John Link

If it is, then please provide a clear statement of what you intend to prove and then carefully go through the steps of your proof.

That makes sense. I look forward to reading your summary when you're ready to write it.

Actually you've supplied no summary at all! A summary would require you to start from scratch explaining your ideas. It seems you might be on to something interesting, but I have no desire to wade through your meanderings which I suspect are full of dead ends. And your posts 59 and 60 are just more of your conversation with yourself.

No, it does not! I think you might get a few people interested in your ideas if you were to write a summary that explained things from scratch. If you don't do that I expect that you will continue to have a conversation all by yourself. If that's what you want, then go ahead. But if you want to interest anyone else in your ideas then please write a summary that starts from scratch and assumes the reader knows nothing about your subject. Got it?

I don't consider post 46 to be a summary of your ideas. There's no way to know, from that post alone, what you're talking about.

I'm the one who wrote post 47, and I don't see any summary in your recent posts.

dream_weaver, are you going to write a summary of your ideas so that others might understand your thoughts, or are you simply having a conversation with yourself?

Might you summarize anything useful you've discovered in your posts above?

I have not read the proof cited above, but I consider it possible that Fermat might have had, or someone else might discover, a much more elegant and insightful proof that is much shorter than 109 pages. I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time that a long proof could be replaced by a much shorter one, but I don't have any examples at hand to cite.

Rand Paul has now been speaking for about seven and one half hours.

Listen to Rand Paul's inspiring words in defense of our freedom as he now speaks in the Senate. http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

What is this nonsense? "You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day"

Gary Johnson in New York.

Here is the correct link to the article in the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingto..._b_2066189.html

It doesn't matter how the actor who plays John Galt in Part II looks because in Part II we see him only shadow and in Part III someone else will play Galt. From http://www.slate.com...ns_.single.html:

I'm going with my wife and some friends tonight at 7:40 on 42nd Street in Manhattan. My wife and I rewatched Part I last night and I was even more disappointed than I was last year, maybe because I've watched so much Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire, The Good Wife, and Damages since then. I'm disappointed that the cast for Part II is entirely different from that for Part I but I hope that Part II be more satisfying than Part I by doing a better job of following the book. Who is John Galt?

From http://www.slate.com...ns_.single.html: Huh? For how many seasons did the cast of The Sopranos last? How about Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire, The Good Wife, or Damages?

Here's a link to a review that I think is right on the mark: http://www.filmschoo...better-film.php

I just checked at imdb.com and I see that Part I and Part II have exactly zero actors in common. I head heard that the actors playing Dagny and Rearden had been changed but I'm amazed to learn that not a single actor from Part I will appear in Part II. Will Part III have yet another completely different cast? Who is John Galt? Part I: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/ Part II: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1985017/

moved to another thread: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23552&#entry294957

Furthermore, let's remember that the real numbers include the irrational numbers, which in turn include transcendental numbers (but not all of them, since complex [or imaginary] numbers may be transcendental).

If you keep up this sort of nonsense I predict (and hope!) that you will never become an engineer. You've made two gross errors: 1) You claimed that irrational numbers do not exist. ("How can a figure that we supposedly see every day have an irrational measurement, i.e., a nonexistent one?") 2) You've claimed that only natural numbers exist. ("Note: only natural numbers can be used in this plan because there are only natural numbers in the universe.") I suggest you reread Lambert's proof and study it until you understand it. You might also want to study other proofs which you can find here: http://en.wikipedia....;_is_irrational I might also suggest that you discuss what you've written with a professor of mathematics, but be prepared for an earful unless you find someone with the patience of a saint. John Link P.S. I said you made two gross errors, but that was only up to the point where I stopped quoting.

Speaking ex cathedra, (after all, I am a pontiff, so I get do do that), I admit that I was surprised that Peikoff recanted to the extent that he did, and that therefore my prognostication was incorrect.

Well, I am a pontiff, and I did say something to the effect that those who defended LP's first date-rape podcast ought either to recant or to disagree with Peikoff's reversal. I am now hereby threatening any such person who does not take one of those two actions with excommunication from the Church of Either/Or. Pope John Peter LIII (fallen-away Catholic)