Re: Trisecting an Angle
From: Tim Smith (reply_in_group_at_mouse-potato.com)
Date: 10/11/04
- Next message: shedar: "Re: DWB: Trisecting an Angle"
- Previous message: David Libert: "extending ZFC"
- In reply to: Mensanator: "Re: Trisecting an Angle"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Trisecting an Angle"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Trisecting an Angle"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 06:19:41 GMT
In article <20041011014530.03232.00001570@mb-m19.aol.com>, Mensanator wrote:
>>Proposing a solution to a problem without first understanding the precise
>>setting of the problem (its terminologies, scope, what is assumed, what is
>>a "legal" construction, etc.) is what distinguishes a "crackpot" from a
>>student of mathematics.
>
> And possibly the failure to understand the difference between unsolved and
> unsolvable. Angle trisection has been proved unsolvable so any such
> "proof" can be dismissed as crackpot.
Not necessarily. If a person says they think they've got an angle
trisection, and they know the rules, and understand that since this is
impossible, they understand there must be a mistake somewhere in their
construction, but they can't find it--their construction is not crackpot.
-- --Tim Smith
- Next message: shedar: "Re: DWB: Trisecting an Angle"
- Previous message: David Libert: "extending ZFC"
- In reply to: Mensanator: "Re: Trisecting an Angle"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Trisecting an Angle"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Trisecting an Angle"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|