Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Replies: 65   Last Post: Mar 17, 2001 11:59 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
jstevh@my-deja.com

Posts: 348
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Posted: Jan 20, 2001 4:20 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply



In article <3a683db5.481647214@news.newsguy.com>,
randyp@visionplace.com (Randy Poe) wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:24:12 GMT, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl>
> wrote:
>

> > > I'm looking for something that pushes me outside of integers
because
> > > that's what I want to prove must happen!
> >
> >Tsk. Your initial use of sqrt(-1) pushes you out of the integers

already.
>
> You misunderstood this statement. He believes that the fact that
> sqrt(-1) pushes him out of the integers is the contradiction and that
> the proof can end at that point, just with the factorization. That
> writing down a statement not in integers, though his first equation
> was in the integers, is a contradiction.
>


Here's where there's the issue between what I've recently called
patterns and regular rings.

My understanding is that mathematicians have avoided this through
coupling.

That is, polynomials have counting number exponents *and* counting
number coefficients.

However, I have argued that this coupling is simply one way of doing
things and there's no mathematical or logical requirement for it.

My example has been

(x+sqrt(-1)y)(x-sqrt(-1)y) = x^2 + y^2,

which as a pattern is simply true for valid x's and y's.

Here validity simply means they work with the given operators.

That basically means you don't add apples and oranges.

What I've shown is a problem with the coupling so many of you have been
heatedly defending, since the statement is valid with x and y members
of an infinite number of rings, where the ring of integers is *one*
such, which happens to not have the result of sqrt(-1) as a member.

Note the distinction between calling sqrt(-1) a result, since we're
looking at a number with an operator, versus the casual error of
concluding that it is the number itself. After all, in once case that
result is i, for another it could be, oh, 2. This casual error is
common with other cases besides sqrt(-1).

The only remaining issue then has been an insistence that it must be
proven that (x+sqrt(-1)y)(x-sqrt(-1)y) = 0 means that x+sqrt(-1)y = 0
or x - sqrt(-1)y = 0, as some have insisted I must move to complex
numbers to get this result.

But, I've repeatedly brought up the fact that it's true for other
rings, so why if you guys are acting like using rings is so fundamental
and important, do you wish to make a result that's a hack depending on
what ring you're using?

Don't understand what I mean?

Let's say that I'm in some other ring besides integers. All the
results I've given are still true. That is,

(x+sqrt(-1)y)(x-sqrt(-1)y) = x^2 + y^2, and if x^2 + y^2 = 0, then

(x+sqrt(-1)y)(x-sqrt(-1)y) = 0.

You've all been insisting that I have to know what ring x and y are in
to prove whether or not this means that

(x+sqrt(-1)y) = 0 *or* (x-sqrt(-1)y) = 0.

When my simple question to you is, when would it not be?

The issue has been that sqrt(-1) is not in the ring of integers, when I
have a *proof by contradiction* that starts by saying that the other
objects x and y *are* nonzero integers and that x^2 + y^2 = 0.

So, if all of you are right, then it's not possible to have the general
result over a large number of rings that (x+sqrt(-1)y)(x-sqrt(-1)y) = 0
means that (x+sqrt(-1)y) = 0 *or* (x-sqrt(-1)y) = 0.

Then, basically all of you are arguing that it's impossible to prove
this result generally, and that you have to go ring, by ring.

Well folks, there are an infinite number of rings that x and y could
belong to for which the above would be valid.

You've all essentially been arguing that we can't know that result is
true for those rings, since we must check each ring individually.

Seems like an awful lot of effort and added complexity to me.


James Harris


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/






Date Subject Author
1/15/01
Read FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/15/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dik T. Winter
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Charles H. Giffen
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Michael Hochster
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Peter Johnston
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Doug Norris
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Doug Norris
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dik T. Winter
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dik T. Winter
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/20/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/20/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
oooF
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Peter Percival
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/26/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Algebra...
Franz Fritsche
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
gus gassmann
1/20/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/20/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Doug Norris
1/26/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Matrix or not, that's NOT the question...
Franz Fritsche
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/17/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/20/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Peter Percival
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
3/17/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Ross A. Finlayson
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/29/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dik T. Winter
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dennis Eriksson
1/15/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Michael Hochster
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Michael Hochster
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Peter Percival
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
oooF
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dik T. Winter
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
oooF
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Edward Carter
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
W. Dale Hall
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Michael Hochster
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/17/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
W. Dale Hall
1/17/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying (Grammar fix)
W. Dale Hall
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
oooF
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Charles H. Giffen
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
David Bernier
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/18/01
Read Hi - little fun about FLT
Arthur
1/30/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
plofap@my-deja.com
1/30/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
plofap@my-deja.com
1/30/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
plofap@my-deja.com

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.