Originally posted by sasguru
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Fermat
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Fermat"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by NotAllThere View PostOy you lot. Stop hijacking my thread!
The assignment was to show that there does not exist three consecutive natural numbers whose product can be expressed as the form a^k, where a and k are also natural numbers (k>1).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by d000hg View PostEach new layer of understanding very rarely invalidates the old previously accepted one because they are only accepted after holding up to intense empirical scrutiny. We don't say relativity proves Newton wrong, or that field-theory proves Einstein wrong.
Yes "knowledge" accretes for a while, then there is a "paradigm shift" which changes everything.
Newton wasn't wrong, his model works at non-relativistic speeds and for relatively low levels of gravity (hence his equations are used for space travel), Einstein came along and made a more complex model that explained things for a wider set of conditions. That's accretion.
Because Quantum theory (which is a paradigm shift) and Spec. and Gen. Rel are so incompatible there's something we're not getting/ missing in either or both.
When that is explained, I suspect we're going to have to unlearn a lot of what we think we know now.
Leave a comment:
-
Our understanding of gravity has changed massively over the last few hundred years - and the announcement about inflationary universe findings the other week mark another change, but its still called gravity and in 99% of cases the old Newtonian system is still "correct".
Each new layer of understanding very rarely invalidates the old previously accepted one because they are only accepted after holding up to intense empirical scrutiny. We don't say relativity proves Newton wrong, or that field-theory proves Einstein wrong.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NotAllThere View PostThat's wrong on two counts
1. Relativity predicts the existence of black-holes
2. They are explained (to an extent) by current theories - specifically general relativity.
That's the point I was trying to make.
A second point I was alluding to, is that there is a school of though that reckons all of this stuff is made up by humans and their very limited pattern finding apparatus and we impose these "rules" on the world, when the underlying reality is something completely different - my thoughts on that are that if that were true why would some theories have more predictive power than others?
"Facts" are not what they seem.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by doodab View PostI've always assumed they are called black holes because no light escapes.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by OwlHoot View PostIt must have been pretty obvious to everyone except you that doohg meant black holes were _just_ a theory at the time he was speaking of, and at that time none had yet been observed.
But any excuse to get on someone's case and start lecturing ..
(and yes, they have now been observed indirectly, to such an extent that no mainstream sane physicist doubts their existence)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by sasguru View PostWhat that article shows is that Dooghie was talking total bollocks.
He claimed that black holes emerged from our theories of physics whereas it's clear that whatever they are, which we don't know yet (hence the term "black holes", rather like "black box"), they are an observed phenomena that we can't explain with our current theories.
So much for a science degree, eh?
And there you have, in a nutshell the problem with what has gone wrong with British education in the latter years.
Read a book why don't you?
Leave a comment:
-
I've always assumed they are called black holes because no light escapes.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by sasguru View PostWhat that article shows is that Dooghie was talking total bollocks.
He claimed that black holes emerged from our theories of physics whereas it's clear that whatever they are, which we don't know yet (hence the term "black holes", rather like "black box"), they are an observed phenomena that we can't explain with our current theories.
1. Relativity predicts the existence of black-holes
2. They are explained (to an extent) by current theories - specifically general relativity.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by OwlHoot View PostFirstly, sadly physicists take little notice of Stephen Hawking's pronouncements these days. The charitable interpretation is that they are deliberately provocative and contrarian, to increase sales of his pot boilers.
Also, in case you cited that article to cast doubt on the existence of black holes, might I point out that it states the following near the start:
He claimed that black holes emerged from our theories of physics whereas it's clear that whatever they are, which we don't know yet (hence the term "black holes", rather like "black box"), they are an observed phenomena that we can't explain with our current theories.
So much for a science degree, eh?
And there you have, in a nutshell the problem with what has gone wrong with British education in the latter years.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NotAllThere View PostOy you lot. Stop hijacking my thread!
The assignment was to show that there does not exist three consecutive natural numbers whose product can be expressed as the form a^k, where a and k are also natural numbers (k>1).
Since x and x^2 - 1 are coprime, that would require integers u and v with x = u^k and x^2 - 1 = v^k
In other words, it requires (u^2)^k - v^k = 1 which means u^2 and v must be distinct (or else the LHS would be zero). But if they are distinct then the minimum absolute value occurs with u^2 = v + or - 1, in which case for k > 1 the difference must be greater than 1.
Leave a comment:
-
Oy you lot. Stop hijacking my thread!
Originally posted by OwlHoot View PostWhat was the question, out of interest?
Seems more likely that a number theory assignment would use Fermat's Little Theorem. Are you sure that wasn't what he was talking about?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NotAllThere View PostFor one of the questions on my son's number theory assignment, he's invoked Fermat's Last Theorem in the proof. I couldn't have done that when I was at university - it hadn't been proved then!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by sasguru View PostJeez, you lot only demonstrate your ignorance, time and time again.
You really need to read about the philosophy of science especially Popper and Kuhn.
As we're talking on different levels and your unknown unknowns are too great, carry on as you are.
As for black holes, what are the "facts" about them?
What Hawking meant when he said 'there are no black holes' | PBS NewsHour
Also, in case you cited that article to cast doubt on the existence of black holes, might I point out that it states the following near the start:
To be clear, Hawking was not claiming that black holes don’t exist. Astronomers have been observing black holes for decades, said Joseph Polchinski, theoretical physicist at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. ...
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: