20110415, 14:46  #221 
Aug 2006
3·1,993 Posts 
Actually that's not a problem, sm; take the contrapositive. His first mistake is somewhat later.

20110416, 02:04  #222  
"Frank <^>"
Dec 2004
CDP Janesville
100001001010_{2} Posts 
Quote:


20110417, 13:34  #223 
Feb 2011
163 Posts 
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 lawyerlike argument to refute. Thus, the task of "refuting" this proof is utterly futile and truly Sisyphean ! (A fitting punishment for nincompoops!) Don. 
20110417, 15:00  #224  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
2^{6}×131 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 20110417 at 15:55 

20110417, 17:35  #225 
Nov 2010
2^{2}×19 Posts 
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 ? 
20110417, 19:07  #226  
Feb 2011
163_{10} Posts 
Quoting science man:
Quote:
Now you need to check how you checked! Don. 

20110417, 20:34  #227 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
9A3_{16} Posts 
Don Blazys,
refrain from posting personal insults. 
20110417, 21:11  #228  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
2^{6}·131 Posts 
Quote:
as written in you thing is a different value than 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 20110417 at 21:31 

20110418, 12:30  #229  
Apr 2011
31 Posts 
Quote:
But the problem is the part inside the [] below: 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 "lawyerlike" 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. 

20110418, 14:19  #230  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
2^{6}×131 Posts 
Quote:
3/4/2/4 or (3/4)/(2/4) first one is 3/(4*2*4) = 3/32 the second is (3/)/(2/) =3/2 = 1.5 Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 20110418 at 14:28 

20110419, 09:54  #231  
Feb 2011
163 Posts 
Quoting Condor:
Quote:
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:
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. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Doityourself, crank, mersenne prediction thread.  Uncwilly  Miscellaneous Math  85  20171210 16:03 
nonstandard sieve  req  Math  4  20111206 04:17 
Crank Emoticon  MiniGeek  Forum Feedback  21  20070306 19:21 
Remove my thread from the Crank Forum  amateurII  Miscellaneous Math  40  20051221 09:42 
Standard Deviation Problem  jinydu  Puzzles  5  20040110 02:12 