Right angled triangle combinations(3,4,5....)

[GAHD]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Channeling the spirit of Orby?

Seagram's Five Star Whisky was produced by Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Waterloo. There is a discrepancy as to when the product originated. In 1960, it was pre-tested as "Five Star Special". In 1961, it was labelled "Five Star Special" and in 1962 the named changed to "Five Star". It was successful very quickly, and was the first brand in Canada to reach 1,000,000 cases in 1974. Features of the package included a star with a "5" on it. It is a four year old blended whisky (the extra star designates extra quality). In 1975, they changed to a five-year-old whisky. This was the first brand to ever be pre-tested by consumers across Canada under the supervision of a leading research organization before it was marketed for sales. - source

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by GAHD

Seagram's Five Star Whisky was produced by Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Waterloo. There is a discrepancy as to when the product originated. In 1960, it was pre-tested as "Five Star Special". In 1961, it was labelled "Five Star Special" and in 1962 the named changed to "Five Star". It was successful very quickly, and was the first brand in Canada to reach 1,000,000 cases in 1974. Features of the package included a star with a "5" on it. It is a four year old blended whisky (the extra star designates extra quality). In 1975, they changed to a five-year-old whisky. This was the first brand to ever be pre-tested by consumers across Canada under the supervision of a leading research organization before it was marketed for sales. - source

That would be "no" then.

Bill

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

5.14880622379082621171 x 10^46

How's that?

Goodness, Unc, you should know better than that!

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by GAHD

damn, ok so no more playing with numbers while my body is full of recreational chemicals.

This is a perfect quote for the thread on how MJ or other chemicals work in your body and on your brain. I don't suppose you think you can go jump in a car and drive too do you?

Anyway, but off the subject.

Fermat's last theorem, sounds like it has been discussed here before.

[UncleAl]

Goodness, Unc, you should know better than that!

5.14880622379082621171 x 10^46 either way

That is correct as stated. I didn't say Fermat's Last Theorem didn't win in the next decimal place,

http://www.codehappy.net/calculator.htm
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~elkies/ferm.html

Faith has no place in science. When an impossible result appears, start from scratch and trace down the error. An unfortunate number of Hypography posts state the obviously impossible, then insist science is wrong. It doesn't work that way. Unless the poster can identify a sour founding postulate or falsifying empirical evidence, the poster is trivially wrong without further argument. Science is 100% internally self-consistent.

Don't invest in anything that violates conservation laws or thermodynamics. Euclid was globally wrong (e.g., hyperbolic and elliptic geometries, then Thurston), but is still OK locally. His Fifth (Parallel) Postulate is weak. Science has many possibly weak postulates. One need only demonstrate a reproducible counterexample.

[cwes99_03]

The point of this thread unc was that a, b, and c be whole numbers and that the relationship be a^2 + b^2 = c^2 exactly. Not approximations.

[Roadam]

True cwes99_03, but also I preffered numbers up to hundred or maybe thousand and not more.....

So,: 3,4,5;7,24,25;24,70,74;.....
Missed any?

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Roadam

True cwes99_03, but also I preffered numbers up to hundred or maybe thousand and not more.....

So,: 3,4,5;7,24,25;24,70,74;.....
Missed any?

These are all the unique integer right tiriangles up to a=100. None of these are bigger versions of another triangle (like 6,8,10). We studied these here as PIRT (Perfect Integer Right Triangles) but they are also know as Primitive Right Triangles.

Check the link I provided in post #2.

3	4	5
5	12	13
7	24	25
8	15	17
9	40	41
11	60	61
12	35	37
13	84	85
15	112	113
16	63	65
17	144	145
19	180	181
20	21	29
20	99	101
21	220	221
23	264	265
24	143	145
25	312	313
27	364	365
28	45	53
28	195	197
29	420	421
31	480	481
32	255	257
33	56	65
33	544	545
35	612	613
36	77	85
36	323	325
37	684	685
39	80	89
39	760	761
40	399	401
41	840	841
43	924	925
44	117	125
44	483	485
45	1012	1013
47	1104	1105
48	55	73
48	575	577
49	1200	1201
51	140	149
51	1300	1301
52	165	173
52	675	677
53	1404	1405
55	1512	1513
56	783	785
57	176	185
57	1624	1625
59	1740	1741
60	91	109
60	221	229
60	899	901
61	1860	1861
63	1984	1985
64	1023	1025
65	72	97
65	2112	2113
67	2244	2245
68	285	293
68	1155	1157
69	260	269
69	2380	2381
71	2520	2521
72	1295	1297
73	2664	2665
75	308	317
75	2812	2813
76	357	365
76	1443	1445
77	2964	2965
79	3120	3121
80	1599	1601
81	3280	3281
83	3444	3445
84	187	205
84	437	445
84	1763	1765
85	132	157
85	3612	3613
87	416	425
87	3784	3785
88	105	137
88	1935	1937
89	3960	3961
91	4140	4141
92	525	533
92	2115	2117
93	476	485
93	4324	4325
95	168	193
95	4512	4513
96	247	265
96	2303	2305
97	4704	4705
99	4900	4901
100	621	629
100	2499	2501

Bill

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

That is correct as stated. I didn't say Fermat's Last Theorem didn't win in the next decimal place

Unc, you wrote a plain '=' sign and did not give a range, therefore it was not "correct as stated". This thread started with a question, it is not a strange claim, so instead of cluttering it up with off-topic junk, why don't you go back to your freshman calculus courses?

[sebbysteiny]

Seeing as things are getting so agro, I thought I might join in the fireworks.

Technically speaking, no 3,4,5 triangle (or other entirely whole number sided triangles) actually exist. We are living in a 4 dimensional universe in curved space time and the angles of triangles do not add up to exactly 180 degrees and therefore, a triangle of length 3 cm and 4cm will not have a hypotonuse of exactly 5 cm. If we were living in a flat 4 dimensional universe, or even a 3 dimensional universe, maybe it would, but we are not.

Don't believe me? Try building a right angled triangle of length 30000 Km by 40000km by 50000 km and you will see that the edges will not fit absolutely perfectly.