Prev: How small must the chance of error be before we accept something as true and certain?
Next: about understanding conjugate roots in Q[x]-
From: spudnik on 2 Aug 2010 20:20
that might be worded,
as a neccesary condition, but
that certainly wouldn't disprove Fermat's "last" theorem
(iff it was the key to his Method
in "descartesian" geometry .-)

> You mean to tell me that all I have to do is prove that the unites are
> not dimensionless and the theorem is disproved, or must at least be
> reworded?

thus:
the "two groups" of the PR team are well in evidence;
a like example is the promotion of Cheeny's policy
of the 3rd Invasion of Sudan. the celebrities are enough, but
the real carrying of the policy is the "free curriculum,"
deployed in middleschools by AllstateTM.

yes, I really, really believe that
oilcos are utterly against BP's cap&trade derivatives --
same as the old cap&trade derivatives!

thus: the Liberal Media, oWned by consWervatives?
> not only did the consortium actually prove that
> Gore shot his feet off in Florida, but it did not
> even *mention* what happened to him in Michigan and Arkansas

thus: water vapor is the greatest glasshouse gas, and
also the primary problem in GCMs, since CO2 is not present
on Earth in all four phases.
actually, the main problem is conceptual, as
they only deal with "concentration of emmissions,"
as well as attempts at clouds & snowvoer (albedo),
as opposed to anything that *causes* the emmissions
(viz the jet-stream .-)

thus: the same can be said for F. Sred Finger;
they just don't want to look at his CV, if
they can beleive that he is getting big bucks from an oilco
-- like they really oppose the Kyoto Protocol, or
Waxman's old '91 cap&trade.
> The submissions Inhofe recieved are undoubtly from scientists.

thus: I remain, yr humble servant ... even though, nevermind!
> looked up "vis viva," and it is not Coriolis's thing, as
> I stated. nor was your linear ideal of Galileo, but
> apparently from Descartes and Isaac "non fingo" Newton....
> anyway, the "bending of light," per Bernoulli's brachistoshrone,
> is really of a "photon" per se, not the 3d waveform; that is,
> the problem was stated as ray-tracing, or "geometrical optics."

thus: there are no photons; do you beleive that sound
is particulate, because of a mathematical use of "phonons,"
that is to say, a quantum of sound?
as for antimatter, there is no antilight, so
it's a bit of a stretch to say that "every thing is not antimatter."
> Speed of c nature only gives to messanger particles.

thus: iff Universe is expanding faster & faster,
there goes any programme d'espace!... (for those
of you, who believe in Pascal's Plenum,
like herr doktor-professor Albert .-)
> Contradicted by observations.

thus: how can a massless & momentumless "photon" have polarity,
let-alone wavelength & frequency?
didn't Young essentially overthow Newton's untheory
(wherein corpuscles go faster in denser media) ??
> (NMR)
> signal generation and reception, and even in accepted texts, it is
> frequently described in terms of absorption and emission of radio
> waves, or radiation, by a two-level quantum system. … This difficulty
> is examined, and an explanation of the signal given whereby Faraday's
> law is explained simply in terms of an exchange of virtual photons. …

thus: ah, so; light is relatavistic, because
its waves "go" through no medium, or redshifts are dopplerian,
if the object is going at some fraction of lightspeed
-- not velocity -- w.r.t "free space?"
I may have muddled this, or you have.
> That's what distinguishes relativistic Doppler from the Doppler in
> medium-carried signals. Different basis, similar outcome.

thus: the pytahgorean theorem is perfectly dimensional, as
he and I both concern ourselves with "circling," instead
of "tatragoning." that is, "Einstein's proof" via similarity,
which he probably found at the gymnasium
in Euclid, is merely diagrammatic as he gave it;
the actual construction *is* the lunes proof
(Hippocrates', I think, but different than the Oath's .-)

thus: in spite of his slogan about phase-space,
Minkowski was a fantastic Nd geometer. anyway,
it's downright innumerate to worry about it,
without actually peeking at l'OEuvre de Fermatttt, but
Hipparchus' (or Hippocrates') lunes proof is all
that you need for the dimensionality of the 2d pythag. thm.,
if not the 3d pair of them (quadruplets).
the main thing, though, is that Fermat didn't have
to prove n=3, since his proof apparently applied
to all of the odd primes; only the special case
of n=4 does not fall to teh well-known lemma
for composite exponents, and this he showed,
in one of his rare expositions.

thus: too bad, the unit associated with the pound, had
to be associated with The newton -- the plagiarist,
the spook, the freemason, the corpuscular "theorist" ...

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net/online-books/

--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: How small must the chance of error be before we accept something as true and certain?
Next: about understanding conjugate roots in Q[x]-