Standard crank division by zero thread

[Jayder]

Originally Posted by retina

No. It is just different kind of zero. See here. Finally the answer we have been seeking. And xilman should appreciate the construction materials.

That joke near the end was great. "Giving this to a panda would be the best chance they would have of multiplying."

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Batalov

But wait! Where is the article?!

That piqued my interest a bit, so I did a websearch for "don blazys asian journal of mathematics and applications" to see where else Don has blathered about the mystery vanishing paper. I must say that it is nice to see that our friend DB has not been sitting idly around, waiting for the world to at long last recognize his brilliance:

Don Blazys, inviting M.to ref. your proof is futile... - runs to 23 pages and 344 posts (so far), and is apparently far from the first DB-thread on that forum. DB provides generic links to the above journal there, but nothing (at least that I turned up in the limited time I am willing to dedicate to this task, guitly-pleasure-fun as it may be). But some vital info is revealed there:

It's spelled Blazys, but I pronounce it "blazes". It was originally Blazevich, so I suppose that I could have it changed back to that. Then, since Don is short for Donat, (which many people mispronounce as "donut"), I do have the option of calling myself either Donat Blazevich or Donat Blazys, but since the first makes me sound like a "foreigner" and the second like a "flaming pastry", I'll just stick to Don Blazys.

Note: Had DB any outstanding basketball skills, the world might have been blessed with YouTube highlight clips of "Dunkin' Donat". But I digress...

Don has also settled Hilbert's Second Problem -- Don trots out the same oddly generic http://scienceasia.asia/index.php/ama link to "his paper" here, and pulls his usual stunt of trying to enforce his pet "rules of this discussion" which include requiring others to "answer yes or no" to nonsense questions. But another useful nugget posted by one of his "ignorant critics" there:

I'm really not sure what to make of that journal. It only has one issue out, and there is no information on the editorial board. And it charges authors for publishing. And at least one of the articles they published is really wacky (one by some medical doctor from the US who claims that god gave him inspiration to find a new way of finding prime numbers or something like that.

XKCD Forums: Beal Conjecture, in which Don helpfully notes:

As a group, Asians are very good at math.Thus, you might want to Google search the "Asian Journal of Mathematics and Applications".

Mathematical Embarrassments | Gödel's Lost Letter and P=NP, in which Don`s legendary humility is on full display:

Most mathematicians are too embarrassed to admit that this very simple proof of Beal’s Conjecture and Fermat’s Last Theorem is both true and correct.

http://donblazys.com/

I don’t blame them.

The sheer simplicity of the actual solution to the worlds most famous math problem litterally stuns them and makes them feel rather stupid!

And provides a helpful new standard of mathematical proof for the internet age:

The important thing is that my proof is exeedingly simple and both true and correct, which is why Google searching “Beal’s Conjecture Proof” shows that it is now ranked at the very top. Thus, the day is quickly approaching when it will become painfully clear to the math community that their so called “scholarly journals” are of little or no consequence because the vast majority of people actually use Google to look up new results in math.

Moreover, it is now becoming widely known that the Mathematics Department at Princeton University also knows about my proof, but is doing their very best to “sweep it under the rug”. Clearly, they can’t handle the embarrassment of having to tell their students that the algebra they are teaching is in actuality quite inadequate for solving deeper problems such as Beal’s Conjecture.

You know, the internet is a very powerful tool, and with all the science and math forums out there, it would be very, very easy to set up an “online debate” between myself and the Mathematics Department at Princeton, or any college or university for that matter. That would be the fair and honest way to resolve, once and for all, the issue of my proof and the controversy it is engendering.

I am more than willing to participate in such a debate.

Unfortunately, every college and university math department is afraid to debate me, and that, in and of itself, is quite embarrassing, for it implies that they are all nothing but cowardly little mice and scared little chickens.

Interestingly, I did the precise Google search Don suggests, but the #1 link that comes up for me is Wikipedia's page on the Beal Conjecture, with Don`s nonsense "1-page proof" only appearing in the #4 spot. Like the rest of the "Don deniers", I must be doing it wrong...

I could go on, but that's enough silly fun for one day. (At least for me - I welcome other readers also sharing their discoveries in searching this online treasury trove of crankery.)

[jasonp]

'Flaming Pastry' is a great name for a band.

[rogue]

Originally Posted by rogue

1) Is 1^(0/0) determinate?
2) Is 1^n = 1 when n is undefined?
3) Is 1^n = 1 when n is indeterminate?

I found the answer I was looking for for all of these questions at Wolfram. The answers are no, no, and no. These links explain:

Mathematical expressions containing Undefined evaluate to Undefined

Any numeric function of Indeterminate also gives Indeterminate

So 1^n is undefined if n is undefined and 1^n is indeterminate when n is indeterminate. Since 0/0 is indeterminate that means that 1^(0/0) is indeterminate.

[Don Blazys]

The Don Blazys proof of Beal's Conjecture is still going strong. First page on Google! The idiots who are "triggered" by this fact should simply retreat to their "safe spaces".

[paulunderwood]

[Don Blazys]

No, I'm simply responding to the rather stupid ewmayer post.

[Batalov]

[Don Blazys]

How quaint!