mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-04-15, 14:46   #221
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

3·1,993 Posts
Default

Actually that's not a problem, sm; take the contrapositive. His first mistake is somewhat later.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-16, 02:04   #222
schickel
 
schickel's Avatar
 
"Frank <^>"
Dec 2004
CDP Janesville

1000010010102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Condor View Post
BTW - is it possible to edit posts? I don't see an icon for it. I didn't realize I had cut-and-pasted formating when I pulled that one in from the editor I prefer, and I agree it looks ugly. (Oh - is it that only the last post can be edited? This one did get an "edit" icon.)
You have a time-limited window to edit a post (I believe it's an hour...)
schickel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-17, 13:34   #223
Don Blazys
 
Don Blazys's Avatar
 
Feb 2011

163 Posts
Default

Poor "Condor", "science man" and "CRNuthouse"!

They are so desperate, so frustrated, so obsessed and............. so stupid!

After all their compussive and incessant postings, they still dont realize that

any true equation, whether it be 2 + 3 = 5 or httр://donblazys.com/03.рdf

is simply an actuality and that there is no lawyer-like argument to refute.

Thus, the task of "refuting" this proof is utterly futile and truly Sisyphean !

(A fitting punishment for nincompoops!)

Don.
Don Blazys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-17, 15:00   #224
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26×131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Blazys View Post
Poor "Condor", "science man" and "CRNuthouse"!

They are so desperate, so frustrated, so obsessed and............. so stupid!

After all their compussive and incessant postings, they still dont realize that

any true equation, whether it be 2 + 3 = 5 or httр://donblazys.com/03.рdf

is simply an actuality and that there is no lawyer-like argument to refute.

Thus, the task of "refuting" this proof is utterly futile and truly Sisyphean !

(A fitting punishment for nincompoops!)

Don.
I almost fell for it:

Quote:
\frac{T}{T}C^z = T \(\frac{C}{T}\)^{\frac {ln( \frac{C^z}{T})}{ln(\frac{C}{T})}}=T \(\frac{C}{T}\)^{\frac {\frac{ln( \frac{C^z}{T})}{ln(T)}}{\frac{ln(\frac{C}{T})}{ln(T)}}} =T \(\frac{C}{T}\)^{\frac {\frac{ln( \frac{C^z}{T})}{ln(T)}-\frac{ln(T)}{ln(T)}}{\frac{ln(\frac{C}{T})}{ln(T)}-\frac{ln(T)}{ln(T)}}}=T \(\frac{C}{T}\)^{\frac {\frac{{z}*{ln(C)}}{ln(T)}-1}{\frac{ln(C)}{ln(T)}-1}}
the last one has a different value for the exponent last I checked with T=6, C=3,and z=4, if these are within your bounds( haven't double checked) then it's done.

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2011-04-17 at 15:55
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-17, 17:35   #225
tichy
 
Nov 2010

22×19 Posts
Default

I'm sorry - I could not resist any longer once I ran out of my popcorn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLrnkK2YEcE

Can someone demonstrate any examples of widely used and commonly accepted proofs which would be rendered invalid when Don's reasonign is applied ?
tichy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-17, 19:07   #226
Don Blazys
 
Don Blazys's Avatar
 
Feb 2011

16310 Posts
Default

Quoting science man:
Quote:
The last one has a different value for the exponent last I checked with T=6, C=3,and z=4,
You are wrong. (They all result in 81.)
Now you need to check how you checked!

Don.
Don Blazys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-17, 20:34   #227
akruppa
 
akruppa's Avatar
 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria

9A316 Posts
Default

Don Blazys,

refrain from posting personal insults.
akruppa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-17, 21:11   #228
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26·131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Blazys View Post
Quoting science man:

You are wrong. (They all result in 81.)
Now you need to check how you checked!

Don.
actually doing the \frac{\frac{ln(c^z/t)}{ln(t)}}{\frac{ln(c/t)}{ln(t)}}

as written in you thing is a different value than \frac{ln(c^z/t)}{ln(c/t)} I did it out in pari:

Code:
(17:42)>c=3;z=4;t=6;print((log(c^z/t)/log(t))/(log(c/t)/log(t)))
-3.754887502163468544361216832
(17:42)>c=3;z=4;t=6;print(log(c^z/t)/ln(t)/log(c/t)/log(t))
  ***   obsolete function.

For full compatibility with GP 1.39.15, type "default(compatible,3)", or set "compatible = 3" in your GPRC file.

New syntax: ln(x) ===> log(x)

log(x): natural logarithm of x.


(17:46)>c=3;z=4;t=6;print(log(c^z/t)/log(t)/log(c/t)/log(t))
-1.169600413701046825003995111
(17:46)>c=3;z=4;t=6;print(log(c^z/t)/log(c/t))
-3.754887502163468544361216832

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2011-04-17 at 21:31
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-18, 12:30   #229
Condor
 
Condor's Avatar
 
Apr 2011

31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by science_man_88 View Post
I almost fell for it:



the last one has a different value for the exponent last I checked with T=6, C=3,and z=4, if these are within your bounds( haven't double checked) then it's done.
You should double check - the "identity" is indeed valid, as it is merely an expansion and re-arrangement of the terms. You need to add some parentheses to your code.


But the problem is the part inside the [] below:
\frac{T}{T}C^z = T \(\frac{C}{T}\)^{\frac {ln( \frac{C^z}{T})}{\[ln(\frac{C}{T})\]}}
Anything to the right of this in Don's derivation is no longer part of a "true equation" if T=C. Actually, the term becomes indeterminate; but Don will deny that.

It seems sad that a person who obviously has the capability to imagine combinations in new and interesting ways can so delude himself about what they mean. And about how he applies a double standard (and is using "lawyer-like" arguments) when he insists on letting C=T because of the "truth" inherent in his "identity," yet insists the same argument doesn't apply to numbers that would allow him to see that it is indeterminate.
Condor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-18, 14:19   #230
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

26×131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Condor View Post
You should double check - the "identity" is indeed valid, as it is merely an expansion and re-arrangement of the terms. You need to add some parentheses to your code.


But the problem is the part inside the [] below:
\frac{T}{T}C^z = T \(\frac{C}{T}\)^{\frac {ln( \frac{C^z}{T})}{\[ln(\frac{C}{T})\]}}
Anything to the right of this in Don's derivation is no longer part of a "true equation" if T=C. Actually, the term becomes indeterminate; but Don will deny that.

It seems sad that a person who obviously has the capability to imagine combinations in new and interesting ways can so delude himself about what they mean. And about how he applies a double standard (and is using "lawyer-like" arguments) when he insists on letting C=T because of the "truth" inherent in his "identity," yet insists the same argument doesn't apply to numbers that would allow him to see that it is indeterminate.
what I was pointing out is without more parentheses that second exponent is clearly different that the first. an example to go on:

3/4/2/4 or (3/4)/(2/4) first one is 3/(4*2*4) = 3/32 the second is (3/\strike  {4})/(2/\strike  {4}) =3/2 = 1.5

Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 2011-04-18 at 14:28
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-04-19, 09:54   #231
Don Blazys
 
Don Blazys's Avatar
 
Feb 2011

163 Posts
Default

Quoting Condor:
Quote:
Anything to the right of this in Don's derivation is no longer part of a "true equation" if T = c.
That's not true. It all depends on the value of z. Please follow this carefully.

If z=1,

then (T/T)*c^z = T*(c/T)^((z*ln(c)/(ln(T))-1)/(ln(c)/(ln(T))-1))

becomes (T/T)*c^1 = T*(c/T)^1

where clearly, we can let T = c because doing so gives us the "true equation"

(c/c)*c^1 = c*(c/c)^1

Quoting Condor:
Quote:
Actually, the term becomes indeterminate; but Don will deny that.
As I just demonstrated, indeterminate forms are not an issue in my proof.

They are "removable singularities" that are easily avoided and don't even exist if we
do the algebra correctly and evaluate the exponents at z = 1 before we let T = c.

Don.
Don Blazys is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


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

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:19.


Thu Oct 21 04:19:31 UTC 2021 up 89 days, 22:48, 1 user, load averages: 3.26, 2.87, 2.65

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.