Math, The Friend of Relativity

[Uncle Ben]

no matter what a theory you want to promote

the math will match 100% for sure
and if not yet, then they will invent another math, which will match
this is how they did it all the time
and btw, first come
1. the invention
2. the theory
3. the math

mcdull.net... very apt.

Don't be reassured by the word of Androcles, who believes that there
is a smallest positive number greater than zero. But he won't tell us
what it is.
Uncle Ben
==================================================
I did tell you what it is: h.
Don't be reassured by the ranting of Uncle Bonehead, who believes that
there is a positive number for the area of a circle of unit radius. But
the
illogical fuckin' idiot won't tell us what it is.
Don't be reassured by the raving of Uncle Bonehead, who believes that
there is a positive number for the base of the natural logarithm. But
the
illogical fuckin' cretin won't tell us what it is.
Don't be reassured by the bullshit of Uncle Bonehead, who believes that
there is a complex number for the square root of minus one. But the
useless ignorant troll won't tell us what it is.
If proof by contradiction befuddles you, John,
==================================================
It doesn't, so
[snip]
If proof by Einstein-said-so befuddles you, "Dr." Bonehead, I'm not
sorry
to have taxed your brain, you obviously don't have one and would argue
trivialities.
The way it goes, you see, is as follows: One proves
something false by assuming it to be true and then showing that that
assumption leads to a contradiction, such as "light is always propagated
in
empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state
of
motion of the emitting body" leading to "the speed of light is c in all
inertial
frames" -- about which Uncle Bonehead says "Harry is right. And
Androcles did indeed read Einstein's paper more carefully than I
did." --bwhahahaha!
Of course, Uncle Bonehead is so smart he knew all along that Einstein
was disproving his own postulate by reductio-ad-absurdum, but Uncle
Bonehead is too stupid to realise Androcles has outsmarted him with
something as trivial as
Quote/
1. Assume that there exists a smallest number greater than zero: Call it
h.
2. But h/2 is smaller than h
/unquote -- Uncle Bonehead
Therefore line 2 is false, a proof by contradiction.
A. Assume that the green "Dr." Bonehead has a Ph. D. in mathematics.
Therefore the assumption in line A is false, he didn't claim to and he's
ignorant of the subject.
What he DID claim was a Ph. D. in physics.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
I call it a real challenge because that light curve is empirical data.
Change the value in cell Q2 to 3 to see it modelled.
Change it back to 0 and you can play with the values in cells K2-P2
and see the effect they have.
And please, no stupid lectures about "closing speed", this is called
research and defending a thesis.
"If we knew what we were doing it would not be called research,
would it?" -- Einstein
"Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity - and
I'm
not sure about green Uncle "Dr." Bonehead the MIT fraudulent lecturer"
-- Einstein- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You see what I mean.
Uncle Ben
==================================
Not even you see what you mean.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The numbers pi and e can be expressed in decimal representation to any
desired precision by infinite series which are known to converge.
==================================================
You see what I mean, Uncle "Dr." Bonehead won't tell us what they are. -
Hide quoted text
and keep it hidden-
He's such a moron he keeps writing "- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted
text -" as if it had any meaning.
Why do you write that shit, Uncle "Dr." Bonehead?
Your number h can be proved not to exist.
The proof is by
contradiction, a method which you do not seem to understand. To avoid
the contradiction, you have asserted that there is a real, positive
number that cannot be divided by two, which is so obviously absurd as
to be laughable.
Uncle Ben
==================================
If Uncle "Dr" Bonehead thinks he can disprove a definition by contradiction
then let him do so.- Hide quoted text and keep it hidden-
Proof by "Uncle "Dr" Bonehead said so" is so obviously absurd as to be
laughable.- Hide quoted text and keep it hidden-
Clearly Uncle "Dr." Bonehead doesn't know the difference between a
definition and a postulate.- Hide quoted text and keep it hidden-
No doubt the obviously absurd and laughable physicist "Dr." Bonehead can
tell us what half an electron is since he can divide anything on his whim.-
Hide quoted text and keep it hidden-- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Let x be a positive integer which is both even and odd. Androcles
must now believe that since I have defined it, it must exist. Ha, ha!

What a magical mathematician!

Uncle Ben

[Uncle Ben]

The numbers pi and e can be expressed in decimal representation to any
desired precision by infinite series which are known to converge.

what do you mean by known?
pi converge infinitely or converge at infinity???
in any case, i am not able to understand

Your number h can be proved not to exist. The proof is by
contradiction, a method which you do not seem to understand. To avoid
the contradiction, you have asserted that there is a real, positive
number that cannot be divided by two, which is so obviously absurd as
to be laughable.
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I mean that mathematicians can prove that the series, in each case,
gets closer and close to one value the more terms in the series that
you calculate.  But you can never get an exact answer.  The number pi
has been calculated to thousands of decimal places.
Uncle Ben
===============================================
Uncle "Dr." Bonehead won't tell us what the value of pi is,
but h = pi - 3.1415926535897932384626433832795...
If h is proven not to exist then pi is proven not to exist, which is so
obviously
absurd as to be laughable.
Clearly whatever degree Uncle "Dr." Bonehead bought by mail order is
worthless.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

In mathematics -- although you wouldn't know this -- the "..." you
wrote signifies the limit of the series, which is exactly pi.
Therefore, h = pi - pi = 0.

So you have not yet found a smallest real number greater than 0. You
will never find it, because it does not exist.

Uncle Ben

My mail-order degree is "Emperor of the World," and cost $2.00. My
Ph.D. I had to work six years for.

Uncle Ben

[Uncle Ben]

The numbers pi and e can be expressed in decimal representation to
any
desired precision by infinite series which are known to converge.

what do you mean by known?
pi converge infinitely or converge at infinity???
in any case, i am not able to understand

Your number h can be proved not to exist. The proof is by
contradiction, a method which you do not seem to understand. To
avoid
the contradiction, you have asserted that there is a real, positive
number that cannot be divided by two, which is so obviously absurd
as
to be laughable.
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I mean that mathematicians can prove that the series, in each case,
gets closer and close to one value the more terms in the series that
you calculate. But you can never get an exact answer. The number pi
has been calculated to thousands of decimal places.
Uncle Ben

sir, you are not even wrong, you just stated that pi will never
converge
what are you talking about, is it something from a book??- Hide quoted
text -
- Show quoted text -

Rizi, it would help if you were to learn some mathematics beyond high
school trignometry.
To "converge" means to approach a fixed value (called the limit) ever
closer as terms are added to a partial sum of  an infinite series.
For example, 0.333... converges to 1/3 in spite of never getting there
precisely.
==============================================
If the string of digits never gets there precisely but only converges then
it must differ from the limit. That difference is precisely h, which can be
determined to any desired precision, moron.
 f'(x) = limit as h tends to zero of  [f(x+h) - (f(x) ] / h,
but according to Uncle "Dr." Bonehead, division by zero is acceptable.
Bonehead, it would help if you were to learn some mathematics beyond
your little red wagon trig-O-nometry and some English spelling beyond
Skin-neck-tady Redneck.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Since the phrase "hoist by his own petard" is incomprehensible to
modern students, I translate it as "blown up by his own bomb." The
phrase aptly describes the author of the quoted text to which I reply.
Note his objection to the utterly conventional definition of f'(x).

Uncle Ben

[Uncle Ben]

Don't be reassured by the word of Androcles, who believes that there
is a smallest positive number greater than zero. But he won't tell us
what it is.
Uncle Ben
==================================================
I did tell you what it is: h.
Don't be reassured by the ranting of Uncle Bonehead, who believes that
there is a positive number for the area of a circle of unit radius. But
the
illogical fuckin' idiot won't tell us what it is.
Don't be reassured by the raving of Uncle Bonehead, who believes that
there is a positive number for the base of the natural logarithm. But
the
illogical fuckin' cretin won't tell us what it is.
Don't be reassured by the bullshit of Uncle Bonehead, who believes that
there is a complex number for the square root of minus one. But the
useless ignorant troll won't tell us what it is.

I have no quarrel with your point here. The problem is not that you
haven't defined h uniquely, but that h as you have defined it does not
exist. That is, your definition of h conflicts with the axioms that
define the real numbers.

Then you are faced with division-by-zero in
f'(x) = limit as h tends to zero of [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h.
Even the tin god Einstein said
"Hence if x' be taken infinitesimally small"
to compute the inverse velocity dt/dx'
and he was no mathematician.
Hence 'h' exists.
Why should 'h' not being unique be a problem?

If proof by contradiction befuddles you, John,
==================================================
It doesn't, so
[snip]
If proof by Einstein-said-so befuddles you, "Dr." Bonehead, I'm not
sorry
to have taxed your brain, you obviously don't have one and would argue
trivialities.
The way it goes, you see, is as follows: One proves
something false by assuming it to be true and then showing that that
assumption leads to a contradiction, such as "light is always
propagated
in
empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
state
of
motion of the emitting body" leading to "the speed of light is c in all
inertial
frames" -- about which Uncle Bonehead says "Harry is right. And
Androcles did indeed read Einstein's paper more carefully than I
did." --bwhahahaha!
Of course, Uncle Bonehead is so smart he knew all along that Einstein
was disproving his own postulate by reductio-ad-absurdum, but Uncle
Bonehead is too stupid to realise Androcles has outsmarted him with
something as trivial as
Quote/
1. Assume that there exists a smallest number greater than zero: Call
it
h.
2. But h/2 is smaller than h [and is still greater than zero.]
/unquote -- Uncle Bonehead
Therefore line 2 is false, a proof by contradiction.

Which part do you think is false?
(a) h/2 exists
(b) h/2 is smaller than h
or the part of the line you omitted?
(c) h/2 is greater than zero
We need to know these sorts of details in order to reconstruct the
axioms of Androcles numbers!

Ask Bonehead, it's his implied statement that h/2 exists.
Bonehead will divide electrons in two if you let him. Don't blame me
for the axioms of Bonehead's numbers.
I did NOT claim h/2 exists, that was Bonehead's claim.
If p, q are integers and sqrt(2) = p/q, then at least one of p or q is
"Let x be a positive integer which is both even and odd. Androcles
must now believe that since I have defined it, it must exist. Ha, ha!
What a magical mathematician! " - Uncle Bonehead, who thinks
sqrt(2) doesn't exist.
The point is you can't have it both ways. Either p and q are integers
and sqrt(2) doesn't exist or one of [p, q] is not an integer; p, q are
not unique. Either h exists or you divide by zero.
If Bonehead wants to define a unique integer q that is both odd and
even then there exists a p such that p/q = sqrt(2).
The proof that sqrt(2) <> p/q is well known, but Uncle Bonehead
has inadvertently circumvented it in his pathetic attempt to ridicule me.
And in keeping with the thread title, we must mention that Einstein's
second postulate is incompatible with the first, despite his claims
to the contrary and appeals to schoolchildren to please believe
the moron.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm-Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Here is an example that show how Pitiful Parker is completly confused
about limits.  He claims that one should not define the derivative as
f'(x) = lim as h ->0 [f(x+h) - f(x)]/h
on the ground that it requires division by zero.
===============================================
You lying shit, Green, I said that was correct and you claimed h was zero.
===============================================
Let's work an example:  Let f(x) = x^2
Then f(x+h) = x^2 + 2xh + h^2
and f(x+h) - f(x) = 2xh + h^2
and [f(x+h) - f(x)]/h = 2x + h
The limit as h->0 of 2x + h is simply 2x.
So f'(x) = 2x. No division by zero.
=======================================
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
[f(x+h) - f(x)]/h = f(x+h)/h - f(x)/h
= x^2/h + 2xh/h + h^2/h - x^2/h
=  2xh/h + h^2/h
But according to the drooling "Dr." Bonehead Green, h = 0,
so we are stuck and cannot proceed.
However, h isn't zero (being the smallest number greater than
zero), so we proceed and the limit as h->0 of 2x + h is
simply 2xh/h+h^2/h = 2x+h, which it has to be because h never
gets to zero even if Bonehead wishes it so.
The piss poor moron Bonehead Green Ph.D. Johns Hopkins 1956
divides by h and then claims no division by zero at the same time
claiming h is zero, typical of a dumb relativist who claims the speed
of light is c in all frames of reference.
(Crap snipped )
Be reassured by the word of Androcles, who believes that there
is a smallest positive number greater than zero.
Don't be reassured by the ranting of Uncle Bonehead, who believes that
there is a positive number for the area of a circle of unit radius. But the
illogical fuckin' idiot won't tell us what it is.
Don't be reassured by the raving of Uncle Bonehead, who believes that
there is a positive number for the base of the natural logarithm. But the
illogical fuckin' cretin won't tell us what it is.
Don't be reassured by the bullshit of Uncle Bonehead, who believes that
there is a complex number for the square root of minus one. But the
useless ignorant troll won't tell us what it is.
If proof by contradiction befuddles you, John,
==================================================
It doesn't, so
 [snip]
If proof by Einstein-said-so befuddles you, "Dr." Bonehead, I'm not sorry
to have taxed your brain, you obviously don't have one and would argue
trivialities.
The way it goes, you see, is as follows: One proves
something false by assuming it to be true and then showing that that
assumption leads to a contradiction, such as "light is always propagated in
empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of
motion of the emitting body" leading to "the speed of light is c in all
inertial
frames" -- about which Uncle Bonehead says "Harry is right.  And
Androcles did indeed read Einstein's paper more carefully than I
did." --bwhahahaha!
Of course, Uncle Bonehead is so smart he knew all along that Einstein
was disproving his own postulate by reductio-ad-absurdum, but Uncle
Bonehead is too stupid to realise Androcles has outsmarted him with
something as trivial as
Quote/
 1. Assume that there exists a smallest number greater than zero: Call it h.
 2. But h/2 is smaller than h
/unquote -- Uncle Bonehead
Therefore line 2 is false, a proof by contradiction.
A. Assume that the green "Dr." Bonehead has a Ph. D. in mathematics.
Therefore the assumption in line A is false, he didn't claim to and he's
ignorant of the subject.
What he DID claim was a Ph. D. in physics.
 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
 I call it a real challenge because that light curve is empirical data.
 Change the value in cell Q2 to 3 to see it modelled.
 Change it back to 0 and you can play with the values in cells K2-P2
 and see the effect they have.
 And please, no stupid lectures about "closing speed", this is called
 research and defending a thesis.
 "If we knew what we were doing it would not be called research,
 would it?" -- Einstein
 "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity - and I'm
 not sure about green Uncle "Dr." Bonehead the MIT fraudulent lecturer"
 -- Einstein- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Pitiful Parker reminds me of a friend who said she failed algebra
because she could never remember whether x+y equals 0 or z. She was
pretty sure, though, that A+B = C.

In Parker's case, he can't remember when h=0 and when h>0.

Uncle Ben

[Earle Jones]

.
Don't be reassured by the word of Androcles, who believes that there
is a smallest positive number greater than zero. But he won't tell us
what it is.
Uncle Ben
==================================================
I did tell you what it is: h.

*
Hey! I've thought of a smaller one: h/2

earle
*