Standard crank division by zero thread - Page 54

Don Blazys · 2012-12-13, 08:52

Quoting "philmoore":

Quote:

Mark Rodenkirch has never hidden his identity AFAIK.

So... "rogue's" real name is Mark Rodenkirch.
That's a fine name. Much better than "rogue"!

Is your real name Phil Moore?

Xyzzy · 2012-12-13, 08:59

Quote:

Is your real name Phil Moore?

It is.

Go ahead and make the second biggest mistake in your life and mess with Phil.

rogue · 2012-12-13, 13:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

So... "rogue's" real name is Mark Rodenkirch.
That's a fine name. Much better than "rogue"!

My real name is easy to find. Click on my username and select the "Contact Info" tab. My homepage is listed there. The choice of "rogue" as a username is a reference to a roll playing game of the same name, a game I played quite a bit during college with friends. That information is also in this forum, but probably not so easy to find.

Don Blazys · 2012-12-13, 15:03

Quoting Xyzzy:

Quote:

Go ahead and make the second biggest
mistake in your life and mess with Phil.

Let's get one thing straight.

I'm not here to "mess" with people.

If you scroll back to the very beginning
of this extraordinarily popular thread,
then you will find that I came here
wanting to be friends. You will see that
I extended my hand in friendship
only to have it spat on by punks.

All I wanted was to find some really
good coders, who could help me "fine tune"
this counting function:

httр://donblazys.com/on_рolygonal_numbers.рdf

httр://www.mathisfunforum.com/viewtoрic.рhр?id=17853

by determining how many of these numbers:

httр://oeis.org/A090466

there are under some number $x$ .

But instead of either taking up the challenge
or politely declining to do so, the denizens
of this forum began insulting and "dogging" me !

And so I decided to leave this forum....
but after I left, I started getting e-mails
asking me to come back...

But when I did come back, the moderators changed
the original title of this thread to what it is now,
and assigned to me that "avatar" that you see.

And so I decided to "play along with the joke"
and began posting "in the same spirit" as everyone else here.

And the rest, as they say, is history,
This thread still became very popular
even though I was now labeled a "crank".

You see, topics that are wrong are both stupid and boring
and nobody even reads, much less posts on such topics.

But my topics, on the other hand, are very popular,
and people can't wait to read and post on them,
because they happen to be both true and correct.

Don.

science_man_88 · 2012-12-13, 15:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Quoting Xyzzy:

Let's get one thing straight.

I'm not here to "mess" with people.

If you scroll back to the very beginning
of this extraordinarily popular thread,
then you will find that I came here
wanting to be friends. You will see that
I extended my hand in friendship
only to have it spat on by punks.

All I wanted was to find some really
good coders, who could help me "fine tune"
this counting function:

httр://donblazys.com/on_рolygonal_numbers.рdf

httр://www.mathisfunforum.com/viewtoрic.рhр?id=17853

by determining how many of these numbers:

httр://oeis.org/A090466

there are under some number $x$ .

But instead of either taking up the challenge
or politely declining to do so, the denizens
of this forum began insulting and "dogging" me !

And so I decided to leave this forum....
but after I left, I started getting e-mails
asking me to come back...

But when I did come back, the moderators changed
the original title of this thread to what it is now,
and assigned to me that "avatar" that you see.

And so I decided to "play along with the joke"
and began posting "in the same spirit" as everyone else here.

And the rest, as they say, is history,
This thread still became very popular
even though I was now labeled a "crank".

You see, topics that are wrong are both stupid and boring
and nobody even reads, much less posts on such topics.

But my topics, on the other hand, are very popular,
and people can't wait to read and post on them,
because they happen to be both true and correct.

Don.

on the contrary using something Raman enlightened me about I've checked who posted on this thread and almost 23% of the posts are from you, and that almost goes to 40% between me and you so really you have maybe 3 main people who make up over 50% of the posts 3 is not all that popular.

xilman · 2012-12-13, 16:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

If you scroll back to the very beginning
of this extraordinarily popular thread,
then you will find that I came here
wanting to be friends. You will see that
I extended my hand in friendship
only to have it spat on by punks.

All I wanted was to find some really
good coders, who could help me "fine tune"
this counting function:

httр://donblazys.com/on_рolygonal_numbers.рdf

httр://www.mathisfunforum.com/viewtoрic.рhр?id=17853

by determining how many of these numbers:

httр://oeis.org/A090466

there are under some number $x$ .

But instead of either taking up the challenge
or politely declining to do so, the denizens
of this forum began insulting and "dogging" me !

That is unfair.

I wrote code for your counting function which was many times faster than your rpevious efforts. I gave you that code and I ran it for several cpu-days, thereby extending your tables substantially.

Paul.

P.S. I am not hiding behind a pseudonym. My name is a very loosely kept secret indeed and even the quickest Google search will find it. My use of "Xilman" is so that a Google search on that name will find my stuff, uncluttered with that produced by all the other "Paul Leyland"s around the world.

Don Blazys · 2012-12-16, 16:01

Quoting Xilman.

Quote:

That is unfair. I wrote code for your counting function
which was many times faster than your pevious efforts.
I gave you that code and I ran it for several cpu-days,
thereby extending your tables subtantially.

Please accept my sincere apology. You did indeed do
some great coding and the extended tables that you
provided helped tremendously.

I posted a link to my "Polygonal Number Counting Function"
thread in the "Math Is Fun" forum, so that you can see
some of the the progress that was made and that our
efforts were worth it, but that link was probably disabled
by the moderators of this funky forum.

Credit for all "previous efforts" goes to other coders.
I myself am not a coder. (I don't even own a computer.)

Credit for breaking your record and determining $\varpi(10^{15})$
goes to Lars Blomberg.

Between you, Lars, myself and a few "anonymous" coders,
we have given mankind its first and only counting function
for polygonal numbers of order greater than 2, and since
polygonal numbers are important to string theory as well as
number theory, our work may shed some much needed light
on both areas of investigation.

I have several other results that I would like to post, such
as a naturally occuring "scale" which seems to show how
the Fine Structure Constant "runs" at different energies,
and involves an utterly mysterious "shift" at the energy level
of the electron.

Giving your code to me is useless, because, like I said, I am
not a coder. Please give your code to someone who has the
computing power to determine even higher values of $\varpi(x)$ ,
as that would allow me to complete, or at least further refine
the counting function.

Maybe that's asking too much, but this is, after all, mathematical
territory that has never been explored! We are the first!

Don

Don Blazys · 2012-12-16, 16:51

To: "science_man_88"
(as opposed to "science_man_#2"):

Well, since you seem to think that this thread is...

Quoting "science_man_88"
(as opposed to "science_man_#2"):

Quote:

...not all that popular.

then neither you, nor any of your "friends" with names like
"pixie -doodle" and "science_man_#2" should be posting on it!

There are plenty of other threads that "require your attention".
You and your fake named friends should "hang out over there".

Don Blazys · 2012-12-16, 22:36

Quoting "rogue":

Quote:

Don, it is obvious that you have little skill in writing proofs
and have no concept of what is required for a rigorous proof.
If I took your proof to a professor of mathematics that they
would laugh me out of the building because if its glaring problems.
Fortunately I'm smart enough to see some of those glaring
problems myself and don't need to make a fool of myself.
I see no further point in trying to pound logic into your head
because clearly it doesn't accept logical inputs.

At this point, I doubt that anybody in this forum believes that
your proof is correct, even those that have yet to graduate
from college.

Much like a kindergarden teacher gives a child a lollypop for
answering a question, the "professional" math community
gives each other "lollypops" in the forms of "awards", "medals",
"prizes" and other meaningless "rewards" for answering questions.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...dKAwZ-aKUNX2i9

There is no "glory" in mathematics, and my only motivation is curiosity.

Think about it. Perhaps the biggest "star" in mathematics today is
Andrew Wiles, but I don't see him among throngs of "screaming fans".
Indeed, most people don't even know who he is, and many of the few
who do tend to view him as a rather boring "nerd".

Perhaps that is why the "professional" math community gave him
several "lollypops", to "make up" for that and to make him "feel good"!

Grigori Perelman, on the other hand and in stark contrast to Wiles,
turned down several such "lollypops", including a "million dollar
lollypop", for solving the Poincare conjecture, telling that "professional"
math community that he didn't care about or want any of their
"lollypops", and that they can go ahead and suck on those "lollypops"
themselves!

So, while Wiles is sucking on his "lollypops", I am siding with Perelman.

I too couldn't care less about the "professional" math community or
their silly "lollypops"! As far as I'm concerened, they can keep their
funny money "hundred thousand dollar lollypop" and "go shopping"
like the "girly men" that they are!

I never asked you to take my proof to a professor of mathematics,
nor will I ever ask anyone to do so. Here's why.

Several very high ranking professors of mathematics, (one of them
with Phd's in both physics and math), did take my proof to other
members of their math departments, only to be chided and ridiculed
without mercy!

Their careers were actually beginning to suffer as word got around
their campuses that they were siding with me!

That really made me "sick to my stomach" because both of these
professors are fine men who didn't deserve that kind of treatment.
I felt horrible about what happened to them because of me and
told them both that I will go on alone because I don't have a math
career to protect.

I recently told a young student, who is very close to getting his
degree the very same thing.

Professor "B.B." (if you read this, then you know who you are.)
explained to me that the real problem is that the vast majority of
mathematicians simply can't handle the fact that the identity:

$\left(\frac{T}{T}\right)*c^{3}=T*\left(\frac{c}{T}\right)^{\frac{\frac{3*\ln(c)}{\ln(T)}-1}{\frac{\ln(c)}{\ln(T)}-1}}$

precludes the substitution of

$\left(\frac{c}{c}\right)$ for $<br /> \left(\frac{T}{T}\right)$

and thereby irrefutably demonstrates that Peano's "symmetry axiom
of equality", as well as the related "substitution axiom of equality" are
both badly flawed and that Hilbert's second problem must therefore
be answered accordingly... in the negative!

You see Mark, the most important part of a "proof by contradiction"
is of course, the contradiction! The rest are just details and merely
a superficial matter of convention and presentation. I can easily
re-rwite my proof to accomodate and nullify your "objections", but I
won't, because frankly, I don't expect you or most of the "professional"
math community to overcome your own incredulity regarding my negation
of Peano's axioms.

Thus, I am now showing you, along with everybody else here, only the
contradiction, which solves Hilbert's second problem by demonstrating
that Peano's axioms are badly flawed.

So, here again is the question that should convince you all that the
symmetry and substitution axioms are badly flawed and should not be
taught in school.

Given the identity:

$\left(\frac{T}{T}\right)*c^{3}=T*\left(\frac{c}{T}\right)^{\frac{\frac{3*\ln(c)}{\ln(T)}-1}{\frac{\ln(c)}{\ln(T)}-1}}$

can we substitute

$\left(\frac{c}{c}\right)$ for $<br /> \left(\frac{T}{T}\right)$ ?

"LaurV" says:

Quote:

Yes.

"Rajula" says:

Quote:

Yes or no.

Paul Leyland says:

Quote:

No

Mark Rodenkirch says:

Quote:

No.

Don Blazys says:

Quote:

No.

Wouldn't you know it, all three mathematicians who
are not hiding behind fake names say No!

And thus, the consensus is leaning in the direction
that those axioms are indeed badly flawed!

Does anyone else here have the courage to
simply answer yes or no without any commentary
whatsoever?

chalsall · 2012-12-16, 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Does anyone else here have the courage to simply answer yes or no without any commentary whatsoever?

No.

Don Blazys · 2012-12-16, 22:45

Thanks chalsall!

Merry Christmas and happy New Year to you and yours!

Don.

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

2012-12-16, 22:45	#594
Don Blazys Feb 2011 163 Posts	Thanks chalsall! Merry Christmas and happy New Year to you and yours! Don.