Prev: Chapt2 history of theory Re: is the DNA/RNA a miniature biological radio receiver? #258 Atom Totality
Next: about understanding conjugate roots in Q[x]
From: Inverse 18 Mathematics on 2 Aug 2010 15:03
On 2 août, 14:03, Inverse 19 mathematics <hope9...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>  This will be very hard logic for most Fermatists, most of whom
> understand the " F" word--F for thier beloved Fermat, a 330 year old
> man, that has been our experience at sci math
>
>   1^2= 1   1+1=2   1-2=-1
>
>   2^2 =4    2+2=4   4-4= 0
>
>  3^3  =9    3+3=6    6-3=3
>
>  By this simple mathematical logic Sqrt of 3-Sqrt2 = sqrt1/3root
> since  2 is  zero point as above.  This is because of divergence and
> convergence that 3 has two values , one convergent and 1 divergent.
> The1/3 sqrt root  value for -1 is 0.333, and currently  because of the
> errors in your mathematics , it value is a shy less than 0.333 exact
>
>   There is a problem in Current mathematics below three , the sqrt of
> 3, as well as divisions below three decimal points of 1
>
>  Additionally 2.5/3= 5/6 and 1/6  which are the divisor residue values
> of all prime numbers by 6  P number/6 - residual= 1/6 or 5/6 depending
> if it is convergent /divergent number , because number 3+3 in the
> above  equation it has dual role for divergent and convergent 2.5
> value is derived by the "Half square" method 4.5-2=2.5.
>
>  This is the end of record that Hope research needs to make on
> scimath , a lot of chaos , but some good order. We will be having our
> Mathematics monument, and then a full write up  of this new
> mathematics--- as you all still insist on "f" for Fermat . Fermats
> work  though significant is a no brainer. The challenge that your
> mathematics have been cowardly , still stands to compare our Prime
> sieve , with your best in 300 years , here in Wisconsin, ---Ta! now
>
>  http://hoperesearch.web.officelive.com/default.aspx

This will be very hard for all Inversists, but here is the truth :

1. There is no logic in your argument. Your notation is unclear.
2. A table of values IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE a demonstration.
3. What is a "1/3 sqrt root" of a value? How do YOU define it? I'm
pretty sure you don't know either.
4. What is, according to your wise and enlighten vision, the "problem
with Current Mathematics"? You want to know what it is : you have no
idea how to work with mathematics. You suck when it's time to have an
intelligent reasoning, so mathematics must be wrong.
5. What do you mean when you say there are problems with "divisions
below three decimal points of 1"? Does it mean that precision is
useless? If so, it's a total nonsense!
6. Very basic question : how do you define "convergent" and
"divergent"? How can 2.5 be convergent and divergent?

Deep down in my heart, I hope that this will be the end of the record
for you. But since you are on a mission to spread the "good
mathematics" to us, poor Fermatists, we'll see you soon. Your Prime
sieve may generate good results, it's totally useless and has very
poor performance compared to classical sieves.

Soap Research-- In the grace of our Lord Robin Hood

FORREST GUMP TO INVERSE 19 - Why did your Mathematics monument fell
down after only a few seconds?

INVERSE 19 TO FORREST GUMP - I don't understand : I did the
calculations myself. There must be a flaw with the pigeons : they
certainly are Fermatists!
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Chapt2 history of theory Re: is the DNA/RNA a miniature biological radio receiver? #258 Atom Totality
Next: about understanding conjugate roots in Q[x]