Time to kick Iran

Ion said:
Prove it.

I read about him in Wikipedia.

He is not a mathematician.

He reminds me of Political Science, an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahaha! You're really getting desparate, aren't you?
 
Ziggurat said:
God, you're a sanctimonious twat. Yeah, I misspelled a name...
Click to expand...
You didn't mispell.

You haven't learn it.

Including his contribution to surface measurements, like in the integral of (sin x)/x.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Yeah,but it tough for us in California.
BTW I notice that Ion hates the US but he is still here raking in the bucks.
Can you say..hypocrite?
Click to expand...
No, I can't.

I freely admit I conquer and exploit U.S..

I am:

Conquistador
 
Ion said:
Mathematic proof for this lawyering blabber?
Click to expand...

All this information is in the links I gave you before, but apparently you couldn't figure out the definitions of words even having been told what they are. Well, I guess you can always brag that you know how to spell, even if you've got no clue about meaning. How impressive.

A coffee cup and a donut have the same topology, but different geometries (go look at the wikipedia animation if you have trouble understanding why). A ring and a mobius strip can have the same intrinsic geometry (Euclidean) but they always have different topologies. R2 defines a single topology. But if I use a Euclidean metric on R2, that gives it a different geometry than if I use a hyperbolic metric (ala special relativity).
 
Ziggurat said:
...
A coffee cup and a donut have the same topology, but different geometries (go look at the wikipedia animation if you have trouble understanding why). A ring and a mobius strip can have the same intrinsic geometry (Euclidean) but they always have different topologies. R2 defines a single topology. But if I use a Euclidean metric on R2, that gives it a different geometry than if I use a hyperbolic metric (ala special relativity).
Click to expand...
This proves nothing, and nothing against what I said.

You just flood the Internet with noise.

You said that Poincare didn't invent any new math.
Wrong.
He is a founder of the topology.
His topology is used in special relativity.
Which you didn't know until I told you here.

You said that Reimann -meaning Riemann- was into topology.
He was into surface calculations.

You confused finite and infinite in Lagrange polynomial approximations of trigonometric functions.

You bring in a pathetic Shannon as an American mathematician in Engineering books.
 
Last edited:
Ion said:
I am an Electrical Engineer, registered as a Professional Engineer in the Electrical Engineering branch.
Click to expand...
That does not preclude you from being an asshat. Congrats on your immense versatility.

DR
 
Ion said:
You said that Poincare didn't invent any new math.
Click to expand...

No, I did not say that.

He is a founder of the topology.
His topology is used in special relativity.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. As your own source points out, special relativity uses R4, which has the same topology as Newtonian space-time. It's the geometry (the metric) which is different. It is not possible for Poincare to have invented the topology of relativity, because the topology of special relativity is exactly the same as for Newtonian mechanics.

You said that Reimann -meaning Riemann- was into topology.
He wasn't.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't say that, liar. Let's look at what I actually said (bolding added for emphasis):

Ziggurat said:
Evidently, you don't understand the difference between geometry and topology. There is absolutely nothing special about the topology of special relativity. It is as trivial as the topology of Newtonian physics. It is the geometry which is of interest. And Poincare's contribution was not the development of any new math, but the identification of the correct equations (which were quite simple compared to the later application of Reimann's geometry ideas to general relativity - and Reimann was much earlier than Poincare). Like I said, you don't know physics.
Click to expand...

Note that I explicitly stated that topology and geometry aren't the same thing, and that it was Riemann's geometry ideas which were central to general relativity. So why do you now claim that I said Riemann was into topology, when I did not say that? You are, once again, a liar.
 
Ion said:
...and the one American mathematician in Engineering books is?
Click to expand...

All the mathematicians you quoted, were living in the 18th or 19th century, if not earlier.
I admit that, in the 18th and 19th century, America was not at the top, as mathematics.
If you speak about tech in the 20th century, things change..
 
Matteo Martini said:
All the mathematicians you quoted, were living in the 18th or 19th century, if not earlier.
I admit that, in the 18th and 19th century, America was not at the top, as mathematics.
If you speak about tech in the 20th century, things change..
Click to expand...
Poincare lived in the 20th. century.

I point out that U.S. is on the wrong path for things to change.
Matteo Martini said:
Not by the French, you see?
Click to expand...
So?

On a related note, you brown nose U.S..
Matteo Martini said:
I may be wrong/ignorant, but, what is the given name, of this guy?
Click to expand...
I don't know.

It's the Le Galois Theorem as I remember it, and as it is listed in my transcripts.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom