June 26th, 2014, 07:14 PM  #21 
Banned Camp Joined: Feb 2013 Posts: 224 Thanks: 6  
June 27th, 2014, 05:04 AM  #22 
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Professional geometers  those with the expertise required to judge the claim. Within that group my only real concern would be to avoid the possibility of loons. I don't really care what your cards look like. 
June 27th, 2014, 05:38 AM  #23 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,674 Thanks: 2654 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  The principal flaw is that it has been proved impossible to trisect an angle with ruler and straightedge. Specifically, you'lll need to convince me that b+e=180 and that the red triangle is a) a triangle; and b) isosceles. What this is missing (as a proof) is any method, so I can't say exactly what's wrong, because I don't know how the figure has been constructed. 
June 27th, 2014, 06:22 AM  #24 
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Right, you need something else like a linkage, origami, or neusis. The claim is that this proof uses neusis which makes it at least plausible. I didn't examine it though.

June 27th, 2014, 01:48 PM  #25  
Banned Camp Joined: Feb 2013 Posts: 224 Thanks: 6  Quote:
It's a triangle. A triangle has 3 sides. Bingo! a = a, if and only if the 2 red segments are equal. This is not proven. Quote:
 
June 27th, 2014, 03:57 PM  #26 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,674 Thanks: 2654 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
I have no idea what that picture is about.

June 27th, 2014, 10:56 PM  #27 
Banned Camp Joined: Feb 2013 Posts: 224 Thanks: 6  
June 29th, 2014, 08:34 AM  #28 
Newbie Joined: Mar 2014 From: Maryland, USA Posts: 27 Thanks: 0  
June 29th, 2014, 09:13 AM  #29  
Newbie Joined: Mar 2014 From: Maryland, USA Posts: 27 Thanks: 0  Quote:
T > T = T F > F = T T > F = F I don't believe > is truth functional. Only & and v and ~ are truthfunctional, meaning their syntax affects the transformation of the symbol T or F. The sole purpose of > is oneway replacement. If we believe that > is truthfunctional, then we are obligated to believe that: If there are roundsquares then New York is a large city is a true statement and it it's not. Something is wrong, and my solution is use > solely for oneway replacement. p v ~p = T It's not always true. Either roundsquares are hexagons or roundsquares are not hexagons. Both statements are false. p & ~p = F We have to make a distinction between an atomic sentence and a molecular sentence. p is atomic means the symbols that sentence p is composed of are indefinable. p is molecular means the symbols that sentence p is composed of are definable. For example, 1. Some men go to the beach and some men do not go to beach. Logicians have an explanation for why that is not of the form: p & ~p But I believe their explanation refers to an axiom which is not basic, it's a consequence of some other basic axiom. The basic axiom I use to show that 1 is not false is that you cannot compute the truth value of a composite sentence (i.e., composed of several conjunctive atoms) unless it is symbolized in atomic form. So let lowercase letters stand for atomic sentences and molecular sentences stand for capital letters then: P & ~P = T v F p & ~p = F It's more complicated than that but you get the idea. There are 3 examples of axioms I reject and there are probably about 10 or 15 more than that. If you're interested in seeing the others then send me a PM because I would be happy to discuss it with you. Quote:
Machine x processes symbol y means x rewrites y as z on another line and z means the same thing as y. E.g. Say you have line: ~(x & y) Machine x processes symbols ~(x & y) means x rewrites ~(x & y) as ~x v ~y on another line and ~(x & y) means the same thing as ~x v ~y. Now, what happens when you don't want equivalence of meaning but you want to know the answer, as in: 2 + 2 Then you just write the symbol as: 2 + 2 = ? And the linguistic being (because an alien could also do the same thing) will understand that 2 + 2 = ? has the same meaning as 4. In other words, (2 + 2 = ?) <> 4 Let's do an example of symbols that are not calculable (I admit that process was not a very good word to have used in the first place. Calculate is more precise). I'm really against dialetheism, the belief that some contradictions are true. Remember I do not believe that: "Some men go to the beach and some men do not go to the beach is a contradiction". So here is a string of symbols by Graham Priest, taken form here: Dialetheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) "Hence, if a sufficient case can be made out for a contradiction, it will be rational to believe it." What I would like to do is build a machine which can calculate whether or not that sentence is true or false. But it cannot be calculated at the moment because such symbols like "sufficient" and "rational" are very hard to define and if you cannot define a symbol then you cannot calculate with it. But I do believe that sentence is calculable just not until we get a definition for sufficient and rational. I have hypotheses for the definitions of these words but I've learned the hard way that a hypothesis is changed more than 95% of the time when you get down to the hard work of testing it. Hope that helps.  
June 29th, 2014, 10:17 AM  #30  
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Quote:
Quote:
Aside from the minor translation need to convert normal math into bobsmithspeak this isn't a big deal. More interesting to me would be a description of this new operator, >_{bobsmith}, and why you think it's interesting. (You refer to it as "oneway replacement", not quite sure what you mean by that.)  

Tags 
bluffing, mathematics 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
mathematics  Q 7  rsoy  Calculus  2  February 8th, 2013 10:16 AM 
mathematics Q 11  rsoy  Calculus  2  February 8th, 2013 01:31 AM 
I want to get an MA in mathematics without getting a BA.  iamdaniel  Academic Guidance  2  April 6th, 2012 07:33 AM 
Mathematics what is it really.  MyNameIsVu  Algebra  0  June 3rd, 2009 11:05 AM 
...:::'''I NEED SERIOUS MATHEMATICS HELP.... PLEASE HELP....  Mai  Number Theory  0  December 31st, 1969 04:00 PM 