Re: Machinists; critical machining data

Could be semantic, again.

In number theory, which deals only with integers (whole numbers), the
variables representing integers are themselves referred to as
"integers"--mebbe not entirely correctly, sorta the way weight and density
are used interchangeably.

Gauss, with his usual pomp, would say that mathematics was the queen of
sciences, and that number theory was the queen of mathematics.

Interestingly, number theory was, apparently, not much of a help in solving
Fermat's last theorem (a ""very simple"" generalization of the pythagorean
theorem) which Gauss didn't believe Fermat solved (you know, the one in the
margin--perhaps the greatest scientific joke of all time).
Sposedly, it was--finally--"legitimately" solved a few years ago, in about a
400 page proof, requiring the invention of several new areas of mathematics.
To which I have to say:
SMMD. (2nd M = mathematical).

I'm sure Fermat is still laughing.

It's a sad time when muthafuckas cain't agree on whether a mathematical
proof is valid or not.
Sheeeit, they're still argering over whether the AIDS virus really exists or
not. goodgawd...

All this, imo, the fallout from when fukn Watson stole Linus Pauling's third
Nobel Prize--he was minutes away from getting the double helix.
Science ain't been the same since.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"BottleBob" <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:467BC6D5.55149C57@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Cliff wrote:

NOTE: One level of quoting missing & too lazy to try to fake it. Post
was too
old it seems.

1+1=3 ONLY for sufficiently large 1 (or sufficiently small 3).

Cliff:

ANOTHER post from back in February? Man, you've got it BAD! LOL

Do you have any NEW evidence, or credible math sites, that support your
position that integers DON'T have set values?

BTW, having allegedly taken some math classes, you of all people should
realize that the edifice of mathematics depends on it's building blocks
not moving around. If you can't get consistent and reliable/repeatable
answers to manipulating integers through addition, subtraction,
multiplication, division, powers & roots, etc. etc., then all math &
physics would be nothing more than an undependable & speculative house
of cards.

Please show me ANY credible site that agrees with the kooky idea that
integers have changeable values.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob


.

Loading