you, nor I,
nor anyone would still be following this topic, much less posting on it!

You are, in fact, totally obsessed with my proof because I showed that
your "arguments" are nothing but gibberish! You are afraid that I'm right.
That's why you can't help but follow this topic and why you continue to
post on it!

Quoting "rajula":

Quote:

Determining the validity of a proof is not an authority issue and I
cannot imagine any of the professors at the most prestigious universities
taking part in this.

It's a matter of pride and courage.

If they are invited to look at my proof and refuse to admit that I am right,
then they should at least have the courage to debate the issue in a
civilized manner.

If however they are invited to look at the proof and refuse to admit that
I am right and refuse to debate the issue, then they will be exposed as
the cowards that they are throughout all of cyberspace.

Quoting "rajula":

Quote:

It could be entertaining.

It would be great fun!

Quoting "Uncwilly":

Quote:

I would suggest a moderator too.
Garo is a suitable such individual (to moderate).

I agree.

Quoting "Condor":

Quote:

He has been presented with many "fatal flaws,"
and not actually debated a single one.

I have been presented with nothing but childish gibberish,
cleaned everyones clock, and wiped the floor with them!

Like I said before, if there was a "Fatal Flaw", then
this thread would have ended a long, long time ago!

Quoting "Condor":

Quote:

There is nothing illegal, improper, or "disallowed" about the existence of
a zero in a denominator. Nothing is "disallowed."

2/0 is gibberish. Gibberish is disallowed. End of story. Game over. You lose.

Quoting "Condor":

Quote:

But I will take Don up on it. I will not provide my real name because...

Because he is a sissy coward who is totally obsessed with me,
follows me around all over cyberspace, and has been posting
exclusively on my thread in this forum!

Any sissy coward can take "pot shots" from behind a veil of anonymity.
It's easy for a sissy coward to debate under a fake name because
when he loses, "Jeff Jo" becomes "Condor" and when he loses again,
"Condor" becomes "ostrich", and when he loses yet again, "ostrich" becomes:

http://www.google.com/search?q=big+b...w=1148&bih=677

"Jeff Jo" or "Condor" or whoever he is should take on yet another name.
I suggest "Chicken" !

Don.

2011-04-27, 16:03	#315
Condor Apr 2011 11111₂ Posts	We know from experience that the one thing Don is unwilling to do, is debate his proof. He has been presented with many "fatal flaws," and not actually debated a single one. The best attempt he has provided for any of them some form of "It must be so" or "It is obvious my way is right," usually with the only support being the pretty colors that emphasize "must" and "obvious." When he doesn't ignore the flaws completely, his only other response has been childish name-calling and outright slander. But I will take Don up on it. I will not provide my real name because correct arguments stand by themselves. Or move to another thread because there is no need to clutter the forum index with this drivel. But there is to be no name-calling, or colors, and you must supply reasons that you can support with references everything. Don, the first point in the debate is to address this point (still ignored from posts #260 and #286): $C^Z=\(\frac{T}{T}C^{\frac{Z}{M}}\)^M=\(T\(\frac{C}{T}\)^{\frac{ln(\frac{C^{\frac{Z}{M}}}{T})}{ln(\frac{C}{T})}}\)^M=\(T\(\frac{C}{T}\)^{\frac{\frac{ln(\frac{C^{\frac{Z}{M}}}{T})}{ln(T)}}{\frac{ln(\frac{C}{T})}{ln(T)}}}\)^M=\(T\(\frac{C}{T}\)^{\frac{\frac{ln(C^{\frac{Z}{M}})-ln({T})}{ln(T)}}{\frac{ln(C)-ln(T)}{ln(T)}}}\)^M=\(T\(\frac{C}{T}\)^{\frac{\frac{{\frac{Z}{M}}{ln(C)}}{ln(T)}-1}{\frac{ln(C)}{ln(T)}-1}}\)^M$ My support is your "short proof" itself. Change "2" to "M" in your equation #2, and this is the result. Can you provide an actual reason why Z=1 and Z=2 are not "disallowed" by your methods if we choose M=3, or else a reason why can't choose M=3 that does not also apply to M=1 and M=2? If you don't, or can't, your "proof" is proven to be false. However, it is my guees that Don will avoid actual debate; either by ignoring it, or insisting that it must be done his way. Last fiddled with by Condor on 2011-04-27 at 16:17*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do-it-yourself, crank, mersenne prediction thread.	Uncwilly	Miscellaneous Math	85	2017-12-10 16:03
non-standard sieve	req	Math	4	2011-12-06 04:17
Crank Emoticon	Mini-Geek	Forum Feedback	21	2007-03-06 19:21
Remove my thread from the Crank Forum	amateurII	Miscellaneous Math	40	2005-12-21 09:42
Standard Deviation Problem	jinydu	Puzzles	5	2004-01-10 02:12

2011-04-27, 15:16	#312
akruppa "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 100110100011₂ Posts	The post was not made by the real Don Blasius. Please everyone, don't post under other people's names.

2011-04-28, 01:56	#317
Batalov "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 2⁴·593 Posts	That April Fool's joke was in poor taste. To the real Don Blasius, I apologise unreservedly, and offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused him, or his family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.