Re: why does professor david c ullrich have to put people down to feel good about himself?

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:20:05 EST, amy666 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

David wrote :

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:58:00 -0800 (PST),
lwalke3@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Nov 28, 7:31 am, David C. Ullrich
<dullr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:25:45 EST, amy666
<tommy1...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
and galat and lwalke have not shown to known more
about it then me , neither do the critics !!
and i attempted to answer the OP and david didnt
!
Your attempt was simply stupid. You certainly
didn't realize that
"CD = DC for all D" implies that C is a scalar
multiple of the
identity. Given that, your attempt just says that
AB = BA if
B = A^c for some _scalar_ c. This is trivial,
obvious and no help.

Here's a new claim, based on tommy1729's conjecture.
I've
rewritten it so that all mention of log is
eliminated,
since log and its multi-valued-ness is causing so
many
problems here:

For all matrices A,B with determinant not 0,+/-1,
AB = BA iff there exist matrices C,D such that
exp(D) = A, CD = DC, and exp(CD) = B.

Also, notice that now we only require C to commute
with a
_particular_ matrix D -- namely a matrix D such that
exp(D) = A (in order to avoid mention of log(A)).
Notice
that C is only required to commute with _one_ such
matrix
D (not necessarily with _every_ matrix D s.t. exp(D)
= A).

There may be a counterexample to this conjecture,
and
maybe Ullrich may be more likely to look for it now,
since
there's no mention of log to argue about anymore.

Why would a person worry about finding
counterexamples
to a "claim" that was just concocted at random, with
no
reason given why one might suspect it was true? That
would
be as silly as struggling to find a consistent
version of some
non-standard set theory, in _spite_ of the fact that
there's
absolutely no reason to think that the resulting
theory is
going to do anything that standard set theory does.

(No, my original comments had nothing to do with
whether
or not Timmy's original "claim" was true, I was just
pointing
out that a person _can't_ even think about trying to
determine
whether it's true or not until the definition of A^C
is given.
He _still_ hasn't explained what he "meant" by A^C,
by
the way.)

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.)

mariano replied to lwalke that it trivially follows from it that A and B commute ... ?

you didnt say it was trivial ?

No I didn't. So?

I didn't mention the converse until Robert did bccause it was
more fun to watch you guys go on and on in blithering ignorance.
But the reason I didn't mention _this_ fact is that I (honestly)
assumed it was obvious to everyone.

is it trivial ?

Of course it is. If C and D commute then C and CD commute,
and hence exp(C) exp(CD) = exp(C+CD) = exp(CD+C) = exp(CD) exp(C).

questions enough ?

to investigate ?

Giggle. Yeah, let's investigate this. Let's also investigate
whether the square root of 2 is irrational.

At some point you may realize that mathematicians know more
math than you do - if that ever happens you'll stop making a
fool of yourself in public quite so often. Of course that will
be no fun.

It's like I make a series of posts on sci.engineering insisting
that bridges should be made of cheese instead of steel because
cheese is more biodegradable. After a few weeks someone
finally takes pity on me and points out that cheese is not
strong enough to use for bridge construction. At that point
I start complaining to other people that they didn't explain
that to me... they must have all been ignorant of the deep
secret fact that steel is stronger than cheese.

Giggle.

or to explain ?

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.)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: why does professor david c ullrich have to put people down to feel good about himself?
    ... Here's a new claim, based on tommy1729's conjecture. ... going to do anything that standard set theory does. ... David C. Ullrich ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: SUBTHREAD : fixed point
    ... this is an intresting comment by david. ... every analytic function has a fixed point in C* ... What an immensely stupid conjecture. ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: lets turn the tables
    ... ' bla bla bla nothing about matrix ... and you oh genius math prof david C ullrich HAVE ... "A and B commute when they commutte". ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: A conjecture related to Picards theorem
    ... concerning my conjecture David C. Ullrich got it right. ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.math)