Standard crank division by zero thread - Page 16

CRGreathouse · 2011-03-28, 02:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by science_man_88

I'm semi this just not smart enough to know the muck.

That's one of the great things about math -- in theory, at least, a proof can be checked to verify that it's correct. If you break a purported proof into small enough steps, it shouldn't be able to fool you into believing it if it's wrong.

Don Blazys · 2011-03-28, 06:07

Quoting CRGreathouse:

Quote:

If you can point me to a distinguished mathematician who has
attempted to disprove your conjecture but failed --
in his professional view, not yours -- I'd love to hear about it.
I'll drop him an email (or perhaps drop by his office, if he's nearby).

Now that's a great idea! Please contact any of the mathematicians
mentioned on my website, or even the N.A.S.A./ J.P.L. scientist
who also wrote me a letter of recommendation.

In fact, Professors Truss and Partington from the Journal of the
London Mathematical Society would be a great place to start!

Think about it. If everyone here was to flood them with e-mails,
pointing them to their letter (also on my website) and inviting them
to this forum to discuss it, then maybe we can resolve the issue of
my Proof of Beal's Conjecture, once and for all.

Heck, maybe they could even find that referee and let him explain
why he supported my paper all those years ago!

Quoting CRGreathouse:

Quote:

I've seen at least half a dozen refutations of your work.

I haven't. Everyone who tried failed miserably.
On the issue of my Proof of Beal's Conjecture,
I won each and every debate, and that can be
checked by anyone because those debates are
all over cyberspace and are a matter of public record.

Quoting CRGreathouse:

Quote:

I won't attempt to give another.

All it takes is one!

Pick one "fatal flaw" and one "champion" from the "math community"
to debate it with me in a seperate thread.

Everyone else just watch.

That way, not only will it be a fair debate, but it will also be
very obvious as to who wins, because we will no longer have
all of the inevitable "flaming" and confusion that occurs when
too many people post their half baked "pot shots" simultaneously.

I promise that if I lose, then I will drop my Proof of Beal's Conjecture
like a hot potato and publicly renounce it.

Quoting CRGreathouse:

Quote:

I haven't seen any 'try in vain'.

Please go to posts number 59, 60 and 61 and tell me who you think
won that exchange!

Quoting R.D. Silverman:

Quote:

Given his attitude, ignorant arrogance, outrageous claims and other crank
behavior...

You insult and protest... and protest and protest... and I'm quite sure that by now,
people are probably beginning to wonder if perhaps... just perhaps...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lad...much,_methinks.

Don

Uncwilly · 2011-03-28, 06:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Pick one "fatal flaw" and one "champion" from the "math community"
to debate it with me in a seperate thread.

Everyone else just watch.

If this is to be the case, I would suggest a moderator too. Garo is a suitable such individual (to moderate).

jasonp · 2011-03-28, 11:22

We're not "the math community", and this isn't a reality show with gladiator games.

I finally looked and had no idea sci.math was so bad. It was like nothing had changed since 1994.

flouran · 2011-03-28, 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Think about it. If everyone here was to flood them with e-mails,
pointing them to their letter (also on my website) and inviting them
to this forum to discuss it, then maybe we can resolve the issue of
my Proof of Beal's Conjecture, once and for all.

Stop right there. If it's your proof of Beal's conjecture, then you should be the one responsible for evaluating/improving the said manuscript. It is not the job of other mathematicians to provide you with free evaluations. See http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/...ts/advice.html for more advice.

CRGreathouse · 2011-03-28, 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Now that's a great idea! Please contact any of the mathematicians
mentioned on my website, or even the N.A.S.A./ J.P.L. scientist
who also wrote me a letter of recommendation.

I didn't see any reputable mathematicians listed there who said that they couldn't find a flaw in your work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

In fact, Professors Truss and Partington from the Journal of the
London Mathematical Society would be a great place to start!

They didn't claim to have attempted to disprove your conjecture but failed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Think about it. If everyone here was to flood them with e-mails,
pointing them to their letter (also on my website) and inviting them
to this forum to discuss it, then maybe we can resolve the issue of
my Proof of Beal's Conjecture, once and for all.

No, what would happen is that you would once again fail to accept their very simple disproofs. Also, the person contacting them would be sternly reprimanded for wasting their time with this nonsense. (I don't mind going over this stuff. I wouldn't dream of wasting Andrew Granville's time by sending this to him.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

I haven't. Everyone who tried failed miserably.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Pick one "fatal flaw"

Been there, done that. Actually, I believe I've pointed out two different flaws, not that more than one is needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

That way, not only will it be a fair debate, but it will also be
very obvious as to who wins

It's already obvious to (almost) everyone but you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Please go to posts number 59, 60 and 61 and tell me who you think
won that exchange!

In post #59-#61, sm88 won the exchange. That should be kind of embarrassing for you -- he has no training in higher mathematics beside what he's picked up here. 'Proof' refuted.

In #62-#65, axn won by a reduction to $\bot.$ 'Proof' refuted.

In #67, #74, you won the exchange with sm88. Your 'proof' was not refuted in this exchange.

In #80, #83, you fail to argue your point. axn's argument indeed refutes your proof, but I can't really call it an argument.

#81 was not responded to, so again you ceded the argument, this time to CRGreathouse. His argument also shows that your proof is flawed, but I can't score debating points there either.

Going back to post #38, #49, #41, #43, #45, rajula won the exchange. 'Proof' refuted.

In #46-#49, the clear winner is xilman/CRGreathouse/sm88/rajula who show that the essential substitution you use is wrong. 'Proof' refuted.

Now it's hard to split the posts into discrete debates, so one could argue about the numerics. But all that is needed is one disproof, and I see four to six. I didn't search the entire thread, so there may have been another. I've seen others (not essentially the same as these) on other boards, but I'm certainly not going to track all of those down.

It may be fun to see how low level I could go before people are unable to find at least one of these mistakes. I have a feeling that the gifted eighth graders that I tutor could find them -- although they might have to work as a group. Surely the students in a high-school freshman Algebra II class could find a flaw working alone. I'm not sure that the slower-track Algebra I class could do the same; maybe I'll ask my teacher friend.

em99010pepe · 2011-03-28, 19:24

So, who's winning?

CRGreathouse · 2011-03-28, 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by em99010pepe

So, who's winning?

Yes, yes, I know it's silly -- that's not the way mathematics works. But it was amusing for me to go through the conversations to see which worked and which didn't, as well as what arguments were used.

science_man_88 · 2011-03-28, 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Yes, yes, I know it's silly -- that's not the way mathematics works. But it was amusing for me to go through the conversations to see which worked and which didn't, as well as what arguments were used.

yeah losing to me is a -100 if not more I think.

em99010pepe · 2011-03-28, 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Yes, yes, I know it's silly -- that's not the way mathematics works. But it was amusing for me to go through the conversations to see which worked and which didn't, as well as what arguments were used.

I think the

should win at least one consolation point...

cmd · 2011-03-28, 23:49

popular law, many opposites, such honor for the kings

see

btw ( |\/|'lest°ne )

2011-03-28, 23:49	#176
cmd "(^r'°:.:)^n;e'e" Nov 2008 ;t:.:;^ 3³·37 Posts	popular law, many opposites, such honor for the kings see btw ( \|\/\|'lest°ne ) Last fiddled with by cmd on 2011-03-29 at 00:12 Reason: reflect_tcelfer

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

2011-03-28, 11:22	#169
jasonp Tribal Bullet Oct 2004 3×1,181 Posts	We're not "the math community", and this isn't a reality show with gladiator games. I finally looked and had no idea sci.math was so bad. It was like nothing had changed since 1994.

2011-03-28, 19:24	#172
em99010pepe Sep 2004 2·5·283 Posts	So, who's winning?