Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

ruveyn1

Regulars
  • Content Count

    351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by ruveyn1

  1. He and Jimmy Carter will have their portraits hung top front in the Hall of Disdain.
  2. Do two things. 1 Learn what a proof is 2. Write you proof out carefully and have a professional mathematician vet your proof for errors. If you can prove FLT by elementary means and you are under 45 years of age, I guarantee you will get a Fields Medal.
  3. Define Troll. I observe the rules of the forum. And during my little tete a tete with L.P on the David Brudnoy program (beamed out at 50 kw clear channel) I demonstrated that -at the time- he did not know beans about mathematical logic which was the topic of discussion. Who knows? Maybe he learned something since. That was 30 years ago. ruveyn1
  4. Do you have any idea of what constitutes a rigorous proof?
  5. Prove that and you will become an Immortal.
  6. Nice guys do not lie under oath or take an oath in vain. Especially as serious an oath as Presidents must affirm
  7. No. YOU do the math. You claimed the proof, now show it step by step so we can check to see if it is right.
  8. In addition to which: If Obama attempts to stay in power, the Army will step in and put an end to that pretending. There will be a coup or putsch from the military who will not obey orders from someone not constitutionally in power. The U.S. has been fortunate to avoid military takeovers, but a bold attempt at tyranny will be put down in a matter of days if not hours. The folks in the Army take their Oath seriously
  9. sorry about the error. A trivial corollary: once a collatz sequence hits a power of two, the game is over. You say you have a proof : "(x2+x2+xx-2)1/2 should show that xn+yn=zn has no nonzero solutions x,y,z for ALL n>2. I do not have the mathematical forte to convert it at this time. It is true, for the same reason that the hypotenuse of a square is incommensurate to its sides." Claims are cheap. Valid proofs are dear: Show the proof or be still.
  10. He won't. Obama has read the history books too. Look what happened to Julius Caesar when it even appeared he would crown himself king for life. Brutus who was like a son to him, turned on him. Et tu Brute? Tyrant Obama would become an instant target if he tried to rule permanently. ruveyn
  11. The real task was showing that x^n + y^n = z^n did not have nonzero solutions x, y, z for ALL n > 2. That stymied the world's best mathematicians for over 300 years. Here is a problem which if you can solve it will make you as famous as Dr. Wiles. It is the proof of the Collatz conjecture. I will define a function on the integers as follows: T(n) = n/2 if n is even T(n) = (3*n + 1)/2 if n is odd. Here is the problem: show that starting with any integer N if you keep applying the function T you will eventually get to 1. Example.. N = 7 7, 11, 17, 26, 13, 20, 10, 5, 4, 2, 1 That problem has been open since around 1950. Paul Erdos one of the great great mathematicians was of the opinion that mankind was not ready to solve that problem. It has already been show for N < 10^20 this is true, but a proof for ALL N remains to be found. All attempts to prove that the general proposition is undecidable have also failed. ruveyn1
  12. Well yes. Isn't that rather obvious. Only live sentient beings can do valuing. And where do I go from this? What useful conclusion does this logically imply?
  13. How does Rand Paul mange to take an excretion break while philibustering?
  14. Just about any sane and functional human being alive knows what a contradiction is and rejects the possibility of contradictions actually being fact. There must be something "hard wired" genetically into members of our species which account to that. O.K. It is not instinct (Rand forbid!), so what is it?
  15. I really doubt it. Some of the greatest mathematicians of all time have had a go at it, and Wiles was the one who finally did it after 300+ years. I will believe there is a short elementary proof when I see it with my own eyes.l
  16. Sure he did. He represented the power of lightning and he ruled other other gods (more or less). At one time, Greeks prayed to Zeus, made offerings and such like.
  17. Belief in Zeus seems to have died out. Why?
  18. It does not matter. Chavez is gone. Wishing pain on the dead is an exercise in futility. The dead can no long feel. The dead, as persons, no longer exist. ruveyn1
  19. Obama has no legal choice but to step down at the end of his current term. Even the bat-sh*t crazy democrats in the house will not tolerate a coup d'etat and the army surely will not support Obama if he tried something blatantly unconstitutional. Congress has no legal basis for preventing the election of the next president. There is an historical precedent. With the country split by a Civil War Lincoln did not declare an emergency. He stood for an election which he could have lost. In fact, he expected to lose. ruveyn1
  20. It does not follow. Just because something fails for the first gazillion does not mean it will not succeed for gazillion plus 1. You cannot, in general disprove non existence of something just by exhibiting a finite number of failures. Mathematicians very rarely work by empirical induction (not to be confused with arithmetic induction which is something completely different).
  21. Making the steps to go to X is a choice. What the steps are is a matter of science and technology. So there is the problem of determining what physical arrangements are necessary for a trip to X. Then there is the question of whether the trip is worth our while or not. The latter question is not a scientific question at all.
  22. Actually it isn't. It is a tautology. If a person takes the steps necessary to maintain his biological functions he may last a bit longer. If he fails to do so he won't last very long. That is simply a consequence of the fact that our biological engine exists far from thermodynamic equilibrium. In simple terms we have to eat, drink and maintain our body temperature in order to live. If we don't we will die. And in the long run no matter what we do, we die. At best we can delay our death a bit. I simply fail to see how that has any ethical import. What does it have to do with Right and Wrong?
  23. Given what it took to finally prove FLT is is fairly clear that Fermat did NOT have a proof that would stand up to modern standards of rigor. If you want to see how Wiles did it look at http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~anindya/fermat.pdf It is only 109 pages long. Fermat claimed his proof fit on the margin of a text book. ruveyn1
×
×
  • Create New...