Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [PrimeNumbers] Pi(x)....4.....

Expand Messages
  • Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho
    ... I guess now we have full proof that you are, indeed, a crackpot. Mathematics doesn t need physics to survive. At best one can use physical concepts to
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 11, 2004
      On Saturday 11 December 2004 02:30, you wrote:
      > hi
      > i sead that becase the theory is realeted to phisics.so u are right.

      I guess now we have full proof that you are, indeed, a crackpot.

      Mathematics doesn't need physics to survive. At best one can use physical
      concepts to motivate their work, but once a proper mathematical definition is
      given, it should be possible to demonstrate it using mathematical tools
      alone. Otherwise that `theory' is built on very shaky ground.

      Anyway, now that you have shown the true nature of your `work', I consider the
      thread closed and will no longer waste my time on it. Go ahead and clog your
      festival with `publications' about crackpot theories all you want.

      > but some times we can not proof some thing .we only define a difinition.
      > then some body may accept that and others may not.for example about
      > Non-Euclidean geometry ....

      No. Euclidean geometry relies on the fifth postulate (through a point P passes
      a single line that is parallel to another given line). Lobatchevsky asked
      ``hmm, what happens if I replace `a single line' with `infinite lines'?'' and
      gave us hyperbolical geometry. Riemann asked ``hmm, what happens if I replace
      `a single line' with `no lines'?'' and gave us elliptical geometry. Whether
      you accept or not Euclid's fifth postulate, or choose to replace it with
      Lobatchevsky's or Riemann's version, is beside the point -- their results are
      consistent with their assumptions and can't be debated.

      To see the point, let's postulate that some set S can be associated with two
      operations + and *, such that

      1. +,* are associative;
      2. + is commutative;
      3. * distributes over +;
      4. For each element of the set, there exist inverse elements wrt +;
      5. There exists an identity 0 wrt +.

      Then I'll refer to (S,+,*) as a `ring'. Results about `rings' abound, just
      like the results of Riemannian geometry. Now I'll postulate that there exists
      an identity 1 wrt *, and call this new entity a `unit ring'. I can prove
      results about `unit rings' that couldn't be proved about `rings' if I accept
      this new postulate. Now if I postulate that the operation * is also
      commutative, that there exists an identity 1 wrt *, and that this ring has no
      divisors of zero, then I'll refer to my new entity where both postulates are
      valid as an `integral domain'. Results about `integral domains' abound,
      complementing and extending the results about `rings' and `unit rings'. Now
      if I also assume the existence of multiplicative inverses, then I'll refer to
      this new entity as a `field', which has an even stronger body of results
      complementing the remaining results.

      Now, there exist many algebraic entities that satisfies some of these
      postulates but not others. So there's no point in arguing whether Euclidean
      geometry is the `right' geometry or not -- it's a great tool to describe the
      geometry of flat spaces, but it's useless to describe the geometry of a
      sphere, for instance.

      Sorry for the overly long diatribe, but some crackpot needed an intro to
      mathematics.

      Décio


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.