This all of course comes with the massive caveat that Euclid's ideas are in fact not the best description we currently have of geometry; that prize goes to Einstein's theory of General Relativity. 

How much science, math, physics theory, posts, books, etc., would come to nothing if one could simply demonstrate that the most correct geometrical ideas were expressed by Euclid. There there is one and only one true geometrical grammar? Compile a list. 

This all of course comes with the massive caveat that Euclid's ideas are in fact not the best description we currently have of geometry; that prize goes to Einstein's theory of General Relativity. 

The Elements are a grammar system, Relativity is not. 

Last edited by Philosopher8659; 09082010 at 06:54 PM.
The 'grammar system' of general relativity is differential geometry. It is just as rigorous. 

One of the outcomes of my solving the delain problem with euclidean geometry and plain algebra, and writing the equations in plain algebra, is that it demonstrates a one to one correspondence between simple arithmetic, euclidean geometry and simple algebra. Now, do you suppose that you can negate the one grammar system, and preserve the other two? Not by language theory. So, there is the empirical evidence. Filling in equations with ad hoc variables is not a grammar system. 

Last edited by Philosopher8659; 09082010 at 07:30 PM.
The Delian problem has been proven is impossible. Trying to actually solve these problems (squaring the circle being the most famous) is a favourite obsession of pseudomathematics. 

The Delian Problem is not impossible. I have solved it. The solution follows from something you learned in Elementary Set Theory. There are two, and only two methods of constructing a set. If you are able to generalize this fact, you find that it is the foundation for not only predication itself, determines primitive predication, but also demonstrates that there are two, and only two groups of geometries. One group is not based on judgment, therefore not true, and only one that is true. I.e. a geometry based on definition. Just what a definition is, has not been taught. But I will give you a leg up. 

Last edited by Philosopher8659; 09092010 at 01:00 PM.
lol. Okay, can we move this thread out of the science forum now? 

It is posted. The Delian Quest. Archive.org. One thing you should notice right away, I did what Descartes could not do, and did it quite naturallysecond nature. 

Last edited by Philosopher8659; 09092010 at 03:14 PM.
What do you mean by gibberish? 

Tell mathcad and geometers skechpad that they produce incoherent work. Nice try genius. 

Last edited by Philosopher8659; 09092010 at 06:15 PM.


I work in a factory, ditch the suit and add grease. I live in the real world. 

If you really think that then that's the most pitiful act of selfdelusion I've ever encountered. 

Oh, how pathetic. You asked for proof then dismiss it like a teenage girl. Get a life. 



It is published. You know where. If you cannot follow it, your problem. you can verify every figure and every equation available by software. 

Last edited by Philosopher8659; 09092010 at 06:51 PM.
For a piece of work which took you ten years I find it quite an outstanding performance of doublethink to claim that it isn't worth the time to spend a single minute giving me a brief outline of the proof, especially as any acceptable proof would have such an outline in the first place, and especially as you have a prime opportunity to talk about your hereto ignored work with a not completely untalented mathematician who is listening to you. 

You aptly demonstrate your hearing problem. So, go back to the original post, a what if question, since not even a real demonstration is able to penetrate your keen mind. The appendix has a step by step, the intro shows you that it is from a very primitive geometric figure. Basically it is one of the many square root figures available in geometry. It gives you everything you need to simply draw in the ellipse. The figure itself points to the next geometric tool to use. 

And why did you think you were allowed to draw ellipses in the Delian problem? 

Apparently you are not even reading the posts. Take a hike. I am not reexplaining what is in the text itself and what has been posted here. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. Be an ass anywhere else you like. 

Last edited by Philosopher8659; 09102010 at 12:07 PM.
Correct, I am an ass. I should take a hike! I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing, after all. 

Last edited by Xei; 09102010 at 12:33 PM.
Your not up to par on anything. Sorry. You cannot even correctly abstract the meaning of a common sentence. How old are you anyway? 

Last edited by Philosopher8659; 09102010 at 03:38 PM.
Common Characteristics of Cranks  Wikipedia 

Last edited by Xei; 09112010 at 12:39 PM.
Bookmarks