Pubkeybreaker wrote: >Mike Terry wrote: >>Pubkeybreaker wrote: >>>>david wrote: >>>> >>>>Consider the following expression for the given conditions. >>>> >>>>R = [(sinwD)^2/w + (coswD)^2/w] (1) >>>> >>>>w is an integer 5 < w < 41 and R is real > 0 >>>>and 0 < D < pi/2 >>>> >>>>Assertion: 0 < R < 1 >>>> >>>>Any comment about the correctness of the assertion will be >>>>appreciated. >>>> >>>>A numerical example will be very helpful. >>>> >>>>What happens when w is very very large compared to 41? >>> >>>Idiot. Don't you ever bother to check these ridiculous >>>questions yourself. Your assertion is trivially false. >> >>The assertion is correct - in fact 1/41 < R < 1/5. >> >>If w becomes very large, then R = 1/w becomes very small. > >I assumed that coswd^2/w meant [cos(wD)]^(2/w) and not >cos^2(wD)/w
And what Pubkeybreaker assumed is almost certainly what the OP intended.
Context: For many years, the OP has been trying for an elementary proof of FLT, using nothing more than his fragmentary knowledge of
* high school level algebra and trigonometry
* the simplest results of elementary number theory
The OP's queries and assertions are typically flawed from the outset based on
* Carelessly incorrect and/or ambiguous notation.
* Unspecified (but needed) restrictions.
* Meaningless over-restrictions having no bearing on the truth or falsity of the assertion, thus distracting from the essence of the issue.
* An excess of free variables, allowing his claims to be easily defeated.
* Perpetual repetition of the same errors made in previous queries and assertions, showing no attempt on the part of the OP to understand the various pointers and corrections received in prior replies.
* Feigned humbleness and politeness hiding an ego which allows the OP believe that he can crack FLT just by fooling around with high school level algebraic relationships, ignoring past recommendations that he temporarily put his obsessive quest for FLT on hold, and invest time in self-study of Elementary Number Theory and Abstract Algebra, with an emphasis on the developing the ability to read and write correct proofs.
So while in my opinion Pubkeybreaker is often too harsh, in this case he's right on target -- the OP is an idiot.