Re: David C Ullrich -> 1 = 4

David wrote :

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:54:45 EST, amy666
<tommy1729@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

David C Ullrich wrote :

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:42:31 EST, amy666
<tommy1729@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

david wrote :

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:25:58 EST, amy666
<tommy1729@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Denis Feldmann wrote :

Which are the f such that f(2x)=4f(x) for
all x
(real) ? It looks like
there is no other twice continuously
differentiable
solutions on R than
x->C*x^2 (but there exists other continuous
solutions, like x->x^2*sin
(A log |x|), with appropriate A) Is there a
simple
proof (or even a
counter-example)?

what a silly question !

im too kind for answering ...

but to learn you some math

f(2x) = 4 f(x)

take the derivative :

and use the rule D f(g(x)) = f'(g(x)) * g'(x)

f'(2x) * 2 = 4 * f'(x)

do it again :

f''(2x) * 4 = 4 * f''(x)

divide both by 4.

f''(2x) = f''(x)

make the substitution U = 2x

f''(U) = f''(U /2)

since also f''(U /2) = f''(U /4) must hold we
get

f''(U) = f''(U /4)

repeating the arguments gives :

lim n -> oo f''(U) = f''( U / 2^n )

which gives : f''( U ) = f'' ( 0 )

if f''(x) converges at x = 0 then f'' ( 0 ) =
constant C1

thus f''( U ) = constant C1.

taking the integral twice gives :

integral C1*x + C2 = C x^2 + C2 x + C3

where C = C1 / 2

ill leave proving C2 = C3 = 0 is neccessary to
fit
f(2x) = 4 f(x) to you. have fun with it.

We all give up. Please tell us how to prove C3
= 0
here, we're
just not smart enough.

apparantly not.

then you should not write a book about math ...

God you can be dense.


and god you can be stupid.


Ok, I'll give you a hint:

lets see your " meaningless " hint.

It's _impossible_ to prove that C3 = 0.

is that so ???

wow !

really david you have just given yourself yet
another reason why you should not write a book about
math !!

you really should be more carefull trying to correct
my correct " meaningless " math.



A hint for that: f(t) = 1 is a solution to the
original problem.

wow that is amazing !

f(t) = f(2x) = f(x) = 1

thus f(2x) = 4*f(x) becomes 1 = 4 * 1

Hmm. Now watch the following very carefully,
Timmy - it's what you're supposed to do when you
make a mistake. It's what you have to do when you
make a mistake if you want people to take you
seriously:

Oops. Sorry, of course what I said was ridiculous -
I had something a little backwards.

See how that works?

The alternative is that I could kick up my heels
and complain about how obnoxious you are,
go on about your general ignorance, etc.
But when people saw me trying to _defend_
an obvious error they'd decide I really wasn't
interested in getting things straight, and then
they wouldn't believe me about things in the
future.

Think about it. And then explain to me what your
definition of A^C _is_, if it doesn't involve ln(A).

Hint: Going on and on about how ignorant I
am doesn't answer that question.

thus :

1 = 4 according to PROF david " meaningless C "
Ullrich


- sigh - !

even JSH would have spotted that mistake !


who wants to buy a ' math ' book from someone who
claims

1 = 4 !?


hell there is less nonsense in the JSH book.




rather you should get a book about continu
iterations and matrix exponentiation.

and a book explaining 4 =/= 1.


hint : you cant prove 4 = 1.

' professor ' ...




David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his
formal
proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was
up
to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the
post-grads."
in sci.logic.)


no wonder you asked me to explain most posts , since
you have not even understood 1 =/= 4 !

its clear you once again did not understand this
thread nor my proof.


regards

tommy1729

Smith: "I am the Alpha of your Omega. I am the
beginning of your end."

David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal
proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up
to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)

hint : 1 =/= 4 !!

learn some math before correcting mine.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: David C Ullrich -> 1 = 4 AND SUDDENLY SILENT !
    ... then you should not write a book about math ... David C. Ullrich ... That would make a mockery of everything Godel ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: I have a prob on a generalization of tauber thm.
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.math)
  • wow ?
    ... so david ullrichs argument failes for matrices and reals. ... tried to explain the difference between chess and math ... showed the relationship of inverse hypergeo to iterations, elliptic functions and the inverse arithmetic geometric mean. ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: I have a prob on a generalization of tauber thm.
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... There's a whole lot of material on Bloch functions; ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... is not an assumption - it is a basic result of Recursion Theory ... to construct big complex wffs - that's how Godel and Rosser did it. ... David C. Ullrich- Hide quoted text - ...
    (sci.logic)