imatfaal

Today I learned 3 and 5 year olds have far too much energy. If I could harness it in a humane fashion I would solve the energy crisis. Especially when you add sugar to the equations

You would not be the first looking to harness the energy content of children - although your idea is, slightly, more humane

A Modest Proposal

Question answered. Thank you, Strange. ( And Mr. Lagrange! ).

technically I think it was Count Lagrange - Napoleon made him a comte de l’Empire

And to answer the question properly (ish) - yes it is provable - Euler proved it in the 18th Century. It is a special case of the (later) Catalan Conjecture. The conjecture states that 3^2-2^3=1 and that this is the only non-trivial solution to x^a-y^b=1 ; this conjecture was only proven in 2003 by Preda Mihailescu

Here is an interesting read on the conjecture and its final proof as Mihailescu's Theorem

http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/2004-41-01/S0273-0979-03-00993-5/S0273-0979-03-00993-5.pdf

And here is a copy of Euler's proof and a more modern proof for a=2 and b=3 (page 12 onwards)

https://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~zbimar/Catalan.pdf

I think I might understand the Latin better than I understand the maths in Eulers

zero

0^3+1=1^2

I presume the bits you have marked as deuterium are actually deuterons? Where does the energy for the acceleration come from and why not just utilise it directly? Is D-D fusion energetically viable in these circumstances - the only reports I have seen were hilariously inefficient and required huge electric fields (gigavolts per metre). What sort of temperature and pressure is needed to overcome the coulomb barrier and get fusing?

Like with so many uses of fusion - once you can get the energy of fusion and utilise it then the energy requirements seem paltry; but it is getting it turned on, and safely, continuously generating power that is difficult. So difficult that we still struggle - although apparently safe and commercial fusion is only 20 years away (and always has been!)

...

Anyways I was wrong. You did give a fair view of my problem. I misunderstood you comments about viewing the drawing. I have claimed in many posts ago on a different thread that I could solve SSA (side, side, angle). I did not want to bring that back up. But later I watch a math video on "The Great Courses" that the mathematician said he could solve SSA with some obtuse triangles. That is if I understood him right. This problem is not based on that. But again it is trying to find triangles knowing only 2 sides, with certain conditions known by other triangles.

Yes - I understand that; you need to get your head around what can be done and what cannot. There are numerous texts on this sort of geometrical conundrum. Which angles are equal, supplementary, complementary and which lines are parallel. Most of this can be done with a careful diagram done with ruler and compass. You can get to trigonometry and cosine and sine rules - but then you also have to consider that triangles with whole number sides (primes remember) are a requirement.

Have you actually tried constructing triangles with known primes - you obviously haven't because your early assertions to the numbers required were impossible. I presume you know how to construct a rough triangle with a straight edge, ruler, and compasses

The following is not a religious statement. But in Christianity an non-believer would say if God is so strong can he make a boulder that he can't lift? If he can't he isn't all powerful. But you could extend it to this problem. If God is so powerful can he make a one-way function even he can't reverse? So do one-way functions exist?

Sounds like chop-logic and apologia to me And a real non-believer wouldn't say that - because God is a supernatural entity with no proof anyway so why introduce other complications. Personally I think it is a strange question - and you are not the first person to have mentioned it; the question strikes me as incredible hubris. We postulate a supernatural being who by very existence/definition must transcend human bounds and understanding; yet immediately we bring in human constraints and frailties. But this is not the place

I believe as humans we are limited and one-way functions do exist. Knowing only N and finding 2 unknowns, knowing only a slight process in which N was encoded is a difficult if not impossible task...

It is not merely that humans are limited - it is that maths is axiomatic. We make the foundations of our maths and build from there; within those axioms we can say what is true (sometimes), what is false (sometimes), and what we cannot decide upon (sometimes). Whilst some things are not decidable; if we can prove it within the system of axioms then it is proven and nothing can change that

Anyways thanks for the comments. I don't always like being wrong, but I think it is more about being realistic with this problem. I don't know. Would you be interested in seeing a 5 step pattern in multiplication?

No one likes being wrong - that's why we study and learn. You are right about doses of realism; you are tackling Mount Everest and getting angry with yourself that a short walk every evening hasn't been enough training. This is an stubborn peak of mathematics that the greatest thinkers have pushed themselves to the limit in an effort to make that vital breakthrough. You are using tools that have been thoroughly tested by people like Euclid, Fermat, and Leibnitz; you can be virtually certain there are no simple things that will crack prime numbers.

That is the benefit of fora - post stuff when you have time; someone will look at and critique your 5 step pattern. There are numerous posts in this subforum about the patterns of multiples which are ruled out from being prime

Leave the crap at home. You need pencil, pen, calculator etc. You can manage for a couple of hours over a few days without mobile etc.

Although invigilators can be a bit rubbish too... In a criminal law exam (in some law exams you are allowed a copy of the relevant statutes) a few years ago a guy stood up a few rows in front of me and shouted at the invigilator whilst pointing at the bloke next to him "He is using a copy of flipping Nutshells [law revision guide] For Flips Sake - are you Flippers flipping Blind! "

Visual Education Project has posted here - and their aim is the creation of beautiful machines with interesting histories and no claims of perpetual motion. Some of the mechanisms built are quite amazing works of craft

This is just a repeat of your poker thread in which you couldn't really tie in your objections to actual bell experiments. Now please - especially as this is main fora - be rigorous. How are we testing (electron spin, photon polarity) and what are the experimental (not Alice and Bob Gedenkan) process you believe to be logically flawed.

Please do not try to (wrongly) represent Bell and then point out the flaws. You have to show a Bell's Experiment (no need to drill to messy data yet) and why its (ideal) set-up is problematic.

A neutron binary tends to be a fairly inhospitable place - the dense neutron star sucks matter from the partner, the matter spirals in towards the neutron star in a disc, as it gets closer it spirals faster and bumps into itself getting very hot, the superheated material gives off nasty radiation, and every so often a section of infalling matter impacts the neutron star in a certain way giving off a huge blast of gamma radiation which fries anything towards the pole / axis to a distant of many AU - maybe even things Lyrs away.

That's before any inspiral or black hole formation

 

 

Sadly, the predators seem to have made enough money to have that taken off line.

Yeah - the lists are still available as of January. Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne seem to have wielded the boot to great effect - "hey let's silence the critics with threats of legal sanctions which no one can afford to question/defend"

That looks to be a few doors down — 23 vs 13. The chemist's (Obson) is #17

Damn - you're right. It just looked so perfect that I didn't zoom in enough to check the number closely. Confirmation bias strikes again! It does show how easy it is to swoop on an answer which fulfils one's expectations

I know this is a bit off-topic but as the credibility of the paper Metric in Reference System Transformation has been questioned I thought I would check the bona fides of the journal / publisher.

This is their registered address:

I haven't checked them out in the Predatory Journals schedule - but I reckon I might find them

 

Obviously, you didn’t look at the drawing I posted. This is a science and engineering forum. There must be some viewer who has access to Autocad.

 

...

I did look at the drawing. I think the triangles are not necessarily similar (ie there is a circumstance in which they are similar - but most of the time they are not). Drawings are very misleading if you use them to measure lengths and angles (as you are doing). You should use diagrams to get your thoughts straight but use geometrical rules to determine things like congruency.

I can draw an equilateral triangle - with enough precision to be confident in it to the full extent of a rough diagram - in about twenty seconds. Take a picture with a smartphone. Upload it.

...I know you think, I’m stupid claiming to work with Prime numbers. And you don’t think I have a math background. I enjoy you reading my problem and telling me when something just doesn’t work. However, you should have viewed the drawing before dismissing my comments. If I am wrong your judgment is correct. However, there is no wrong. There are wrong techniques, but failures just mean that I try other approaches. In this problem, I am not asking you to find Prime numbers, I am asking the group to find techniques to find triangles with limited given. If you want to reverse a one-way function, you will have to use new ideas, because the old ones don’t work either...

You are making more assumptions than I did - there is an autocad viewer in the windows 10 appstore. I viewed your diagram

And there is a wrong. For example; one of yours - if a+b<c then a,b, and c CANNOT form a triangle and it is wrong to posit the triangle ABC.

We know a huge amount about triangles, constructive and deductive geometry, and, to move on in complexity, trigonometry. The main problem is that you don't seem to have a good grounding in this.

...I understand why you think my problem is crap. But don’t think of it as supposed to solve Prime numbers. Think of it as a geometry problem where limited information is known about the angle. Yes, I could be wrong, but I believe I am right-on about the similar angles. The question is does it help me solve the unknown values of the triangle I need...

But as a geometry puzzle it lacks precision - everyone reading it should be able to reproduce the construction easily but this is not possible because you chance the rules when some part is proven to be wrong

 

Didn't you speak Russian in another thread?

Только несколько слов.

I have no fluency in any other languages and it does shame me. I work in an international business in which I speak only English to colleagues of multiple nationalities most of whom have English as a second language, some have it is a third... but in any foreign language I have to spend a several minutes checking just a few words.