Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Mathematics
General TopicsResearchOperations ResearchStatisticsMathematical LogicNumerical AnalysisUndergraduate MathAlgebra HelpRecreational Math
Math Software
MapleMathematicaMATLABScilabSASSPSS

Re: JSH: Learning from the negative Pell's Equation



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.



You are accessing this site in a read-only mode. For full access to all member benefits, including message posting, please login or register. Registration is completely free, simple, and takes only a few seconds.

Login | Free MathKB.com registration | Whole discussion thread

The message you are replying to and its parents are listed in the reverse order with the most recent posts first. This might not be the whole discussion thread. To read all the messages in this thread please click here.

Re: JSH: Learning from the negative Pell's Equation

JSH16 May 2009 17:57
On May 16, 10:45 am, marcus_bruck...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > On May 16, 8:46 am, marcus_bruck...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 87 lines]
> which generalize yours.  Nothing is being covered up
> here.

Then work an example relying on what you quoted.

I'll work an example based on what I gave:

2^2 - 5*1^2 = -1, so x = 2*2^2 + 1 = 9, and 9^2 - 5*4^2 = 1

Note that here D=5.  j=2, and since x= 2j^2 + 1, you have x = 9.

Now YOU work an example.

I hate how some of you babble on in these long-winded replies that are
just straight lies.

WORK AN EXAMPLE based on what you claim.

Do math, not sophistry.

James Harris

marcus_bruckner@yahoo.com16 May 2009 17:45
> On May 16, 8:46 am, marcus_bruck...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 82 lines]
>
> Notice I GIVE the solution for x.

 Notice that if you had bothered to read the Wikipedia
article, you would have found Brahmagupta's expressions
which generalize yours.  Nothing is being covered up
here.

> The result is fairly trivial but the point here is that with something
> not seen in the mainstream literature rather than behave like real
> researchers who value knowledge, you and posters like you, lie.

 I did not lie at all.  Your result is well-known and well-
explained in the literature from 1500 years ago.

> Ergo, you do not value knowledge!  Your intentions in posting must
> then be about something else.

 Ergo, you do not read any references, even those that are
most easily accessible.

> In my opinion you post simply to coerce the crowd in a direction of
> your choosing, so your postings are political!!!

 Oh sure.  Telling the truth about this is a political act.

> So what you do in posting has nothing to do with mathematics.

 Are we now talking about your post, where the objectives are
to obtain recognition for your great genius and to show that
mathematicians lie?  Is that the part that nothing to do with
mathematics?

> It is all about a darker side in human nature, and a disdain of
> knowledge.

 Again I'm getting confused.  I would think that your
refusal to read details as in e.g. the Wikipedia article indicates
a disdain for knowledge.  Looks like we are talking about
you and your "darker side", not that of mathematicians.

 Marcus.

> James Harris

JSH16 May 2009 16:22
On May 16, 8:46 am, marcus_bruck...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > On May 15, 5:41 pm, marcus_bruck...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 70 lines]
>
> Marcus.

Readers can simply look at your previous reply in this thread and
contrast it with what I've said, where I'll repeat the math yet again.

Given  j^2 - Dk^2 = -1 you will ALWAYS have a solution to Pell's
Equation

x^2 - Dy^2 = 1 from x = 2j^2 + 1.

Notice I GIVE the solution for x.

The result is fairly trivial but the point here is that with something
not seen in the mainstream literature rather than behave like real
researchers who value knowledge, you and posters like you, lie.

Ergo, you do not value knowledge!  Your intentions in posting must
then be about something else.

In my opinion you post simply to coerce the crowd in a direction of
your choosing, so your postings are political!!!

So what you do in posting has nothing to do with mathematics.

It is all about a darker side in human nature, and a disdain of
knowledge.

James Harris

marcus_bruckner@yahoo.com16 May 2009 15:46
> On May 15, 5:41 pm, marcus_bruck...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
>
> James Harris

Cite a reference where someone has lied about this.

Marcus.

JSH16 May 2009 01:55
On May 15, 5:41 pm, marcus_bruck...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > For me the chilling proof that math society itself willfully lies can
> > be seen with some really trivial algebra, Pell's Equation and the
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>    to show that if x^2 - Ny^2 = k has an integral solution for
>    k = +/- 1, +/-2, +/- 4 then x^2 - Ny^2 = 1 has a solution."

That is not the same as, given  j^2 - Dk^2 = -1 you will ALWAYS have a
solution to Pell's Equation
x^2 - Dy^2 = 1 from x = 2j^2 + 1.

Notice I GIVE the solution for x.

Further note that if j is the first solution then x is the first
solution to Pell's Equation.

> Brahmagupta did not know the continued fraction solution, but
> it is absolutely clear from the above that he "only" knew what you
> claim as a great discovery.  By modern standards with modern

Nope, it's not a great discovery.

It's completely trivial.  Easily proven.  Probably well-known to
Fermat and Euler.

> notation, Brahmagupta's result is a triviality.  So is yours,
> and clearly it is well known.
>
> Marcus.

Lies.

What is remarkable to me is that readers can easily search on the
subject.

I don't claim this result is some great discovery.  It's not.

I simply claim it's an easy way to watch modern number theorists, lie.

James Harris

marcus_bruckner@yahoo.com16 May 2009 00:41
> For me the chilling proof that math society itself willfully lies can
> be seen with some really trivial algebra, Pell's Equation and the
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> James Harris

You have been shown this before.  You keep denying it.  Here it is
from the Wikipedia article on Brahmagupta:

 "Unfortunately, Brahmagupta was not able to apply his solution
  uniformly for all possible values of N, rather he was only able
  to show that if x^2 - Ny^2 = k has an integral solution for
  k = +/- 1, +/-2, +/- 4 then x^2 - Ny^2 = 1 has a solution."

Brahmagupta did not know the continued fraction solution, but
it is absolutely clear from the above that he "only" knew what you
claim as a great discovery.  By modern standards with modern
notation, Brahmagupta's result is a triviality.  So is yours,
and clearly it is well known.

Marcus.

JSH16 May 2009 00:09
For me the chilling proof that math society itself willfully lies can
be seen with some really trivial algebra, Pell's Equation and the
negative Pell's Equation which is why I keep mentioning it, as I can
beat up on math society worldwide with this result indefinitely.

Given ANY set of non-zero integer solutions to the negative Pell's
equation

j^2 - Dk^2 = -1

you will ALWAYS have a solution to Pell's Equation

x^2 - Dy^2 = 1

from x = 2j^2 + 1.

That is a mathematical absolute.  Now go try to find it in a
contemporary mathematical textbook.

What I like about this result is how clearly it shows the political
nature of the modern field of number theory.

Number theorists, quite simply, lie.  I dare them to keep ignoring
this result!  I like beating up on them.

James Harris

Quick links:

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage




©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.