Fermat's "Last" Theorem Disproved?
in [Math]
|
Prev: 'Relativistic' "Doppler" shift
Next: Intersection of Complex Submanifolds (Incl. Self-Int.) is positive
From: cjcountess on 4 Aug 2010 11:02 On Aug 3, 3:34 pm, Virgil <Vir...(a)home.esc> wrote: > In article > <53f3038c-59f4-4fa7-8c56-6372ee107...(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > Nonsense. Units may be certainly appended to numbers but if all numbers > already "include" all units then 2^2 would have to represent 2 kilograms > to the 2 meters power and simultaneoulsy 2 dynes to the 2 ohms power, > etc.. No because these are man made arbitrary unites, but just as a photon has measure of "mass" and "energy", that are equal, as well as "length", that is inversely proportional to it, and "time cycle" also associated with those measurements, an electron has these as well as "temp", "charge" and "gravity rest mass" all related through maathematical conversion factor c^2. This being the case the electron or c^2 might serve as natural conversion factor and basic natural unit related to many units of measurement. As far as dimensional analisis is concerned "sputnik", (E=mc^2) trancends "dimensional analisis", in the triditional sense, because conversion factor which is "c^2", is dimensional, and this conversion factor is between dimensions of E,m.T,t,,Q. Conrad J Countess
From: spudnik on 4 Aug 2010 13:09 how does it transcend that, if it is just "mass times length time length per time times time?" the shape that one uses to diagram is not so important, although the circle has a clear meaning to propogation of light -- great circle of the wavefront -- which is Bucky's "analysis." also, "E=mcc" isn't neccesarily the best formulary! > As far as dimensional analisis is concerned "sputnik", (E=mc^2) > trancends "dimensional analisis", in the triditional sense, because > conversion factor which is "c^2", is dimensional, and this conversion > factor is between dimensions of E,m.T,t,,Q. thus: the climate is changing rapidly, and, yet, "glasshouse warming" is totally differential from front to back w.r.t Sun, or from poles to equator, "globally." thus: I've read of Muslim places where deforestation is a nearly totalistic endeavor, for lumber, and that is probably the biggest factor. and, "global" warming actually is predominantly tropical, and that is just a big, fat Duh. thus: no; I want to know what they say about it, not the "yeah or neigh" and the CVs -- lies, polls, statistics. > Anyone wants to guess who the 3 dissending climatologists are ? thus: there is no such a thing as a Nobel in econ., probably for the same reason that there isn't one for math, but I don't know that Krugman knows this, or that his editor would allow him to publish it. however, the official title is "the Swedish Bank Prize [etc.]." --les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net Light, A History! http://wlym.com
From: Virgil on 4 Aug 2010 13:44 In article <70a49f46-86ca-4831-8887-c4e7ec29a9cc(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, cjcountess <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 3:34�pm, Virgil <Vir...(a)home.esc> wrote: > > In article > > <53f3038c-59f4-4fa7-8c56-6372ee107...(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > > Nonsense. Units may be certainly appended to numbers but if all numbers > > already "include" all units then 2^2 would have to represent 2 kilograms > > to the 2 meters power and simultaneoulsy 2 dynes to the 2 ohms power, > > etc.. > > No because these are man made arbitrary unites, but just as a photon > has measure of "mass" and "energy", that are equal, as well as > "length", that is inversely proportional to it, and "time cycle" also > associated with those measurements, an electron has these as well as > "temp", "charge" and "gravity rest mass" all related through > maathematical conversion factor c^2. > >> Be it ever so umble, there's no place like ohm. > > > > Shocking!!! > > Watt's this nonsense? Either I are squared, or > you guys need mho timeout. Resistance is futile. > > This being the case the electron or c^2 might serve as natural > conversion factor and basic natural unit related to many units of > measurement. > >> Be it ever so umble, there's no place like ohm. > > > > Shocking!!! > > Watt's this nonsense? Either I are squared, or > you guys need mho timeout. Resistance is futile. > > As far as dimensional analisis is concerned "sputnik", (E=mc^2) > trancends "dimensional analisis", in the triditional sense, because > conversion factor which is "c^2", is dimensional, and this conversion > factor is between dimensions of E,m.T,t,,Q. > >> Be it ever so umble, there's no place like ohm. > > > > Shocking!!! > > Watt's this nonsense? Either I are squared, or > you guys need mho timeout. Resistance is futile. And her grace, the countess, is still wrong!!! > > Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 4 Aug 2010 14:31 Virgil For your information I am a mam, and it is his grace, "Mr Countess" is RIGHT. A friend of mine and fellow poet "Janita Jackson" once read my work and interpretaed the EM spectrum as the Energy/Matter spectrum instead of the Electromagnetic spectrum. I informed her that she was wrong in calling the EM spectrum the Energy/Matter instead of the Electromagnetic tecnicaly as far as the term is popularly used but that she was in fact right in spite of that because the electromagnetic spectrum is the very spectrum in which energy turns to matter when its reaches the critical frequency/ wavelength of c^2. She also use to let us know that "thoughts", are things to, and as such we should pay more attention and respect to our ideas. The very nature of things which includes thoughts, that exist have by their very nature dimensionsThis include thoughts of things that supposedly have no dimensions such as so called dimensionless intergers. This being the case, there are no such things that exist, thoughts of things or otherwise, that have no dimensions. That is the long and the short of it. One poster emailed me saying that although Fermats theorem resembled geometry it is because at that time nuber theory was not as sophisticated as to use the dimensionless interger as is presently used today, more or less, and not because it is in fact based on geometry. But let me state that just as number theory advanced to the point where the dimensionless interger is used between than and now it could have very well advanced further to include the fact that all things in existence that indeed do exist do indeed have dimensions even if not obvious at first or numerous glances. E=mc^2 lets us know that even thoughts that are composed of energy have dimensions. And furthermore in case you did not know E=mc^2 transended the conservation laws of energy and mass as was than understood and likewise transends dimensional analisis ideas which are presently understood also. I will explain in more detail later. There is a new sheriff in town and he 's bringing the new law Conrad J Countess
From: spudnik on 4 Aug 2010 15:44
how many points on your little star, fool?... seriously, numbertheory is the only place where numbers are dimensionless, and a lot of us prefer to stay with rationals, thereinat, like Fermatttt. although fine scientists like Bellman assert that matrices (linear algebra) is the "higher arithmetic," it is numbertheorie, or Gauss's "queen of the sciences," with the consort being left to implication. (for instance, look at Stevin's _The Decimals_ .-) one has only to look at the Fermat curves, to see that his "last" theorem is indeed geometrical, as also seen in teh abstruse Wiles proof using "elliptic curves." > There is a new sheriff in town and he's bringing the New Math. thus: the climate is changing rapidly, and, yet, "glasshouse warming" is totally differential from front to back w.r.t Sun, or from poles to equator, "globally." thus: I've read of Muslim places where deforestation is a nearly totalistic endeavor, for lumber, and that's a big factor. and, "global" warming actually is predominantly tropical, and that is just a big, fat Duh. thus: no; I want to know what they say about it, not the "yeah or neigh" and the CVs -- lies, polls, statistics. > Anyone wants to guess who the 3 dissending climatologists are ? thus: there is no such a thing as a Nobel in econ., probably for the same reason that there isn't one for math, but I don't know that Krugman knows this, or that his editor would allow him to publish it. however, the official title is "the Swedish Bank Prize [etc.]." --les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net --Light, A History! http://wlym.com |