Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Re: The golden angle 137.507, pi, phi and positive integer 1728
Posted:
Apr 24, 2004 9:30 PM


On 23 Apr 04 13:44:35 0400 (EDT), I don't want you to know wrote: >I'm sorry. You are wrong. >
Ok, please what is your name?
Would you like to expand on the "you are wrong" part.
>If you tell me you've discovered something unknown in mathematics,
I have posted my reconciliations, yes my work:
Can you show me where in the last three hundred years, where an equation has been used like mine on 1728 to give an inverse value for a positive number?
Many famous mathematicians have used 1728 (jinvarient) but I have uesd something new to explained this positive integer 1728.
Annals of Mathematics, 149 (1999), 10791086 (1932)
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/557034.html
I >say " Cool, tell me about it." But, When you say you are right and the >best mathematicians of the last two centuries are wrong about >something as fundamental as pi,
I just don't know what to make out of what you are saying. You seem to be upset but not mentioning what about. Can you give some examples of where I have said I am right.
I say " You are wrong" >I highly recommend rechecking your calculations.
About what? Which calculations?
Could you be more specific my work is resonably extensive.
And I have been complimented for my reconciliation attempts, I don't mind you saying I am wrong, in fact I thank you for your response, but please let it be somewhat constructive.
Regards > >On 23 Apr 04 01:05:25 0400 (EDT), Anonymous wrote: >>The golden angle 137.507, pi, phi and positive integer 1728 >> >>Hi! >> >>my outcomes for pi, phi and positive integer 1728 >> >>hope they are of interest to you. >> >><a >href="http://www.vorpublishing.com/the_golden_angle_pi_phi_and_1728_by_kevin_trinder.html">http://www.vorpublishing.com/the_golden_angle_pi_phi_and_1728_by_kevin_trinder.html > >> >>Regards



