Standard crank division by zero thread - Page 55

chalsall · 2012-12-16, 22:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Thanks chalsall!

Merry Christmas and happy New Year to you and yours!

Don.

You might have misunderstood me.

But best wishes to you and yours too.

Don Blazys · 2012-12-16, 23:07

Yeah, I thought of that too.

No one else here will have the courage to
answer either yes or no without commentary.

That's okay with me.

chalsall · 2012-12-16, 23:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

No one else here will have the courage to answer either yes or no without commentary.

Why should they? You certainly don't constrain yourself.

Don Blazys · 2012-12-16, 23:29

Quoting "chalsall"

Quote:

You certainly don't constrain yourself.

I answered with a simple and unequivocal no.

So, here again is the question that should convince you all that the
symmetry and substitution axioms are badly flawed and should not be
taught in school.

Given the identity:

$\left(\frac{T}{T}\right)*c^{3}=T*\left(\frac{c}{T}\right)^{\frac{\frac{3*\ln(c)}{\ln(T)}-1}{\frac{\ln(c)}{\ln(T)}-1}}$

can we substitute

$\left(\frac{c}{c}\right)$ for $\left(\frac{T}{T}\right)$ ?

"LaurV" says:

Quote:

Yes.

"Rajula" says:

Quote:

Yes or no.

Paul Leyland says:

Quote:

No

Mark Rodenkirch says:

Quote:

No.

Don Blazys says:

Quote:

No.

Wouldn't you know it, all three mathematicians who
are not hiding behind fake names say No!

And thus, the consensus is leaning in the direction
that those axioms are indeed badly flawed!

If you have any courage, then simply answer
yes or no without any commentary whatsoever.

rogue · 2012-12-16, 23:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Several very high ranking professors of mathematics, (one of them
with Phd's in both physics and math), did take my proof to other
members of their math departments, only to be chided and ridiculed
without mercy!

Did it ever occur to you that they were treated that way because your proof is wrong?

As for the "identity" to which you refer, my last point to you was that that the identity has no bearing on the correctness of your proof. I'll ask again, why must a, b, x, and y be greater than 2? Your proof does not demonstrate why there must be any restrictions on the value of those variables. Could I use your proof as a foundation to proof that a^x + b^y + d^e = c^z has no solutions for a, b, c, d, e, x, y, x > 2? I see no reason why I couldn't do that.

BTW, would you mind pointing those professors to this thread? None of them will support you after they read through it.

akruppa · 2012-12-16, 23:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Professor "B.B."

What is his real name?

Don Blazys · 2012-12-16, 23:44

Quoting "akruppa".

Quote:

What is his real name?

I promised him that I would leave him out of this.
That's a promise that I intend to keep.

Don Blazys · 2012-12-16, 23:49

Quoting "rogue"

Quote:

BTW, would you mind pointing those professors to this thread?
None of them will support you after they read through it.

I won every debate here, so I disagree.

akruppa · 2012-12-17, 00:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Quoting "akruppa".

I promised him that I would leave him out of this.
That's a promise that I intend to keep.

So you think fake names are dishonest, except when you use them for your imaginary friends. All in the same post. Do you realize what a total joke you are?

Don Blazys · 2012-12-17, 00:31

Quoting "akruppa".

Quote:

So you think fake names are dishonest, except when you use them
for your imaginary friends. All in the same post. Do you realize what
a total joke you are?

Of course you are free to think that I have "imaginary friends".
I couldn't care less what you think. The important thing is that
I am using my real name.

As for "jokes", well, this question, which should convince all of you
that the symmetry and substitution axioms are badly flawed and
should therefore not be taught in school is making a mockery of
all you cowards who are unable to answer it with a simple yes or no.

Here it is again.

Given the identity:

$\left(\frac{T}{T}\right)*c^{3}=T*\left(\frac{c}{T}\right)^{\frac{\frac{3*\ln(c)}{\ln(T)}-1}{\frac{\ln(c)}{\ln(T)}-1}}$

can we substitute

$\left(\frac{c}{c}\right)$ for $\left(\frac{T}{T}\right)$ ?

"LaurV" says:

Quote:

Yes.

"Rajula" says:

Quote:

Yes or no.

Paul Leyland says:

Quote:

No

Mark Rodenkirch says:

Quote:

No.

Don Blazys says:

Quote:

No.

Wouldn't you know it, all three mathematicians who
are not hiding behind fake names say No!

And thus, the consensus is leaning in the direction
that those axioms are indeed badly flawed!

If you have any courage, then simply answer
yes or no without any commentary whatsoever.

rogue · 2012-12-17, 03:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

I won every debate here, so I disagree.

That is your (and only your) opinion. Nobody else in this thread is supporting your proof. They clearly understand points that I have made that you are missing.

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

2012-12-16, 23:07	#596
Don Blazys Feb 2011 163 Posts	Yeah, I thought of that too. No one else here will have the courage to answer either yes or no without commentary. That's okay with me.