John Link
-
Posts
349 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by John Link
-
-
Sorry John. I'm getting glimpses of what I am onto, and am trying to combine them into a combination of explaination, supplimented by picture where I'm having difficulty explaining.
What I'm seeing here is like a 3-d application of Euclid's Pythagorean proof. Right now that's the best I can do.
I think why this thread looks like a conversation with myself, is that I'm still trying to flesh out the connections in my mind.
That makes sense. I look forward to reading your summary when you're ready to write it.
-
Thank-you.
I wish I could summarize it better.
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.
-
This is becoming way more complex that I thought it was at first.
The block illustrations are like a three dimensional Euclidean puzzle. The quantity of blocks generated by X blocks to the nth power are assembled into the hexahedrens.
The a, b, a-b relationships are used to subdivide the hexahedrons into the list of blocks described in post 52 and post 53. Does that help any?
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?
-
Sorry, it should have read post 46.
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 think I just posted a summary in post 47.
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?
-
Posts 29, 30, 33 and 35 turn out to be looking at a cube, not the triangle. While an interesting exercise, it turns out that in trying to see what made it tick, I lost track of what the "it" was.
Might you summarize anything useful you've discovered in your posts above?
-
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
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.
-
-
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
-
This is the guy playing John Galt. Really directors? REALLY?
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:
When the third installment comes, in July 2014, we’ll probably get another all-new cast. “It’s hard to lock people down,” says Aglialoro.
-
Brian Doherty is in with a good review.
http://reason.com/ar...lection-edition
Anyone planning to go to a midnight showing? Even I'm waiting till tomorrow.
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:
When the third installment comes, in July 2014, we’ll probably get another all-new cast. “It’s hard to lock people down,” says Aglialoro.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/
-
-
Mathematical terms like "irrational", "imaginary", "transcendental" have nothing to do with the supposed "existence" or "non-existence" of such numbers. In that sense a "real" number is certainly not more "real" than an "irrational" number!
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).
-
Why π is an irrational number
This is a question I've had for over 5 months and recently I think I've found the perfect solution for it. This is the first draft of my thesis. Be in mind that I'm only a 17-year-old engineering student and that English is my second language. Also, it is possible (and probable) that many other people have written about this, but I've come up with what I've written by myself.
According to the Euclidean geometry, a circle is a two-dimensional figure formed by the points equidistant from a center. This set of points is called a circumference and the distance between them and the center is called radio.
The ratio between the circumference and the radius of any circle, according to Euclid, is 2π, π being a number close to 3.14.
Throughout history, people tried to figure out the exact value of π, until Lambert proved using tangent theory that π was irrational number, meaning that it can not be defined as a fraction of a whole and, more importantly, does not correspond to anything that exists (hence the term irrational).
But how is this true? How can a figure that we supposedly see every day have an irrational measurement, i.e., a nonexistent one?
The answer to this intriguing question is that Euclidean circles do not exist. It is impossible to find more than four points that have the same physical distance from a central point.
You can see it when trying to find points equidistant from another point on a Cartesian plane in R2 (x, y). This is true regardless of the size of the plane.
(Note: only natural numbers can be used in this plan because there are only natural numbers in the universe. There aren't two atoms and a half, and even without knowing what is the basic unit of the universe, we know it has a specific x, y, z dimension.)
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.
-
In an offhanded way you suggested that LP didn't have the integrity to admit when he was wrong. Do you disavow your prognostications and admit you were wrong about what you sneeringly suggested LP would say? Or are you a hypocrite?
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.
-
Furthermore, it's possible that you have sought to tarnish me in the same attack, by referencing (but not naming) "another pontiff." (Though it's also possible you mean John Link, or someone else; I've certainly never called upon anyone to "recant" their previous positions.)
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)
"Fermat's Last Theorem" by Amir D. Aczel
in Nonfiction
Posted
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.