NPR

Thoughts?

Fairly meaningless question as infinity is a hypothetical mathematical construct.

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:19 pm Fairly meaningless question as infinity is a hypothetical mathematical construct.

It's occupied many, including me, for some time.

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:25 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:19 pm Fairly meaningless question as infinity is a hypothetical mathematical construct.

It's occupied many, including me, for some time.

Don't waste your time. Infinity isn't real, it's a hypothetical mathematical tool, so imagining it in reality is a pointless exercise.

OK. What's the square root of minus 1?

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:29 pm OK. What's the square root of minus 1?

i

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.

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:30 pm

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:29 pm OK. What's the square root of minus 1?

i

It is. But the understanding of complex (imaginary) numbers is rather difficult.

What's its use in electronics?

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:37 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:30 pm

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:29 pm OK. What's the square root of minus 1?

i

It is. But the understanding of complex (imaginary) numbers is rather difficult.

What's its use in electronics?

Anything involving phases, generally.

inactionman wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:38 pm

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:37 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:30 pm

i

It is. But the understanding of complex (imaginary) numbers is rather difficult.

What's its use in electronics?

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.

inactionman wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:38 pm

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:37 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:30 pm

i

It is. But the understanding of complex (imaginary) numbers is rather difficult.

What's its use in electronics?

Anything involving phases, generally.

Yep. Fascinating.

Shall we wander into Fermat's Last Theorem?

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:45 pm Shall we wander into Fermat's Last Theorem?

No, because there is no one on here who understands the proof.

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:02 pm

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:45 pm Shall we wander into Fermat's Last Theorem?

No, because there is no one on here who understands the proof.

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:02 pm

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:45 pm Shall we wander into Fermat's Last Theorem?

No, because there is no one on here who understands the proof.

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.

SaintK wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:08 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:02 pm

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:45 pm Shall we wander into Fermat's Last Theorem?

No, because there is no one on here who understands the proof.

Pack it in SaintK. It's becoming tedious.

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:12 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:02 pm

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:45 pm Shall we wander into Fermat's Last Theorem?

No, because there is no one on here who understands the proof.

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.

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.

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:24 pm

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:12 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:02 pm

No, because there is no one on here who understands the proof.

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.

I don’t think you quite understand. Andrew Wiles was born in Cambridge.

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:13 pm

SaintK wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:08 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:02 pm

No, because there is no one on here who understands the proof.

Pack it in SaintK. It's becoming tedious.

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.

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.

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.

I confess I cannot. It's been years since I followed it.

SaintK. Get lost.

Slick wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:23 pm

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.

Is it on pg 27?

Yup, just after the sentence showing the existence of the snow leopard.

The book on Fermat's Last Theorem by Singh was actually quite readable, much to my surprise.

Slick wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:23 pm

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.

Is it on pg 27?

Buggered if I know

Didn’t we do all this on the board that shall not be named.

ScarfaceClaw wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:41 pm Didn’t we do all this on the board that shall not be named.

Don't remember it SFC.

What about Napier's Logs?

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:49 pm What about Napier's Logs?

Did he have a shit in Cambridge?

Slick wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:50 pm

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:49 pm What about Napier's Logs?

Did he have a shit in Cambridge?

I believe he worked it out with logs.

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:53 pm

Slick wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:50 pm

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 2:49 pm What about Napier's Logs?

Did he have a shit in Cambridge?

I believe he worked it out with logs.

My mistake

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.

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.

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.

Meaningless question because it only holds true in 3D/Euclidean Space...... which isn't reality.

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.

Medians are parallel at the equator on a GLOBUS

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:37 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:30 pm

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 12:29 pm OK. What's the square root of minus 1?

i

It is. But the understanding of complex (imaginary) numbers is rather difficult.

What's its use in electronics?

Great, easy explanation for you bunch of mathematical illiterate fools....

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:24 pm

Globus wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:12 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Aug 20, 2021 1:02 pm

No, because there is no one on here who understands the proof.

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.

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?

In answer to the OP, absolutely not, lines that meet, no matter where, cannot by definition be called parallel