Small lecture on time station math

[lamdo263]

Pierre de Fermat, pronounced Fer-ma was a mathematician who came up with a near impossible equation to solve. Cube roots of 3..The answer I feel however was not based within the art of mathematics as it sustains any product of an equation, but the answer's held in the time period itself. Somebody not too long ago solved the equation, but the simple answer that I feel Fermat had envisioned, it what most modern day people look at almost everyday of their lives. This is the computer terminal screen, a peripheral to a PC's composition.

Near the time of Fermat and Sir Isaac Newton, they had mechanical trip on a gear output machines, but no way for a person with a software program. This output to add as a visualization of what say, for instance a geometrical displayed problem would be. The computers of the 16 and 1700s, geared and cranked as a handle was turned and this revolved cylinders, to where the value of a certain number would come up.

So the issue then was not that there weren't any computers,; there were loads of tallying machines. But instead, a machine that would yield, "remarkable proof", as Fermat had said.

So as not to bore you down into a numerical mess, that you probably don't want to be in, the question is, "Can you show us some of this proof?

Yes, I think it was posted in The Jefferson Airplanes Bark Album and Baron Von Tollbooth and the Chrome Nun. Simple question, what did the title of the song represent?

The gist of the title of the song, is that sometimes inflation and meanings change with time. So this is a two statement relevancy, painted before the foreground of time.

It's simple. One is driving down the highway and they must pay at the on-highway toll booth of Baron Von Tollboth. What exactly does Barron Von Toolbooth mean? As the album that I got it from, these were the traveling band days of The Jefferson Airplane, so they were tired. It was probably one of them, that came up with their own glorified version, of what a tollbooth, would be in colonial times, as compared to now.

So Barron Von Tollbooth is really a hyped up term, for a fancy word, that has an everyday meaning. However Barron, in this particular usury meaning of the term use, really means nothing. This is important however, because Barron Von Tollbooth does express the life and times of the Jefferson Airplane. Why there's any level of contempt held in this song, are the lyrics, ( stickin in my krakin ), which makes one think that they're singing about Norway. In this sense, what I have just shown you here, is how some time travelers may communicate.

Sticken in my crack-in, may mean Baron Von Toolbooth has setaceous plans, to try and get wealth he's not disserving?

Pierre de Fermat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[lamdo263]

Here is the second use of a three sided interface and this example makes me despise the very rich, but in the same token envy them. Then Dr. Carl Sagan shows the importants of understanding cube roots of three as a visualization and does this in spades.

 

[Harte]

Fermat's last theorem - which is what you are talking about - isn't about cubes or cube roots. It states that there are no nonzero whole number solutions to this equation where n>2:



Fermat claimed that he had found a "remarkable proof" of this theorem in some notes he hand-wrote in the margin of a book. He claimed the proof was too long to fit in that margin. His proof has never been found, if it ever even existed.

His theorem was proven in modern times using computers.

Harte

 

[lamdo263]

Fermat's last theorem - which is what you are talking about - isn't about cubes or cube roots. It states that there are no nonzero whole number solutions to this equation where n>2:

View attachment 11353

Fermat claimed that he had found a "remarkable proof" of this theorem in some notes he hand-wrote in the margin of a book. He claimed the proof was too long to fit in that margin. His proof has never been found, if it ever even existed.

His theorem was proven in modern times using computers.

Harte

The solution to the problem was not in that era. It was the failure of the ability to be able to show this as an expression within that era. Again, yes I know the problem mathematically has recently been solved. Fermat knew that it could not be solved.

The ability not to be solved, caused Évariste Galois to loose his life in a duel. Gawl-wa claimed right away, that he knew the answer to Fermat's theorem, which could not be proven in that time, via an argument, an insult and they a pistol duel.

I feel that Fermat, going out, realized that the theorem required remarkable proof. In this instance, the limitations of that era, were forefronted as a cause, as a lack of understanding.

I'm sure that this was a lack of a qualified peripheral to explain how calculating machines could read out information. I feel that Fermat had seen to the future, this is what remarkable proof, means.

Sources,

Évariste Galois - Wikipedia Simon Sing Fermats last equation - Bing video

 

[Harte]

The solution to the problem was not in that era. It was the failure of the ability to be able to show this as an expression within that era. Again, yes I know the problem mathematically has recently been solved. Fermat knew that it could not be solved.

If you think that, then you know very little about this theorem.
As I clearly stated, Fermat actually wrote - by hand - that he had found a "remarkable proof" of the theorem but couldn't fit it into the margin he put the note in.
Just because it was never published (or found) doesn't mean he hadn't proven it.

The ability not to be solved, caused Évariste Galois to loose his life in a duel. Gawl-wa claimed right away, that he knew the answer to Fermat's theorem, which could not be proven in that time, via an argument, an insult and they a pistol duel.

False narrative. Galois never even worked on a proof for Fermat's theorem, and his duel almost certainly involved a woman, not another mathematician.
Your own source doesn't even make this claim about the duel. In fact, it actually states what I just said.

Anyone interested in a source other than wiki on the subject can read about it here:
https://www.tau.ac.il/~corry/publications/articles/pdf/Fermat-History.pdf

In particular, the bottom of pages 2 and 3, concerning Galois.

Harte

 

[lamdo263]

If you think that, then you know very little about this theorem.
As I clearly stated, Fermat actually wrote - by hand - that he had found a "remarkable proof" of the theorem but couldn't fit it into the margin he put the note in.
Just because it was never published (or found) doesn't mean he hadn't proven it.



False narrative. Galois never even worked on a proof for Fermat's theorem, and his duel almost certainly involved a woman, not another mathematician.
Your own source doesn't even make this claim about the duel. In fact, it actually states what I just said.

Anyone interested in a source other than wiki on the subject can read about it here:
https://www.tau.ac.il/~corry/publications/articles/pdf/Fermat-History.pdf

In particular, the bottom of pages 2 and 3, concerning Galois.

Harte

I will settle on it was an era misanthropes, or a failure of being able to express the necessary wanted technology for the time. Remember now, Leibniz tried to befriend Thomas Jefferson and this attempt had failed. During that time, they had mechanical calculating engines, however the capacity of those machines being able to express themselves within the three D graphics, were nil.

In essence what I feel Pierre Fermat had done, was say goodbye to the limitations of that time's ability, to portray a math problem more fully. Although E'variste Galois was a dramatic touch to the Fermat Equation, his comments weren't eve necessary, or required. All show, song and dance. Incidental music, added to a limitation clause.

It was the lack of the development of a peripheral. You can prove this to yourself by taking a 1950s television set, that you know that works.

Place this TV in a room with a chair in front of the TV set. Now make sure that the TV works. Does it?, great fine. Now turn the TV off and sit in that chair in front of the television set.

The key question is, what does the TV set do when it's turned off ? This is complex, so you might want to take notes.

Know that the computer terminal screen, was not more fully developed till the 1980s. Ask yourself, how much time was that after Pierre De' Fermat passed on. How many eras had come and gone and still not peripheral to what came to be known as the computer?

I was taught that E'varisti bragged that he could solve the Fermat equation and one thing led to another and he ended up in a duel.

Mysterious Death of a Mathematician Finally Solved?

Mysterious Death of a Mathematician Finally Solved?

www.discovermagazine.com

 

[Harte]

You are wasting my time (and that of others.)
You claim Galois' duel was over Fermat's theorem, then provide a link that tells us what I already told you.

WTF are you doing?

I'll keep you off my ever-growing ignore list if you can make any sense of what you've said.

Harte

 

[lamdo263]

You are wasting my time (and that of others.)
You claim Galois' duel was over Fermat's theorem, then provide a link that tells us what I already told you.

WTF are you doing?

I'll keep you off my ever-growing ignore list if you can make any sense of what you've said.

Harte

You're free to do whatever you want to do. I had read in a couple of books. Galois had an insatiable ego, that he could solve the problem. Which at the time probably nobody could.

Like I said, this all rested with Fermat. Why would he post a math problem that nobody at the time could solve? If you read Simon Singh's version of the problem, by instinct he does go into cube roots. This is why I think the statement of the problem, was more of less similar to H.P. Barnum's statement, come see the egress. However Fermat did not have Barnum's flair for the dramatic, to sell the simple.

When Hamilton discovered the British version of algebra, he stated that all of a sudden he could see the images he wanted to see placed upon the understructure wall of a bridge, that had a pedestrian walkway that crossed beneath that bridge.

What they were looking for then, was a way to express themselves, in a way that involved emotion, but emotion did not quite cover it. What was needed then, was a device to where they could illustrate what each person had visualized. This I feel is why Fermat said what he did.

*What I have said here, serves as a time station, or a place of progress noted, by character within any civilization.