Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #427555 > unrolled thread

Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ......

Started by"Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net>
First post2017-08-06 22:55 -0700
Last post2017-08-09 11:45 -0700
Articles 16 — 6 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ...... "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-06 22:55 -0700
    Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ...... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 23:04 -0700
      Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ...... "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-06 23:06 -0700
        Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ...... Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 03:39 -0700
          Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ......and dicksucker Prokaytic Caspase embarasses himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-07 06:58 -0700
            Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ......and dicksucker Prokaytic Caspase embarasses himself Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 08:06 -0700
              Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ......and dicksucker Prokaytic Caspase embarasses himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-07 08:36 -0700
    Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ...... Earline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei> - 2017-08-07 08:40 +0000
    Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ...... Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 10:44 -0700
      Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ...... "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-07 11:05 -0700
        Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ...... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 12:05 -0700
          Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ...... Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-07 20:00 +0000
        Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ...... Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 13:26 -0700
          Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ...... Winfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc> - 2017-08-07 20:39 +0000
          Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ...... "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-09 11:44 -0700
            Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ...... "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-09 11:45 -0700

#427555 — Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ......

From"Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net>
Date2017-08-06 22:55 -0700
SubjectCretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ......
Message-ID<e21f2004-9f84-49eb-b5e7-00d7edc9e3aa@googlegroups.com>
...x(t)=t^2 is an "equation".

...and that the Minkowski metric is another "equation"

Can't fix stupid.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#427559

Fromrotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
Date2017-08-06 23:04 -0700
Message-ID<c3afa5eb-a18b-45ef-b56d-3928c14e5c92@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#427555
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:55:48 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote:
> ...x(t)=t^2 is an "equation".
> 
> ...and that the Minkowski metric is another "equation"

Yes I did make those claims. See idiot dono, I dont fear to make bold claims.
And as you saw, all the others in the thread agree with me, that they are equations. 


Its a simple matter of applying the definition of 'equation':

1. MATH
a statement that the values of two mathematical expressions are equal (indicated by the sign =). 
2. an equation is a statement of an equality containing one or more variables.
----

Applying these definitions, imply that x(t) = t² is an equation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427560

From"Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net>
Date2017-08-06 23:06 -0700
Message-ID<81efeda7-9e24-4635-bd58-370f023c0056@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#427559
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 11:04:58 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:55:48 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote:
> > ...x(t)=t^2 is an "equation".
> > 
> > ...and that the Minkowski metric is another "equation"
> 
> Yes I did make those claims. 

Thank you for owning up to your utter cretinism, Stephane. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427597

FromProkaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date2017-08-07 03:39 -0700
Message-ID<06cd4f3e-b2ef-4e64-a4d4-c23b45753564@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#427560
- hide quoted text -
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 12:08:40 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:46:21 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 10:36:01 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:29:40 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:04:20 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 6:59:52 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:49:39 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 6:46:27 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:42:39 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 6:39:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:30:54 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > y(x)=5x+2 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > What does this tell you, pathetic imbecile? 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > It tells me that you are going to respond in a silly manner if I claim that 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > x = 1 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > is an equation. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The above provides (even) more proof that you are an imbecile and a troll. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Well??? Is it an equation? 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > You. Have. No. Clue. What. Is. An. Equation. You and your crackpot buddy, claim that f(x)=x^2 is an "equation". It isn't: 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Function.html 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Have another mouthful of shit. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For some reason you don't want to answer me. Is 
> > > > > > x = 1 
> > > > > > an equation or not? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You need to stop trolling and you need to eat another mouthful of shit. Earlier I explained to you that ax^2+bx+c=0 is an example of an equation. Can you extrapolate all by yourself, troll? 
> > > > 
> > > > What I see is that you adamantly refuse to commit yourself. Come on. Is 
> > > > x = 1 
> > > > an equation or not? 
> > > 
> > > You are an imbecile and a troll: 
> > > 
> > > 1. can you make a=0, b=1 and c=-1 all by yourself in the quadratic EQUATION? 
> > > 2. What does your above trolling have to do with your inability to learn what a function is? 
> > 
> > So. You are committing yourself to stating that x = 1 represents an equation? 
> > "Is that your final answer?" 
> 
> What sort of imbecile are you? This was a rhetorical question. 
(corrected minor typo) 
I will take that as a yes. Your final answer is that x=1 is an equation, because 
***YOU*** can substitute "a=0, b=1 and c=-1 ... in the quadratic EQUATION ... " 
However, ***I*** did not obtain x=1 by substituting specific values of a, b, and c 
into the quadratic equation. Instead, I wrote x=1 as a shorthand notation for 
  x(t) = 1 
Therefore, x=1 is a CONSTANT FUNCTION. 
Following ***YOUR*** classification scheme, x=1 is not an equation. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_function

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427609 — Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ......and dicksucker Prokaytic Caspase embarasses himself

From"Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net>
Date2017-08-07 06:58 -0700
SubjectRe: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ......and dicksucker Prokaytic Caspase embarasses himself
Message-ID<9a3d35b3-17df-4b60-963f-f280e8eac9db@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#427597
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 3:40:02 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> - hide quoted text -
> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 12:08:40 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:46:21 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 10:36:01 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:29:40 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:04:20 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 6:59:52 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:49:39 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 6:46:27 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:42:39 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 6:39:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:30:54 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > y(x)=5x+2 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > What does this tell you, pathetic imbecile? 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > It tells me that you are going to respond in a silly manner if I claim that 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > x = 1 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > is an equation. 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > The above provides (even) more proof that you are an imbecile and a troll. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Well??? Is it an equation? 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > You. Have. No. Clue. What. Is. An. Equation. You and your crackpot buddy, claim that f(x)=x^2 is an "equation". It isn't: 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Function.html 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Have another mouthful of shit. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > For some reason you don't want to answer me. Is 
> > > > > > > x = 1 
> > > > > > > an equation or not? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You need to stop trolling and you need to eat another mouthful of shit. Earlier I explained to you that ax^2+bx+c=0 is an example of an equation. Can you extrapolate all by yourself, troll? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > What I see is that you adamantly refuse to commit yourself. Come on. Is 
> > > > > x = 1 
> > > > > an equation or not? 
> > > > 
> > > > You are an imbecile and a troll: 
> > > > 
> > > > 1. can you make a=0, b=1 and c=-1 all by yourself in the quadratic EQUATION? 
> > > > 2. What does your above trolling have to do with your inability to learn what a function is? 
> > > 
> > > So. You are committing yourself to stating that x = 1 represents an equation? 
> > > "Is that your final answer?" 
> > 
> > What sort of imbecile are you? This was a rhetorical question. 
> (corrected minor typo) 
> I will take that as a yes. Your final answer is that x=1 is an equation, because 
> ***YOU*** can substitute "a=0, b=1 and c=-1 ... in the quadratic EQUATION ... " 
> However, ***I*** did not obtain x=1 by substituting specific values of a, b, and c 
> into the quadratic equation. Instead, I wrote x=1 as a shorthand notation for 
>   x(t) = 1 
> Therefore, x=1 is a CONSTANT FUNCTION. 
> Following ***YOUR*** classification scheme, x=1 is not an equation. 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_function

Interesting line of argumentation, I anticipated it. How does the above make f(x)=x^2 an "equation? Wolfram teaches you that it is a function. Take another spoonful of shit. Open wide, imbecile.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427630 — Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ......and dicksucker Prokaytic Caspase embarasses himself

FromProkaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date2017-08-07 08:06 -0700
SubjectRe: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ......and dicksucker Prokaytic Caspase embarasses himself
Message-ID<29fdcad2-b556-4333-96fb-211d03abebe1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#427609
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 8:58:13 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 3:40:02 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > - hide quoted text -
> > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 12:08:40 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:46:21 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 10:36:01 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:29:40 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:04:20 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 6:59:52 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:49:39 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 6:46:27 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:42:39 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 6:39:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:30:54 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > y(x)=5x+2 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What does this tell you, pathetic imbecile? 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > It tells me that you are going to respond in a silly manner if I claim that 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > x = 1 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > is an equation. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > The above provides (even) more proof that you are an imbecile and a troll. 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Well??? Is it an equation? 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > You. Have. No. Clue. What. Is. An. Equation. You and your crackpot buddy, claim that f(x)=x^2 is an "equation". It isn't: 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Function.html 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Have another mouthful of shit. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > For some reason you don't want to answer me. Is 
> > > > > > > > x = 1 
> > > > > > > > an equation or not? 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > You need to stop trolling and you need to eat another mouthful of shit. Earlier I explained to you that ax^2+bx+c=0 is an example of an equation. Can you extrapolate all by yourself, troll? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What I see is that you adamantly refuse to commit yourself. Come on. Is 
> > > > > > x = 1 
> > > > > > an equation or not? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You are an imbecile and a troll: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. can you make a=0, b=1 and c=-1 all by yourself in the quadratic EQUATION? 
> > > > > 2. What does your above trolling have to do with your inability to learn what a function is? 
> > > > 
> > > > So. You are committing yourself to stating that x = 1 represents an equation? 
> > > > "Is that your final answer?" 
> > > 
> > > What sort of imbecile are you? This was a rhetorical question. 
> > (corrected minor typo) 
> > I will take that as a yes. Your final answer is that x=1 is an equation, because 
> > ***YOU*** can substitute "a=0, b=1 and c=-1 ... in the quadratic EQUATION ... " 
> > However, ***I*** did not obtain x=1 by substituting specific values of a, b, and c 
> > into the quadratic equation. Instead, I wrote x=1 as a shorthand notation for 
> >   x(t) = 1 
> > Therefore, x=1 is a CONSTANT FUNCTION. 
> > Following ***YOUR*** classification scheme, x=1 is not an equation. 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_function
> 
> Interesting line of argumentation, I anticipated it. How does the above make f(x)=x^2 an "equation? Wolfram teaches you that it is a function. Take another spoonful of shit. Open wide, imbecile.

Let's deal with one misunderstanding of yours at a time, OK?

Because, as a matter of fact, I fibbed. 
I did NOT begin with x = 1 as a shorthand notation for x(t) = 1.
Instead, I started with 3x - 2 = x, which is clearly an EQUATION.
I added 2 to both sides yielding 3x = x + 2
Then subtracted x from both sides yielding 2x = 2
Then divided both sides by 2 yielding x = 1

At each stage, I performed an operation that guaranteed that the resulting
mathematical expression would be an EQUATION.

In other words, ***BY YOUR LOGIC***, x=1 is an EQUATION, not a function.

So which is it? If I start with x(t) = 1, x = 1 is a function, not an equation.
If I start with 3x - 2 = x, x = 1 is an equation, not a function.

If I don't ***TELL*** you my starting assumptions, how are you going to tell
which it is? Equation or function?

YOUR CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR EQUATIONS VERSUS FUNCTIONS IS NONSENSICAL.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427631 — Re: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ......and dicksucker Prokaytic Caspase embarasses himself

From"Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net>
Date2017-08-07 08:36 -0700
SubjectRe: Cretin Stephane Baune ("rotchm") claims that ......and dicksucker Prokaytic Caspase embarasses himself
Message-ID<8ee15470-3124-4987-825f-17f537ecfe26@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#427630
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 8:06:33 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 8:58:13 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 3:40:02 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > > - hide quoted text -
> > > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 12:08:40 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:46:21 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 10:36:01 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:29:40 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:04:20 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 6:59:52 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:49:39 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 6:46:27 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:42:39 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 6:39:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 8:30:54 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > y(x)=5x+2 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What does this tell you, pathetic imbecile? 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It tells me that you are going to respond in a silly manner if I claim that 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > x = 1 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is an equation. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > The above provides (even) more proof that you are an imbecile and a troll. 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Well??? Is it an equation? 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > You. Have. No. Clue. What. Is. An. Equation. You and your crackpot buddy, claim that f(x)=x^2 is an "equation". It isn't: 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Function.html 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Have another mouthful of shit. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > For some reason you don't want to answer me. Is 
> > > > > > > > > x = 1 
> > > > > > > > > an equation or not? 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > You need to stop trolling and you need to eat another mouthful of shit. Earlier I explained to you that ax^2+bx+c=0 is an example of an equation. Can you extrapolate all by yourself, troll? 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > What I see is that you adamantly refuse to commit yourself. Come on. Is 
> > > > > > > x = 1 
> > > > > > > an equation or not? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You are an imbecile and a troll: 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1. can you make a=0, b=1 and c=-1 all by yourself in the quadratic EQUATION? 
> > > > > > 2. What does your above trolling have to do with your inability to learn what a function is? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > So. You are committing yourself to stating that x = 1 represents an equation? 
> > > > > "Is that your final answer?" 
> > > > 
> > > > What sort of imbecile are you? This was a rhetorical question. 
> > > (corrected minor typo) 
> > > I will take that as a yes. Your final answer is that x=1 is an equation, because 
> > > ***YOU*** can substitute "a=0, b=1 and c=-1 ... in the quadratic EQUATION ... " 
> > > However, ***I*** did not obtain x=1 by substituting specific values of a, b, and c 
> > > into the quadratic equation. Instead, I wrote x=1 as a shorthand notation for 
> > >   x(t) = 1 
> > > Therefore, x=1 is a CONSTANT FUNCTION. 
> > > Following ***YOUR*** classification scheme, x=1 is not an equation. 
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_function
> > 
> > Interesting line of argumentation, I anticipated it. How does the above make f(x)=x^2 an "equation? Wolfram teaches you that it is a function. Take another spoonful of shit. Open wide, imbecile.
> 
> Let's deal with one misunderstanding of yours at a time, OK?
> 
> Because, as a matter of fact, I fibbed. 
> I did NOT begin with x = 1 as a shorthand notation for x(t) = 1.
> Instead, I started with 3x - 2 = x, which is clearly an EQUATION.
> I added 2 to both sides yielding 3x = x + 2
> Then subtracted x from both sides yielding 2x = 2
> Then divided both sides by 2 yielding x = 1
> 
> At each stage, I performed an operation that guaranteed that the resulting
> mathematical expression would be an EQUATION.
> 
> In other words, ***BY YOUR LOGIC***, x=1 is an EQUATION, not a function.
> 

Yep. 

> So which is it? If I start with x(t) = 1, x = 1 is a function, not an equation.

Here comes your cretinism, if you wanted to define a function, x=1 is not the correct way of doing it. The correct definition is:

x(t)=1 for argument t belonging to a certain domain of definition (see any intro to calculus).

So, yes, you fibbed. Not only that, you demonstrated, one more time, your crass ignorance. No wonder that wiki is such a mess, with "editors" like you, what do you expect?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427588

FromEarline Loar <ureoo@wwarao.ei>
Date2017-08-07 08:40 +0000
Message-ID<om9926$121f$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#427555
W dniu niedziela, 6 sierpnia 2017 18:48:27 UTC+2 użytkownik *  _Dono,_  *
napisał:

> ...x(t)=t^2 is an "equation".
> ...and that the Minkowski metric is another "equation"
> 
> Can't fix stupid.

I must agree in that. A one, not sensing a function from an equation, is 
puerile deplorable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427638

FromLarry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com>
Date2017-08-07 10:44 -0700
Message-ID<4c06bf1d-62e8-4418-93bf-bf3b4c990471@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#427555
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 6:55:48 AM UTC+1, Dono, wrote:
> ...x(t)=t^2 is an "equation".
> 
> ...and that the Minkowski metric is another "equation"
> 
> Can't fix stupid.

Do you see Gauss's law, div E = rho/epsilon_0, as an equation?

If yes, do you then see Maxwell's equations as equations?

Larry Harson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427642

From"Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net>
Date2017-08-07 11:05 -0700
Message-ID<19b364b8-ca83-47e8-ba80-28f26b7f41c6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#427638
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM UTC-7, Larry Harson wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 6:55:48 AM UTC+1, Dono, wrote:
> > ...x(t)=t^2 is an "equation".
> > 
> > ...and that the Minkowski metric is another "equation"
> > 
> > Can't fix stupid.
> 
> Do you see Gauss's law, div E = rho/epsilon_0, as an equation?
> 
> If yes, do you then see Maxwell's equations as equations?
> 
> Larry Harson

Sure, what is your point? Differential equations are....EQUATIONS. I already cited algebraic, transcendental and differential equations as examples.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427653

Fromrotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>
Date2017-08-07 12:05 -0700
Message-ID<098e064e-c50b-480b-88cd-12051eb9b150@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#427642
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 2:05:22 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote:

> Sure, what is your point? Differential equations are....EQUATIONS. I already cited algebraic, transcendental and differential equations as examples.

So, x'(t) = t² is an equation, but not x(t) = t² ?

Care to cite a definition of EQUATION ?
Can you find a definition of 'equation' ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427660

FromWinfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc>
Date2017-08-07 20:00 +0000
Message-ID<omagsn$19k8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#427653
rotchm wrote:

> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 2:05:22 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote:
> 
>> Sure, what is your point? Differential equations are....EQUATIONS. I
>> already cited algebraic, transcendental and differential equations as
>> examples.
> 
> So, x'(t) = t² is an equation, but not x(t) = t² ?

I'm not even sure is allowed that. The 1st order derivative of x wrt t 
(time) is dependent on time?? It looks like totally nonsense, or it must 
be me forgetting something. What you wrote is illegal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427661

FromLarry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com>
Date2017-08-07 13:26 -0700
Message-ID<f1c504ba-d1ab-4fd9-9f17-c91f51aa419f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#427642
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 7:05:22 PM UTC+1, Dono, wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM UTC-7, Larry Harson wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 6:55:48 AM UTC+1, Dono, wrote:
> > > ...x(t)=t^2 is an "equation".
> > > 
> > > ...and that the Minkowski metric is another "equation"
> > > 
> > > Can't fix stupid.
> > 
> > Do you see Gauss's law, div E = rho/epsilon_0, as an equation?
> > 
> > If yes, do you then see Maxwell's equations as equations?
> > 
> > Larry Harson

> Sure, what is your point? Differential equations are....EQUATIONS. I already cited algebraic, transcendental and differential equations as examples.

I believe you see an equation as a mathematical expression that can be solved by itself. So solve Gauss's equation in the same way you want Rotchm to solve the expression you keep quoting as a non-equation. I don't see how you can, since on the RHS there are two variables which are unknown, as well as E itself giving E(x + dx) = E + dx @E/@x.

Larry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427662

FromWinfred Tucker <cnt@iiefeer.dc>
Date2017-08-07 20:39 +0000
Message-ID<omaj6j$1col$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#427661
Larry Harson wrote:

> I believe you see an equation as a mathematical expression that can be
> solved by itself. So solve Gauss's equation in the same way you want
> Rotchm to solve the expression you keep quoting as a non-equation. I
> don't see how you can, since on the RHS there are two variables which
> are unknown, as well as E itself giving E(x + dx) = E + dx @E/@x.

The RHS is the function, not the LHS. The LHS is the mnemonic describing 
the dependency parameter/variable.

f(t) = x^t is a function
f(t) = x^z is NOT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427908

From"Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net>
Date2017-08-09 11:44 -0700
Message-ID<bddb3623-5717-4063-9fac-1efdcf46d92d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#427661
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:26:36 PM UTC-7, Larry Harson wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 7:05:22 PM UTC+1, Dono, wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM UTC-7, Larry Harson wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 6:55:48 AM UTC+1, Dono, wrote:
> > > > ...x(t)=t^2 is an "equation".
> > > > 
> > > > ...and that the Minkowski metric is another "equation"
> > > > 
> > > > Can't fix stupid.
> > > 
> > > Do you see Gauss's law, div E = rho/epsilon_0, as an equation?
> > > 
> > > If yes, do you then see Maxwell's equations as equations?
> > > 
> > > Larry Harson
> 
> > Sure, what is your point? Differential equations are....EQUATIONS. I already cited algebraic, transcendental and differential equations as examples.
> 
> I believe you see an equation as a mathematical expression that can be solved by itself. So solve Gauss's equation in the same way you want Rotchm to solve the expression you keep quoting as a non-equation. I don't see how you can, since on the RHS there are two variables which are unknown, as well as E itself giving E(x + dx) = E + dx @E/@x.
> 
> Larry

The Maxwell equationS for a SYSTEM of equationS, they are solved TOGETHER, ignoramus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427909

From"Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net>
Date2017-08-09 11:45 -0700
Message-ID<3668fcf2-6fed-40f3-a697-843d79bb4cb0@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#427908
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 11:44:17 AM UTC-7, Dono, wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 1:26:36 PM UTC-7, Larry Harson wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 7:05:22 PM UTC+1, Dono, wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM UTC-7, Larry Harson wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 6:55:48 AM UTC+1, Dono, wrote:
> > > > > ...x(t)=t^2 is an "equation".
> > > > > 
> > > > > ...and that the Minkowski metric is another "equation"
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can't fix stupid.
> > > > 
> > > > Do you see Gauss's law, div E = rho/epsilon_0, as an equation?
> > > > 
> > > > If yes, do you then see Maxwell's equations as equations?
> > > > 
> > > > Larry Harson
> > 
> > > Sure, what is your point? Differential equations are....EQUATIONS. I already cited algebraic, transcendental and differential equations as examples.
> > 
> > I believe you see an equation as a mathematical expression that can be solved by itself. So solve Gauss's equation in the same way you want Rotchm to solve the expression you keep quoting as a non-equation. I don't see how you can, since on the RHS there are two variables which are unknown, as well as E itself giving E(x + dx) = E + dx @E/@x.
> > 
> > Larry
> 
> The Maxwell equationS for a SYSTEM of equationS, they are solved TOGETHER, ignoramus.

Correction: "form", not "for"

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web