Prev: Referees (was Re: Collatz cartoon)
Next: For the person who has everything, a bottle to keep it in.
From: spudnik on 15 Mar 2010 21:29
note that there is an odd analogy
with Fermat's (Snell's) law of refraction,
compared to Descartes ham-handed set-up, and
Newton's corpuscular "theory," compared
to the qualitative work of Goethe and
the work of Young. and, of course,
the brachistochrone was *the* problem
for "the" calculus, the path of Least Time (only,
you just have to sort-of ignore the ballistical
aspect of ray-tracing .-)

then, again, Newton is the Second (secular) Church
of England!

thus:
also, I do have a strictly "computational" insight,
that anyone who proved it might have had to have had,
and that Fermat certainly did have -- so could
have Pascal, had he not been more into physics;
this relates to the p-adics, but I have very little
experience with them, per se -- other than,
"the archimedean valuation is oo-adic."

thus:
_There Are No Photons!_,
a new book on lighting for analog videographers
(Newton was *so* wrong (like,
he said that denser media made
for faster rocks o'light)).

thus:
there ia a more important unsolved conjecture
of Fermat (The Next Theorem). but, yes,
there is certainly no conclusive evidence
that he had no proof of the so-called last theorem, and
it really does all hinge upon its relation to n=4, and
the particualr order of these two insights.

thus:
(I suppose that an experiment has been done,
to show the relative permitivity and
permeability of various degrees
of relative vacuum, but maybe not.)
the wave just goes though both of Young's pinholes, and
that is that -- or, see what Young said about it!

thus:
so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period
of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just
one cycle of the frequency?

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/

--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, Pendergast and
ICC's 3rd Brutish invasion of Sudan!
http://larouchepub.com
From: Arturo Magidin on 15 Mar 2010 22:16
On Mar 15, 7:58 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> but, yes,
> there is certainly no conclusive evidence
> that he had no proof of the so-called last theorem,

There is exactly the same amount of conlcusive evidence that he *did*
have a proof. Your preference for the triple negative notwithstanding.
As to being "mealy mouthed", I would really have to work hard to reach
your level (not to mention your level of unintelligibility.

Meanwhile, have a nice day. I shan't spend more time replying to you.

--
Arturo Magidin
From: spudnik on 16 Mar 2010 15:16
it was only a double-negative, unless
you believe that his proof of n=4 came,
before his marginal miracle. I mean,
why would he explicitly state n=4, otherwise?
(he did not prove n=3, explicitly.)

> There is exactly the same amount of conlcusive evidence that he *did*
> have a proof. Your preference for the triple negative notwithstanding.

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 17 Mar 2010 16:19
that is, he corrected an error in the marginal statemnt,
thus also ruling-out all powers of two, as exponential
(from the lemma that you only need to work the prime powers).

> why would he explicitly state n=4, otherwise?
> (he did not prove n=3, explicitly.)

thus:
really. and, how can a "probability calculation"
ex post facto be a "causation?..." is it that,
that is the New Math, now?

> 2,2,1,1,2,1 ...

thus:
ha, good question about every God-am frequency (1/period).

Burt also had a really good question, about (say)
How would Sun emit a photon -- what shape does it go?...
he must be using the new "mental operating system!"

thus:
most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results,
a l'Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon,
in assinging all of the God-am energy of the wave-front
as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) of a particle, whence
the wave-energy was somehow "caught" by the photo-
eletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a)
just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b)
show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned
to absorb a particular frequency of light.
so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period
of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just
one cycle of the frequency?

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/

--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman, Pendergast and
ICC's 3rd Brutish invasion of Sudan!
http://larouchepub.com
From: master1729 on 21 Mar 2010 11:47
> I had to edit my title from "Good Points" to "Good
> Point" because there is only one good point. Others
> were bad, like admitting he's getting old and then
> blaming "old geezers" for his lack of success.
>
> The really good point relates to Wiles. What has he
> done lately? He appears to be a one-hit wonder
> indeed. And age is no excuse. Older mathematicians
> are more inclined towards contemplation than
> manipulation, and are therefore capable of being
> superior mathematicians. Unless they've been spoiled
> by too many prizes, that is.

nonsense.

one could as easily say godel was a one-hit wonder.

or einstein.

or chaitin.

or phythagoras.

etc

tommy1729
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Referees (was Re: Collatz cartoon)
Next: For the person who has everything, a bottle to keep it in.