Electron’s puzzles.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: instructor's solutions manual for Linear dynamic systems and signals by Zoran Gajic
Next: What does a gluon look like?
From: spudnik on 27 May 2010 22:17 dood, is it OK if I call you, Th'orbert -- Dorb for short?... wel, you have a knack for short neologisms (gloss contains both "density" and "dinsity," as well as words that seem new, whether entymologically related to any thing. however, apart from one equation on the glide-through, didn't see no predictions xor hypotheses; just a *lot* of verbiage. also, some of what appeared to be 'Sixtiesisms, like, if that's a word, beside of Wow. I mean, REALLY, wow. thusNso: you are relying on rationals, that are decimals (in the base of ten, although some authors will call rationals "decimals," in any integral base, which is one class of solutions (what ever it's called, in what ever we're talking about)). in any case, it is almost a standard, that one use the base that is associated with the prime exponent ... which is really the meaning of some of Fermat's theorems & challenges [*]. and that makes me very happy, then very sad ... because you're probably trying to find some guru/god/guy or some goddess, who already wrote this up in the hither & yon of Vedic psychorama ... which reminds me of A.C.Clarke and the Satellevator Daytrippers, ba-doom/yeah. thusNso: Shell is about half British, but Netherlands is the big port o'call (also, the place to call when the windmill feathers, inapproprietly). why should I believe in your kind of free energy, and how could I measure it (sik) ??... maybe, it really is "free trade." > Then introduce free energy technology [ellipsis]. ------- * anyway, for those of you/us/them in need of "skills," I want to suggest Fermat's "reconstruction of Euclid's porisms;" they seem rather a r b i t r a r y , but that's just me, "you, idiota!" --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 27 May 2010 22:26
.... and, one only needs to do prime exponents/bases, "because of the easy lemma for composite bases, except for n=4, where Fermatttt said, 'Oops, c'ette une case especially -- need an other proof!'" heh-heh; not in my book. thusNso: dood, is it OK if I call you, Th'orbert -- Dorb for short?... wel, you have a knack for short neologisms (gloss contains both "density" and "dinsity," as well as words that seem new, whether entymologically related to any thing. however, apart from one equation on the glide-through, didn't see no predictions xor hypotheses; just a *lot* of verbiage. also, some of what appeared to be 'Sixtiesisms, like, if that's a word, beside of Wow. I mean, REALLY, wow. thusNso: you are relying on rationals, that are decimals (in the base of ten, although some authors will call rationals "decimals," in any integral base, which is one class of solutions (what ever it's called, in what ever we're talking about)). in any case, it is almost a standard, that one use the base that is associated with the prime exponent ... which is really the meaning of some of Fermat's theorems & challenges [*]. and that makes me very happy, then very sad ... because you're probably trying to find some guru/god/guy or some goddess, who already wrote this up in the hither & yon of Vedic psychorama ... which reminds me of A.C.Clarke and the Satellevator Daytrippers, ba-doom/yeah. thusNso: Shell is about half British, but Netherlands is the big port o'call (also, the place to call when the windmill feathers, inapproprietly). why should I believe in your kind of free energy, and how could I measure it (sik) ??... maybe, it really is "free trade." > Then introduce free energy technology [ellipsis]. ------- * anyway, for those of you/us/them in need of "skills," I want to suggest Fermat's "reconstruction of Euclid's porisms;" they seem rather a r b i t r a r y , but that's just me, "you, idiota!" --Light: A History! http://wlym.com |