The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: ------- ------- ------- A Trigonomertic function
Replies: 15   Last Post: Aug 29, 2012 5:19 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 12,067
Registered: 7/15/05
Re: ------- ------- ------- A Trigonomertic function
Posted: Aug 28, 2012 4:08 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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
>>>>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

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.


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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.