@ Supermods: Error Correction please

[Puzzle-Peter]

Raman, it would probably be easiest and least error-prone if you gave Xyzzy the numbers of all the posts you want deleted.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by Puzzle-Peter

Raman, it would probably be easiest and least error-prone if you gave Xyzzy the numbers of all the posts you want deleted.

post numbers 113 and 119 are given in post 28 in this thread but only for alteration not full deletion. oh and I think post 35 in raman's thread was also pointed out.

[Batalov]

Once post #113 is deleted, old post #119 will become #118, and then if Mike deletes #119 he will have deleted the #120.

Just leave the mess alone. Raman, go write a book or something? The gerbils and snakes are not paid to do secretary work for Your Highness.

[Raman]

Originally Posted by Puzzle-Peter

Raman, it would probably be easiest and least error-prone if you gave Xyzzy the numbers of all the posts you want deleted.

Thanks to you for the waiting patience while I finished off posting the remaining post contents onto that own thread.
Sorry for the waiting delay while I took some time to trace all posts that needed deletion.

Before going onto post numbers that need deletion, a few posts need correction, that need to remove false statements
or safely enough mark them as false. No feuding please, especially for the article-like longer enough posting threads!
Nothing being ridiculous like what is being said cannot be unsaid... This is being an article, not being a conversation /
public debate. Updated versions have been posted enough for the all of them! Be my own friend, not be my own foe!

FALSE STATEMENTS, that need to be removed, or mark them as false.

Post #9 , those lines being given in spoilers, are being false enough, namely k = 96, k = 107...
Post #113 k = 71 alone is being false enough; and then
Post #119 k = 151 alone is being false enough; correct version is being posted onto post #130 as it stands right now; from that own thread.
Post #110 and then Post #111 the following lines are being false; remove them, or mark them as false

Originally Posted by Raman

It seems likely that this following scenario cannot happen for the values of k = convenient numbers, cases
as such as cases as follows as

If k is being a convenient number, then certainly that always that if N is not of the form as a²+kb²,
then so for the following numbers N³, N⁵, N⁷, N⁹, ..., N^2x+1

If in case whether there is being a duplicate posting of me, then strongly suggest to delete earlier version,
being case that might be error-prone version, later version may be always be ever be the corrected, most updated version.

These are the post numbers count that need deletion as they stand right now.

Post #35 and then Post #39, erroneous copy of Post # 44
Post #40, useless copy of Post # 45
Post #65, needless copy of Post # 69
Post #67, needless copy of Post # 73
Post #71, erroneous copy of Post # 72
Post #88, erroneous copy of Post # 89
Post #97, erroneous copy of Post # 99
Post #101, erroneous copy of Post # 105
Post #106, incomplete copy of Post # 107
Post #110, incomplete copy of Post # 111
Post #116, duplicate copy of Post # 118
Post #144, erroneous copy of Post # 145

in order to be being done enough

Be careful enough! Deleting an earlier enough post number first and then a subsequent later enough post number, will cause
the later post count in order to slide to become one post number lesser enough; and then subsequently may be you would go on to in order to delete ahead a
wrong post, over thereby. Therefore, subsequently, I would strongly suggest ultimately in order to delete posts
from that own thread from that last onwards onto first eventually onwards subsequently
towards it!


in order to be being done enough

[rajula]

Raman, I seriously think it would make more sense for you to start writing a blog (or similar) on your interests. With the magnitude of stuff you have written and the modifications you have request it is clear that this forum is not the optimal way to make your writings available online.

[Raman]

Originally Posted by rajula

Raman, I seriously think it would make more sense for you to start writing a blog (or similar) on your interests. With the magnitude of stuff you have written and the modifications you have request it is clear that this forum is not the optimal way to make your writings available online.

And that if it is being that case, then what case do you think that forum is being for?
Therefore, publicly articles in order to be being shared over thereby, done enough, therefore, up / down, therefore, over thereby,
case value of case

No one would read Wiki , let alone on to Forum

in order to be being done enough

[Batalov]

Isn't that thread locked to be write-only? ;-)

Raman, there are multiple blog engines that will give your free accounts!
Forum is not a wiki, and forum is not a blog. Hint: in the forum, there's more than one person talking. Beware of blogorrhea.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Batalov

Isn't that thread locked to be write-only? ;-)

It's certainly white-partly.

[NBtarheel_33]

Originally Posted by Raman

Thanks to you for the waiting patience while I finished off posting the remaining post contents onto that own thread.
Sorry for the waiting delay while I took some time to trace all posts that needed deletion.

Before going onto post numbers that need deletion, a few posts need correction, that need to remove false statements
or safely enough mark them as false. No feuding please, especially for the article-like longer enough posting threads!
Nothing being ridiculous like what is being said cannot be unsaid... This is being an article, not being a conversation /
public debate. Updated versions have been posted enough for the all of them! Be my own friend, not be my own foe!

FALSE STATEMENTS, that need to be removed, or mark them as false.

Post #9 , those lines being given in spoilers, are being false enough, namely k = 96, k = 107...
Post #113 k = 71 alone is being false enough; and then
Post #119 k = 151 alone is being false enough; correct version is being posted onto post #130 as it stands right now; from that own thread.
Post #110 and then Post #111 the following lines are being false; remove them, or mark them as false



If in case whether there is being a duplicate posting of me, then strongly suggest to delete earlier version,
being case that might be error-prone version, later version may be always be ever be the corrected, most updated version.

These are the post numbers count that need deletion as they stand right now.

Post #35 and then Post #39, erroneous copy of Post # 44
Post #40, useless copy of Post # 45
Post #65, needless copy of Post # 69
Post #67, needless copy of Post # 73
Post #71, erroneous copy of Post # 72
Post #88, erroneous copy of Post # 89
Post #97, erroneous copy of Post # 99
Post #101, erroneous copy of Post # 105
Post #106, incomplete copy of Post # 107
Post #110, incomplete copy of Post # 111
Post #116, duplicate copy of Post # 118
Post #144, erroneous copy of Post # 145

in order to be being done enough

Be careful enough! Deleting an earlier enough post number first and then a subsequent later enough post number, will cause
the later post count in order to slide to become one post number lesser enough; and then subsequently may be you would go on to in order to delete ahead a
wrong post, over thereby. Therefore, subsequently, I would strongly suggest ultimately in order to delete posts
from that own thread from that last onwards onto first eventually onwards subsequently
towards it!


in order to be being done enough

First you crapflood the forum with reams and reams of this stuff, whether we need or want it or not. Then you insist that the owner and moderators of this forum play "personal editor" to your whims and fancies. Then you go ahead and continue to post unwieldy, lengthy essayical rants not only making more demands, but for some reason known only to Heaven above, also obscuring random portions of the text! Get a clue on forum etiquette, bro!

If I were Xyzzy or a mod, I'd have you and cmd locked away together in a dark, little room for a long time.

[Raman]

Originally Posted by Raman

Post #113 k = 71 alone is being false enough; and then
Post #119 k = 151 alone is being false enough; correct version is being posted onto post #130 as it stands right now; from that own thread.

Error had been occurred due to usage of an artificial limit of N = 10⁶, arbitrarily use for the of
case of value of case of
<sup>[SUP][SUP][SUP][SUP][SUP][COLOR=White][STRIKE]r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r

r r r r


r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r

r r r r [/STRIKE][/COLOR]</sup>[/SUP][/SUP][/SUP][/SUP][/SUP]

k = 71
k = 151
case case case case caseztuchz
value of value of value of value of
<sup>[SUP][SUP][SUP][SUP][SUP][COLOR=White][STRIKE]r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r

r r r r


r r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r r

r r r r [/STRIKE][/COLOR]</sup>[/SUP][/SUP][/SUP][/SUP][/SUP]

[literka]

I think everybody has a right to write false statement, it cannot be avoided. Especially if it is something new, not rewritten from a textbook. If something like this happen, it is perfectly alright to write a correcting notice (by author or anybody else), without demand to remove false statement. It is not a danger. Much more dangerous are brutal responses, not polite.