A Mathematical Emergency.

[logy]

Originally Posted by ughaibu

Those using a japanese keyboard might take issue with this, when I tried experimenting with Latex I found very little correspondence between the instructions and the output.

well, it would be hard for me to comment on that since i have already lerned to program in most of the common programing and scripting laguage. i guess it would be tricky to get used to at first like many things in life, and there are plenty of tutorials out there as mentioned before. when i stared with programming, i found that it is important to know what the besic symbols represent and how to use them. in LaTex, there are 5: { } [ ] ( ) / \ (3 types of brackets and 2 types of slashes) if you manage ot get a good idea of what each of them means and how to use it, then i expect that you will find LaTex much, much easier !

[Don Blazys]

I figured it out! The "Smilies" don't appear on the "post reply" screen but do appear once the reply is submitted!

Moreover, it is possible to check if the correct "Smiley" has been put up simply by clicking on the "preview post" box.

Not bad for a guy who never even touched a "personal computer" in his entire life!

You see, old dogs can learn new tricks!

And now...

to celebrate!

[Don Blazys]

Now that I know how to put up "Smilies", my next challenge is to learn how to post equations in LaTex, but that will take a little more time so please be patient.

I honestly don't find equations written in LaTex "easier to read", but that's just me. Therefore, I will indeed learn to post in LaTex for the sake of those who require it, because I really do want everyone to understand the incredible, important and irrefutable result in post #75, which pretty much "sums up" this entire topic.

You know, I spent over three years in Japan, mostly in Osaka, and was very, very impressed by the overall intelligence of the Japenese people.

Their students study much harder and more diligently than their American counterparts, and from what I have seen first hand, when it comes to math and science, it's simply "no contest".

LaTex or no LaTex, my guess is that what I said in post #75 will be understood by Japenese teachers and students long before it is understood by teachers and students in the United States.

Don.

[DaveTO]

I find this thread really frustrating. I know nothing about what your equation means, or the implications of it, I just like to try and learn things and enjoy a lot of the discussions here. However, along with the last person who joined to comment here I think there is a need to point a few things out.

Don, I keep seeing you write that you just began using a computer. That is a fine excuse for not using LaTeX. Or at least it was two months ago. It seems that you are spending more time writing about your little understanding of computers than it takes to actually learn anything about them. Instead of saying you don't know how, try spending five minutes of your time looking up how to use it.

I think the mods and other users here are being a little too nice about everything considering how unwilling you are to help them out. If the great minds of the past didn't use LaTeX, should that affect your use of it? Of course not. When you write a formula on paper you are using "LaTeX" automatically, unless everything you handwrite looks like this: ((2/3^5)/7)-35. But of course it doesn't, so why force people to read it that way here and then spend their time translating it into something more legible?

Your last post must be a joke also. Even if what you said is true, how would it affect the people who are critiquing you right now? They are surely smarter than the average student and most likely the majority of teachers, whether the nationality is Japanese, Swedish, American, or any other. If you really feel that the people on this forum are that far under the intelligence needed to understand your formula, why don't you stop posting here and send it to a place that can actually accomplish your goal, like an academic journal? I know the answer, and I am sure many others here do, but are being too kind to admit it to you directly.

Stop posting excuses, they don't matter here. Ignorance should never be an excuse, saying you don't want to learn something or that you never needed to before is a terrible way to approach anything. Answer their questions, accommodate their needs if they are reasonable, argue your point, and you can prove your point soon enough provided you are right. If you aren't willing to do these simple steps then don't bother wasting everybody's time.

Anyway, keep posting everybody, Im going back to the shadows of the internet =D.

[Don Blazys]

I also find this thread very frustrating.

When I first started posting, I never even heard of "LaTex" and was very surprised when my not using it became a "major issue".

This thread then went way off topic when those silly non-existent "indeterminate forms" somehow became the subject of discussion.

I make no excuses and take full responsibility for these things.

I will try to refrain from posting any more equations until I find the time to learn how to write them in LaTex.

I don't own a computer so the time required to practice my "computer skills" is quite limited. However, I am making progress, as is evidenced by my recently aquired ability to put up "Smilies", so please be patient.

As I said before, this entire topic can be summed up in post #75, and when I finally write those equations in LaTex, then both Japenese, and Americans will realize that problems such as the "Beal Conjecture" and "Fermat's Last Theorem" are the real "joke" because they don't even exist if we represent and eliminate common factors correctly using "Blazys terms", which are the only algebraic terms that actually prevent idiotic "unit common factors" from occurring.

In the meantime, there still might be a few "old school" mathematicians out there who are perfectly capable of understanding post #75, even though it is not written in Latex.

Once they get over the initial shock that the equations are indeed correct, they just might take it upon themselves to join me in my cause... my crusade for truth in mathematics.

The truth, of course, is that unity is not a common factor.

Present day algebraic terms are obviously inconsistent with that truth, and I believe that our teachers and students deserve algebraic terms that are consistent with that truth.

Don.

[ughaibu]

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

both Japenese, and Americans will realize that problems such as the "Beal Conjecture" and "Fermat's Last Theorem" are the real "joke" because they don't even exist if we represent and eliminate common factors correctly using "Blazys terms", which are the only algebraic terms that actually prevent idiotic "unit common factors" from occurring

There's a nice proof, due to Galileo, that all circles have the same circumference. Do you accept that proposition?

[Don Blazys]

To: Ughaibu,

Galileo's "proof that all circles have the same circumference" is quite interesting, and in my opinion, requires "proper interpretation".

In Galileo's "cone in bowl" construct, the volume of the "top of the cone" is equal to the volume of the "top of the bowl", while the area of the "base of the cone" is equal to the area of the "base of the top of the bowl".

In the end, as the "plane" approaches the very top of the "cone in bowl" configuration, all that is left is the "tip of the cone" which is essentially a "point", and the "outer rim of the bowl", which is essentially a "curved line".

Now, the "volume or area" of the resulting "point" can still be viewed as being "equal to" the "volume or area" of the resulting "curved line" in that neither a "point" nor a "curved line" can actually posess any "volume" or "area"!

In other words, if the

(volume or area of any "point")=0

and the

(volume or area of any "curved line")=0

then with respect to volume and area,

(any "point")=(any "curved line" or "circumference")

because

0=0.
__________________________________________________ _________________________________

That's one way of looking at it... here's another.

As the "plane" approaches the very top of the "cone in bowl" configuration, a final "point inside a circle" configuration can never actually be achieved without the plane and cone "losing contact" with each other and therefore "compromising" (rendering meaningless) the entire model or paradigm.

In other words, the definition of a "point" as "that which has no part" would actually require the abscence of a cone because clearly, the "tip" of a cone is a "part" of a cone!

Well, those are my thoughts on the subject.

However, if you "Google search" (Areas Explain Galileo's "Miraculous" Geometry Problem) then you will find some other thoughts on it, as well as some very profound commentary by that trancsendent genius Charles Arthur Mercier.

Don.

[ughaibu]

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

Galileo's "proof that all circles have the same circumference" is quite interesting, and in my opinion, requires "proper interpretation"

My point was that this exemplified confusion about dimensions. The limit has no two dimensional component and the one dimensional component, ie the perimeters, were never the same.
Archimedes employed a similar construction in proposition 2 of The Method, without the confusion and in a more radical way. The Method hadn't been recovered at the time of Galileo. Were there only two great minds who thought somewhat alike on this matter? And only one discovered a wonderful analogic method that generated exact results.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Don Blazys

I also find this thread very frustrating.

When I first started posting, I never even heard of "LaTex" and was very surprised when my not using it became a "major issue".

Rightly or wrongly, I'm afraid many papers and posts are dismissed out of hand if the equations are not formatted with something like LaTex.

If you like, Don, I could help you along with the basics and I'm sure you'll pick it up. There is a thread dedicated to practicing LaTex in the test forum. Think of the thread as a place to draw in the sandbox. It's for practicing and nobody is going to mind if you use it as such. I've written you a post there, just follow the link:

Latex Practice Ground

~modest

[Don Blazys]

To: Ughaibu,

Is "confusion" the same thing as "not knowing", or are they somehow different?

You know, as of yet, mathematics doesn't even have a well defined, all encompassing, universally established and accepted definition of that "one dimensional" object called a "line"!

Anyway, the relationships between Archimede's "The Method, Proposition 2" and Galileo's "Miraculous Geometry Problem" is such a fascinating topic, with so much room for creative thought and expression, that it threatens to "hijack" this thread, which I summarized in post #75.

This topic definitely deserves a thread of it's own!

Don.