|
|
"The Last Danish Pastry" <clivet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4o6quhFctlgeU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Proginoskes" <CCHeckman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1159600047.575524.128670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>> Tim Peters wrote:
>>> [jstevh@xxxxxxx]
>>> [...]
>>> For the rest, I must say this is one of the clearest posts I've seen
>>> from
>>> you in years. I don't know what you think the /point/ of it is, but at
>>> least most of it was intelligible.
>>
>> Yes, it's clear he _doesn't_ know what a ring is. My attempt at
>> educating him (posting the definition) seems to have gone unknown.
>
> As Wilma Scranton said 5 years ago:
>
> "James, what you know about rings could be written in the margin of a
> postage stamp ... in big letters"
>
> He is evidently rather a slow learner.
>
> The above quote is from a chat room conversation with James (using the
> nick "FlatRings"):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/47d187815d6a1ae5/cb949fd79c3c469f
from JSH post 5 years
ago.....................................................
And yes, I do admit that the last chat helped out a lot. I've been
sloppy with pieces of the ring definition since I didn't have to worry
about them. Much of that has been because I use the ring of integers
to start, which has a lot already with it, like the property of being
a group under addition.
But it's not difficult stuff, so the math community is on borrowed
time when it comes to relying on things like that as a defense against
the truth.
And it's just going to make it all that much more painful when it
becomes clear that I have a proof, and that people posted here in a
conscious or unconscious attempt to hide a simple proof of Fermat's
Last Theorem from the world, and used technicalities since they COULD
figure out what I MEANT.
|
|