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

Topic: Was the Cardano formula for cubic equations refuted recently?
Replies: 13   Last Post: Sep 30, 2017 10:32 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,662
Registered: 8/22/16
Re: Was the Cardano formula for cubic equations refuted recently?
Posted: Sep 30, 2017 10:32 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 12:44:28 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 3:17:56 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 9:30:05 PM UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
> > > Was the Cardano famous formula discovered in (1545) in mathematics for solutions of cubic polynomials roots refuted so easily recently? wonder!
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Bassam King Karzeddin
> > > 11 May 2017

> >
> > Maybe the students need more help in this regard since the professionals are so embarrassed to explain it to them and step by step, since it is published here and not the usual way from top Journals or top universities with so long proof and many tons of references, wonder!
> >
> > And you become an expert in it, and so simply expand the simplest concept to any general polynomial for sure, where then you can help your teacher to get it only from the first look, and it is indeed more than easy for sure
> >
> > So, here it is again and again until you get it
> >
> > Consider this simple Diophantine equation
> >
> > n^3 = m^3 + nm^2
> > Where (n, m) are coprime integers
> >
> > So what are the integer solutions?
> >
> > Any average student would immediately notice that (n = 0), and (m = 0) is the only solution, so we can drop this solution for being helpless case
> >
> > Otherwise, factor the equation, you get:
> >
> > (n - m)(n^2 + nm + m^2) = nm^2
> > And since we have gcd(n, m) = 1, then let (n - m = k), where k is integer prime to both (n & m)
> >
> > So (k) divides exactly the LHS of the equation, but (k) does not divide the RHS of the same equation, which implies not even a single solution exists in the whole set of nonzero integers for sure (really too... easy for students)
> >
> > But let us see how the top scientist professional mathematicians create deliberately a real solution for this problem, and naturally with very long talks and so many definitions or decisions they fakely adopt and so smartly convince the innocent students of their fake proof, for sure
> >
> > So here you observe carefully their endless confusions as their endless numbers
> >
> > A genius professional mathematicians (from the history) would immediately suggest to divide the whole equation by (m^3), where (m =/= 0), since division by zero isn't defined in mathematics
> >
> > So, the insolvable Diophantine equation provided above (n^3 = m^3 + nm^2) would become so simply as the following:
> >
> > (n/m)^3 - (n/m) - 1 = 0, (try it yourself, since it is too ... easy)
> >
> > And further, the peculiar genius from the history of mathematics, reduce the problem by simplifying it more, where he let the unknown (n/m) as equals to (x), and then substitute, you get the following WONDERFUL irreducible cubic polynomial:
> >
> > (X^3 - X - 1 = 0), Where this must have three roots or solutions (in our damn modern mathematics), and according to Cardano famous formula discovered in 1545, such that one of them at least must be real solution since this invented polynomial (out of nothing), of odd degree, (of course they call it irrational real solution (in their mind), with endless digits, but always they present it in rational form, since there is no other meaningful way), all that to satisfy the baseless Fundamental Theorem Of al Gebra, so wonderful trick indeed
> >
> > And their solution in any number system (say in 10base number system for simplicity, would be expressed as [N(m) / 10^{m - 1}], where (m) is positive integer, N(m) is positive integer with (m) sequence of digits, which is a rational approximation for an irrational number (in their minds only)
> >
> > But evert student knows that solution would require (m), and hence N(m) to be positive integer with infinite sequence of digits, which is not defined nor accepted in principle of mathematics, ethics, besides being impossible task for sure
> >
> > So, you had just seen the fabricated fake solution from nonsolvable Diophantine equations
> >
> > And believe it that no Journals on earth would accept to publish this scandal for only too silly reasons of madness and meaningless egoistic personal problems mainly with alleged top professional mathematicians for sure
> >
> > Not only that but the cubic FORMULA of (Able - Ruffini, and Galois theorems) gives that same real solution too, which makes it fake and not general anymore
> >
> > Had you ever seen a Big Scandal than This one, wonder
> >
> > Unfortunately, There are much more Bigger scandals than that for sure
> >
> > Spread this proven fact please, for the sake of your collages and future generation too for sure
> >
> > And one important matter you should realize fast, that is whenever you notice a numerical solution of any mathematical problem is dragging you endlessly, either in a sum or product operations, then make sure that you are on the way to that Fools Paradise (Infinity), that is never there, for sure
> > And by the way, nobody from the professionals dared to refute it, nor they would accept it for very known explained reasons for sure
> >
> > There is more to this issue ...!
> >
> > Regards
> > Bassam King Karzeddin
> > May 13, 2017

>
> @Zelos
>
> Did you understand this well-illustrated example first? wonder!
>
> It is more than easy for any clever student I swear for sure
>
> Check-up first in the so shameful history of mathematics, wither the cubic root operation had really a proof or only smart conclusion for sure
>
> Noting that only square root operation was proved rigorously from the Pythagorean Theorem, that gave birth to existing constructible numbers ONLY
>
> But, yes when only the constructible number is a cube, then naturally it has a cubic root EXISTS
>
> In short, the general cubic root operation or higher p'th root operation are refuted so easily
>
> In fact, the truthiness of those fake operation would imply the un-truthness of Fermat's last theorem, but the later was proved true, wasn't it? wonder!
>
> I had explained that quite many times in my posts
>
> The main issue is that sweet approximation that deceives the human mind so easily, and we know that even a carpenter can make a cube box size for any non-cubic-number quite nicely (APPROXIMATELY), exactly like mathematics does with more accuracy (That is all)
>
> BKK


30/09/2017, 5:32 pm



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 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.