Posted on 04/11/2006 3:08:56 PM PDT by LibWhacker
And no mention of Lesbeque?
(Or did I miss that one, too, CG?)
Do quantum mechanics screw metric if, nands, and nuts, or do they bolt directly to the right stuff on this thread?
As do I. How else would I keep my coffee hot?
Ping pong.
If a ping was scent in the forest to an udder failure, but nothong was there to be scene when it went by, was it really herd at all?
My understanding is that Andrew Wiles introduced a partial solution which was part of a presentation ( the description,from what I remember, was funny--along the lines of' oh, and by the way, I haved proved Fermat's last theorem ). It wowed the audience. Then, I believe he followed up and completed it with the help of Richard Taylor.
First time through - natural primes:
First = 1
Second = 2
Third = 3
Fourth = 5
Second time through:
First = 1 (1)
Second = 2 (1*2)
Third = 6 (1*2*3)
Fourth = 42 (1*2*3*7, skipping 5 because it is the 4th prime, and 4 is not a prime number)
Third time through:
First = 1 (1)
Second = 2 (1*2)
Third = 6 (1*2*3)
Fourth = 546 (skipping 42 since it is fourth on list 2, and 4 is not a prime, thus 1*2*3*7*13)
Fourth time through:
null progam, since 4 is not a prime.
Therefore mathematics does not exist.
It sounds like the infinite improbability drive might just by around the corner. Better pick up next month's Popular Science.
Purdue News
Note to Journalists: The following release concerns research that has not yet been peer reviewed or published in a professional journal. The researcher can be reached via air mail or international telephone with the contact information listed at the end of the release.
June 8, 2004
Purdue mathematician claims proof for Riemann hypothesis
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – A Purdue University mathematician claims to have proven the Riemann hypothesis, often dubbed the greatest unsolved problem in mathematics.
Louis De Branges de Bourcia, or de Branges (de BRONZH) as he prefers to be called, has posted a 124-page paper detailing his attempt at a proof on his university Web page. While mathematicians ordinarily announce their work at formal conferences or in scientific journals, the spirited competition to prove the hypothesis – which carries a $1 million prize for whoever accomplishes it first – has encouraged de Branges to announce his work as soon as it was completed.
"I invite other mathematicians to examine my efforts," said de Branges, who is the Edward C. Elliott Distinguished Professor of Mathematics in Purdue's School of Science. "While I will eventually submit my proof for formal publication, due to the circumstances I felt it necessary to post the work on the Internet immediately."
The Riemann hypothesis is a highly complex theory about the nature of prime numbers – those numbers divisible only by 1 and themselves – that has stymied mathematicians since 1859. In that year, Bernhard Riemann published a conjecture about how prime numbers were distributed among other numbers. He labored over his own theory until his death in 1866, but was ultimately unable to prove it.
The problem attracted a cult following among mathematicians, but after nearly 150 years no one has ever definitively proven Riemann's theory to be either true or false. Although a definitive solution would not have any immediate industrial application, in 2001 the Clay Mathematics Institute in Cambridge, Mass., offered a $1 million purse to whoever proves it first.
At least two books for popular audiences have appeared recently that describe the efforts of mathematicians to solve the puzzle. One of the books, Karl Sabbagh's "Dr. Riemann's Zeros," provides an extensive profile of de Branges and offers one of the mathematician's earlier, incomplete attempts at a proof as an appendix.
De Branges is perhaps best known for solving another trenchant problem in mathematics, the Bieberbach conjecture, about 20 years ago. Since then, he has occupied himself to a large extent with the Riemann hypothesis and has attempted its proof several times. His latest efforts have neither been peer reviewed nor accepted for publication, but Leonard Lipshitz, head of Purdue's mathematics department, said that de Branges' claim should be taken seriously.
"De Branges' work deserves attention from the mathematics community," he said. "It will obviously take time to verify his work, but I hope that anyone with the necessary background will read his paper so that a useful discussion of its merits can follow."
Writer: Chad Boutin, (765) 494-2081, cboutin@purdue.edu
Sources: Louis de Branges de Bourcia, Hameau de l'Yvette, Bat D, Chemin des Graviers, F-91190 Gif-sur-Yvette, FRANCE; international telephone 33-1-69074621
Leonard Lipshitz, (765) 494-1908, lipshitz@math.purdue.edu
"Therefore mathematics does not exist."
Exactly!
You're getting it my boy!
But remember 1 is not a prime number (in real life), and 5 is not a prime number (for our purposes) because then the first three primes won't produce 42 when multiplied.
Having solved the technical issues, we must now move on into this discovery applied to physics.
Mathematics does not exist, which means there are no 'branes. (Note: this lack of branes was in plain view in Madonna's kabbalah notebook I pilfered.) And the cessation of 'branes means that by proving mathematics do not exist, we have destroyed the universe.
We can only conclude our tour de force with metaphyics.
Mathematical proof: Mathematics do not exist.
Necessary corrollary, applied to Physics: therefore, the universe has ceased to exist.
Metaphysics: And it's Bush's fault.
Is this the old debate over whether math is invented or discovered?
I almost posted a link to this article a while ago. Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the ping...
Of course! Lebesgue!! You are correct! Hello!! No wonder I can't buckle down and write my dissertation!!! My mind is in lala land!!! And alcohol isn't even a prime factor!!!Thank you. (Now what do you know about generalized least squares?) !!! ;)
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LebesgueMeasure.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue_measure
Look up the "epitaph of Stevinus" inscribed on his tombstone. It PROVES a point of physics about inclined planes and force.
There are some "proofs" of the pythagorean theorem which are little more than pictures, but you have to know what you are looking at.
What this article describes is nothing of the sort.
There is no such thing as proof by picture.
You contradict yourself. The pythagorean "picture" that you bring up suffices to prove the theorum.
The crap that high school teachers dish out about the scientific method has little to do with real science alas. Many times a thought experiment works better to settle a question than observation or measurement.
You cannot prove anything in physics. What you can prove are results about the mathematical model. People often get confused about that point. To see this, please observe that "normal force" isn't a force at all, but an accounting gimmick.
Look up
If you want to make a point, make it, I'm not going to do your work for you.
LOL. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.