Do Parallel Lines Meet At Infinity?
Don't waste your time. Infinity isn't real, it's a hypothetical mathematical tool, so imagining it in reality is a pointless exercise.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
No they don't meet, otherwise the wouldn't be parallel.
If they got infinitesimally closer to each other every meter travelled (so no longer parallel), then it would probably take a bigger infinite rather than a smaller infinite.
If they got infinitesimally closer to each other every meter travelled (so no longer parallel), then it would probably take a bigger infinite rather than a smaller infinite.
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
-
inactionman
- Posts: 3398
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:37 am
Anything involving phases, generally.
Yeah, same as the use across most of physics. Again, it's a construct used to describe a complex system. There's no analogue to it in the real world. Which isn't surprising given that negative numbers themselves are a construct. You can't show me -1 apples for example. Negative numbers don't really exist in the physical world.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
Yep. Fascinating.
Not quite true. Hint, Andrew Wiles was born in Cambridge.
I'll leave it there. Don't want to frighten the horses. I know quite a bit about number theory.
Unless you're actually Andrew Wiles I'm not going to accept that you understand the several hundred pages of proof that was needed for it. I'm no number theorist but I do know there's only a handful of people who actually can work their way through that proof.Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:12 pmNot quite true. Hint, Andrew Wiles was born in Cambridge.
I'll leave it there. Don't want to frighten the horses. I know quite a bit about number theory.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
And actually there's a better reason to not discuss it - it's of absolutely no relevance to anything so far as I'm aware. Absolutely no practical application. It's just number theory for the sake of it. Not even aware of it having any potential future use in information theory or quantum computing or anything else. It's interesting if you're interested in number theory, and has a certain historical interest as one of the most famous outstanding hypotheses in maths that went unproved, but that's about it.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
I don’t think you quite understand. Andrew Wiles was born in Cambridge.Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:24 pmUnless you're actually Andrew Wiles I'm not going to accept that you understand the several hundred pages of proof that was needed for it. I'm no number theorist but I do know there's only a handful of people who actually can work their way through that proof.
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
Not half as tedious as you old bean.
I think it's quite amusing when you start trying to show off and are put firmly back in your box!
Perhaps you might have one of those sabbaticals you keep mentioning and stay in there for a while
Btw the way, if anyone wants to read Andrew Wiles proof, here it is
https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/a.l.kret/Galo ... /wiles.pdf
This is the original proof that was published in 1995, and it has an error in it that was pointed out by another number theorist and required a further 18 months work to correct. Gold star to anyone who can point out the error.
https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/a.l.kret/Galo ... /wiles.pdf
This is the original proof that was published in 1995, and it has an error in it that was pointed out by another number theorist and required a further 18 months work to correct. Gold star to anyone who can point out the error.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
Is it on pg 27?Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:38 pm Btw the way, if anyone wants to read Andrew Wiles proof, here it is
https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/a.l.kret/Galo ... /wiles.pdf
This is the original proof that was published in 1995, and it has an error in it that was pointed out by another number theorist and required a further 18 months work to correct. Gold star to anyone who can point out the error.
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
I confess I cannot. It's been years since I followed it.Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:38 pm Btw the way, if anyone wants to read Andrew Wiles proof, here it is
https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/a.l.kret/Galo ... /wiles.pdf
This is the original proof that was published in 1995, and it has an error in it that was pointed out by another number theorist and required a further 18 months work to correct. Gold star to anyone who can point out the error.
SaintK. Get lost.
Yup, just after the sentence showing the existence of the snow leopard.Slick wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:23 pmIs it on pg 27?Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:38 pm Btw the way, if anyone wants to read Andrew Wiles proof, here it is
https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/a.l.kret/Galo ... /wiles.pdf
This is the original proof that was published in 1995, and it has an error in it that was pointed out by another number theorist and required a further 18 months work to correct. Gold star to anyone who can point out the error.
-
inactionman
- Posts: 3398
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:37 am
The book on Fermat's Last Theorem by Singh was actually quite readable, much to my surprise.
Buggered if I knowSlick wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:23 pmIs it on pg 27?Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:38 pm Btw the way, if anyone wants to read Andrew Wiles proof, here it is
https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/a.l.kret/Galo ... /wiles.pdf
This is the original proof that was published in 1995, and it has an error in it that was pointed out by another number theorist and required a further 18 months work to correct. Gold star to anyone who can point out the error.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
-
ScarfaceClaw
- Posts: 2824
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:11 pm
Didn’t we do all this on the board that shall not be named.
Don't remember it SFC.ScarfaceClaw wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:41 pm Didn’t we do all this on the board that shall not be named.
You sure this isn't the 1995 corrected version, rather than the 1993 version because it looks fine to me. You can even see Globus in the formula.Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:38 pm Btw the way, if anyone wants to read Andrew Wiles proof, here it is
https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/a.l.kret/Galo ... /wiles.pdf
This is the original proof that was published in 1995, and it has an error in it that was pointed out by another number theorist and required a further 18 months work to correct. Gold star to anyone who can point out the error.
-
Torquemada 1420
- Posts: 12063
- Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:22 am
- Location: Hut 8
Meaningless question because it only holds true in 3D/Euclidean Space...... which isn't reality.Raggs wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:36 pm No they don't meet, otherwise the wouldn't be parallel.
If they got infinitesimally closer to each other every meter travelled (so no longer parallel), then it would probably take a bigger infinite rather than a smaller infinite.
I’d probably think it’s more accurate to say the following.
Take 2 lines which start at a fixed distance from each other and then intersect.
If you move that intersection further away from the (fixed gap) start , the angle lessens. And the angle between the 2 lines approaches zero degrees (parallel) as the intersection point distance moves towards infinity.
Take 2 lines which start at a fixed distance from each other and then intersect.
If you move that intersection further away from the (fixed gap) start , the angle lessens. And the angle between the 2 lines approaches zero degrees (parallel) as the intersection point distance moves towards infinity.
-
boere wors
- Posts: 1468
- Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:03 am
Medians are parallel at the equator on a GLOBUS
-
troglodiet
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:12 pm
- Location: South Africa
Great, easy explanation for you bunch of mathematical illiterate fools....
Did Fermat really have an elegant proof, as he said in his note in the margin? Or was he a 17th century Globus-level spoofer?Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:24 pmUnless you're actually Andrew Wiles I'm not going to accept that you understand the several hundred pages of proof that was needed for it. I'm no number theorist but I do know there's only a handful of people who actually can work their way through that proof.
