To: Nootropic,
Okay, since you don't know that variables are defined by their domains, I will help you along with the first question: "Which term has the better defined variables?"
Given the "Blazys equation":
where the variables all represent non negative integers, if the terms are considered seperately, then the variables comprising the term on the right have the intrinsic domains:
T={2, 3, 4...}, a={1, 2, 3...} and x={0, 1, 2...}.
Note that no two variables have the same intrinsic domain and definition.
However, the variables comprising the term on the left have the domains:
T={1, 2, 3...}, a={0, 1, 2...} and x={0, 1, 2...}
where the variables "a" and "x" both have the exact same intrinsic domain and thus the exact same definition.
Clearly, the "Blazys term" on the right is comprised of "perfectly defined variables" while the term on the left is comprised of "abysmally defined variables". This makes the term on the right vastly superior to the term on the left.
Also, the term on the right is actually the first and only basic algebraic term (one multiplication, one exponentiation) in the entire history of mathematics to have this property!
That fact alone makes it utterly miraculous and gives it a lot more "clout" than the poorly defined term on the left because in mathematics, constructs that are perfectly defined constitute a higher order of logic than constructs that are poorly defined.
Thus, the term on the right, that I named a "cohesive term", is by far the most frightening animal that has ever been unleashed on the mathematical community, because whatever it indicates must be true for non-negative integers!
It also sheds new light on and brings into question all existing constructs and paradigms that foolishly allow unit common factors to occur, and is thus the source of great embarrassment to many in the math community. Others are simply jealous that they didn't think of it!
By the way, there are also many very good professional mathematicians (including a well known N.A.S.A./ J.P.L scientist) that have endorsed my work and have indicated (both in writing and verbally) that it is both interesting and thought provoking. (I posted a few of their letters on my website (donblazys.com).
Thus far, you have offered absolutely nothing of any substance.
I, on the other hand, am simply allowing the true equation to do my talking for me.
You see, I am actually a very humble person and freely admit that what I say doesn't really matter. However, what the equation says at T=1 matters very much, and sooner or later, the entire math community will have to come to grips with what the irrefutable properties of logarithms are telling us.
That will take more courage than currently exists in the math community.
You have in no way logically refuted, dismissed or dispelled the validity of my equation, but mindlessly persist in telling me that it is somehow "wrong". Trust me, the irrefutable properties of logarithms will never ever imply that something is "ridiculous" unless it really is!
Again, if it is wrong, then point out the error. Otherwise, see if you can muster up the courage to answer the three remaining questions in post #65.
Don.
