Re: Dumb arguments, and social stuff
From: Tim Smith (reply_in_group_at_mouse-potato.com)
Date: 10/15/04
- Next message: Nora Baron: "Re: Long threads, tactics"
- Previous message: Deep K. Deb: "Re: 3^k + 2^k revisited"
- In reply to: James Harris: "Re: Dumb arguments, and social stuff"
- Next in thread: W. Dale Hall: "Re: Dumb arguments, and social stuff"
- Reply: W. Dale Hall: "Re: Dumb arguments, and social stuff"
- Reply: James Harris: "Re: Dumb arguments, and social stuff"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:56:27 GMT
In article <3c65f87.0410151536.492dbbef@posting.google.com>, James Harris wrote:
>> > There is no counterexample. That's my point.
>>
>> Your "paper" states:
>>
>> Therefore, with the factorization
>> 65x^3 - 12x + 1 = (a_1x + 1)(a_2x + 1)(a_3x + 1)
>> one of the a's is coprime to 5.
>>
>> He shows that 8a^2+4a-45 divides both a and 5, where a is any of your a_1,
>> a_2, or a_3. That's a counterexample to the claim that one of the a's is
>> coprime to 5.
>
> You're a troll. The a's are algebraic integers.
He shows that none of the a's are coprime to 5, by exhibiting common
factors. Your paper claims that one of the a's is comprime to 5, implying
no such common factor exists. Out here in reality, we call that a
counterexample.
-- --Tim Smith
- Next message: Nora Baron: "Re: Long threads, tactics"
- Previous message: Deep K. Deb: "Re: 3^k + 2^k revisited"
- In reply to: James Harris: "Re: Dumb arguments, and social stuff"
- Next in thread: W. Dale Hall: "Re: Dumb arguments, and social stuff"
- Reply: W. Dale Hall: "Re: Dumb arguments, and social stuff"
- Reply: James Harris: "Re: Dumb arguments, and social stuff"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|