mersenneforum.org Standard crank division by zero thread
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2012-12-12, 12:19   #573
Don Blazys

Feb 2011

163 Posts

Quoting "rogue":
Quote:
 What you think of me as a person is not important to this thread, but if you choose to continue insulting me, then I'm sure that the moderators will be all too glad to ban you again.
They can ban me from this funky forum of fools all they want.
I really couldn't care less. As for what I think of you as a person,
well, all I really know about you is that you hide behind a fake name.
Gansta rappers and pole dancers also need to hide behind fake names
because deep inside, they are both afraid and ashamed of themselves.

Quoting "rogue":
Quote:
 I made two points in post 533. The first is that you need to fix the language of your proof... and remove "division by zero prevents" as stuff like that makes real mathematicians cringe.
Thank you. That is indeed a valid point and a good suggestion.
Any help that I can get in making my proof "ready for publication"
would be most welcome and much appreciated.

By the way, I hope that you were not insinuating that amateurs such
as Fermat, Boole, Blazys, and Fourier were not "real" mathematicians.
That would be like saying that The Beatles, none of whom ever got a
"degree" in music, were not "real" musicians. Indeed, they sold far more
records than all "formally educated" and "degreed" musicians combined!

Quote:
 ...i.e. specify the conditions of T in the beginning of your proof...
I already discussed that issue with a math professor from Pasadena Ca.
about thirteen years ago. It was his opinion that letting T represent
integers greater than unity was the strongest and most logical approach.

I happen to agree with that.

Letting T represent any positive real number other than unity would allow
the use of limits, but would then preclude viewing (T/T) as a cancelled
common factor.

Quoting "rogue":
Quote:
 The second presumes that your fomulae are correct. You have to prove that $T*({\frac{c}{T}})^{\frac{{\frac{(Z)*ln(c)}{ln(T)}-1}}{{\frac{ln(c)}{ln(T)}-1}}$ != i^j where i and j are integers > 2. Note that i could be an integer that is not equal to $T*({\frac{c}{T}})$.
The derivation of the identity:

$
\left(\frac{T}{T}\right)*c^{Z}=T*\left(\frac{c}{T}\right)^{\frac{\frac{Z*\ln(c)}{\ln(T)}-1}{\frac{\ln(c)}{\ln(T)}-1}}
$

is correct, and has been verified hundreds (if not thousands) of times.
My proof does not contain the variables i and j and your "argument"
involving them makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Quoting "rogue":
Quote:
 Don, step back for a second and look at steps 1 and 2 of your proof. Would you agree that $a^2 + b^2 = c^z$ has an infinite number of solutions for a, b, c > 1 and z > 2? If I changed the conditions of your proof to state that x and y >= 2, then your proof could be used to prove my statement to be false even though we both know it is true. Where in your proof do you prove that x and y must be greater than 2? In other words, why should your proof be true when x and y > 2, but not when x and y = 2? That is what you must prove and you have not done so. The point I'm trying to make, a point that others have tried to make and one that you are clearly missing, is that the values of a, b, x, and y have absolutely NO BEARING on your proof. I could just as easily prove that $f = c^z$ is impossible for f, c and z > 2 using your logic.
Look "rogue", there are many nations that we can discuss in this thread.
There is the American nation, the English nation, the French nation,
the German nation, the Italian nation, the Japenese nation and so on.

But the most important nation of all is the imagination!

In order to avoid redundancies and make my proof as short and compact
as possible, I presented my argument for the c term only. However, it is
both obvious and "understood" that the exact same argument applies to
the other two terms as well.

Thus, in order to understand my proof, you have to use your imagination
and imagine that all three terms have similar logarithmic identities.

I do appreciate your obsession with my work and I hope that helps.

Anyway, that's "strike two" in your attempts to find some "fatal flaw"
in my proof.

One more strike and "you're out".

 2012-12-12, 12:23 #574 BigBrother   Feb 2005 The Netherlands 2×109 Posts Just ban this tool.
 2012-12-12, 12:27 #575 Don Blazys     Feb 2011 2438 Posts You are the tool.
 2012-12-12, 12:33 #576 Don Blazys     Feb 2011 163 Posts Fool!
 2012-12-12, 14:20 #577 rogue     "Mark" Apr 2003 Between here and the 22×1,543 Posts Don, it is obvious that you have little skill in writing proofs and have no concept of what is required for a rigorous proof. If I took your proof to a professor of mathematics that they would laugh me out of the building because if its glaring problems. Fortunately I'm smart enough to see some of those glaring problems myself and don't need to make a fool of myself. I see no further point in trying to pound logic into your head because clearly it doesn't accept logical inputs. At this point, I doubt that anybody in this forum believes that your proof is correct, even those that have yet to graduate from college. If anyone in this forum (besides Don) believes his proof is true, please post. I would be curious to understand why you are still persuaded by his arguments. Don, I honestly believe that you are nothing but a troll. You know your proof is wrong, but you continue to post insults and other drivel because you want to get a response (or get the last word).
 2012-12-12, 14:47 #578 akruppa     "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 2,467 Posts I, on the other hand, believe that Don is nothing but a loser who indulges in a phantasy of achievement. He very much longs for showing those established mathematicians; my guess is he wanted to be one but never made it. So he makes up his own math where he can pretend to be right. He even said explicitly that even in the light of clear counterexamples he'd rather assume that everyone else and all of mathematics was wrong, but still not he - or he simply changes the statement to make the counterexample go away, as he has several times. It's a proper delusion. This thread has never been about actual math, only about Don Blazys. Getting him to admit that the proof is rubbish is not about pointing out the errors in his math, it's about getting him to admit that he never realized his dream, and never will. Good luck with that. Last fiddled with by akruppa on 2012-12-13 at 08:48 Reason: typo, add "go"
 2012-12-12, 16:29 #579 Flatlander I quite division it     "Chris" Feb 2005 England 207710 Posts "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.” So what is Don's score?
2012-12-12, 16:41   #580
rogue

"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

22·1,543 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by akruppa This thread has never been about actual math, only about Don Blazys. Getting him to admit that the proof is rubbish is not about pointing out the errors in his math, it's about getting him to admit that he never realized his dream, and never will. Good luck with that.
Unfortunately, I have held on to the belief that Don could be convinced that his proof is wrong, but apparently I have been delusional in that regard. Don does not comprehend the points that I and others have made, points that appear to be understood by the youngest members of this forum. As I have stated before, he is either willfully ignorant, incredibly stupid, or just a troll.

 2012-12-12, 17:07 #581 chappy     "Jeff" Feb 2012 St. Louis, Missouri, USA 22058 Posts But Rogue you haven't yet answered Don Blazys most insightful question yet! Are you a Gangsta Rapper or are you a Pole Dancer? Enquiring minds want to know! Let's see (GR v PD)...do a little dance with DeMorgan....carry the naught... therefore The moon is made of green cheese! Another brilliant proof by Don Blazys Chappy! Last fiddled with by chappy on 2012-12-12 at 17:08 Reason: blazys is not possessive
2012-12-13, 05:31   #582
philmoore

"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.

2×13×43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Don Blazys As for what I think of you as a person, well, all I really know about you is that you hide behind a fake name.
I've stayed out of this thread so far, but for crying out loud, Mark Rodenkirch has never hidden his identity AFAIK. Look at his publicly available software if you don't believe me. This kind of comment makes me think that you are a pretty poor excuse for a human being.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Don Blazys By the way, I hope that you were not insinuating that amateurs such as Fermat, Boole, Blazys, and Fourier were not "real" mathematicians.
Well it is certainly true that Fermat never published anything during his lifetime, so we'll let history be the judge of whether he was a "real" mathematician. Blazys, I'd never heard of before this thread, but his abusive comments towards others certainly don't inspire me to look any closer at his work. We'll let history be the judge in that case as well.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Don Blazys One more strike and "you're out".
I think in your case, one strike is more than sufficient.

2012-12-13, 08:30   #583
Don Blazys

Feb 2011

163 Posts

Quoting "chappy":
Quote:
 But Rogue you haven't yet answered Don Blazys most insightful question yet! Are you a Gangsta Rapper or are you a Pole Dancer?
Perhaps he's neither...

Clowns!... You forgot about clowns!

Clowns also use silly sounding fake names like
"Bozo", "Chucko", "Yucko", "Bubbles" and "Freckles".

This one:

httр://www.nwfdailynews.com/рoloрoly_fs/1.29479.1350169804!/fileImage/httрImage/image.jрg_gen/derivatives/landscaрe_445/navarre-fall-festival.jрg

goes by the name "Chappy the Clown".

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Uncwilly Miscellaneous Math 85 2017-12-10 16:03 req Math 4 2011-12-06 04:17 Mini-Geek Forum Feedback 21 2007-03-06 19:21 amateurII Miscellaneous Math 40 2005-12-21 09:42 jinydu Puzzles 5 2004-01-10 02:12

All times are UTC. The time now is 15:36.

Thu Jan 21 15:36:50 UTC 2021 up 49 days, 11:48, 0 users, load averages: 1.93, 1.97, 2.00