C1ay Posted June 10, 2006 Report Posted June 10, 2006 hehe, wanna see that math screw up? Assume A and B are both 1 ... 1^2=1 so 1+1=1, thus a=1 b=1 c=1 but that is NOT a right angle triangle.:shrug: Just because you assign A and B to one does not mean that C would be one as well. For a right triangle with both legs A and B equal to one the hypotenuse would equal the square root of 2. Math doesn't screw up..... Turtle 1 Quote
GAHD Posted June 11, 2006 Report Posted June 11, 2006 damn, ok so no more playing with numbers while my body is full of recreational chemicals. :eek2: Quote
TheBigDog Posted June 11, 2006 Report Posted June 11, 2006 damn, ok so no more playing with numbers while my body is full of recreational chemicals. :eek2:Channeling the spirit of Orby? Quote
GAHD Posted June 11, 2006 Report Posted June 11, 2006 Channeling the spirit of Orby?Seagram's Five Star Whisky was produced by Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Waterloo. There is a discrepancy as to when the product originated. In 1960, it was pre-tested as "Five Star Special". In 1961, it was labelled "Five Star Special" and in 1962 the named changed to "Five Star". It was successful very quickly, and was the first brand in Canada to reach 1,000,000 cases in 1974. Features of the package included a star with a "5" on it. It is a four year old blended whisky (the extra star designates extra quality). In 1975, they changed to a five-year-old whisky. This was the first brand to ever be pre-tested by consumers across Canada under the supervision of a leading research organization before it was marketed for sales. - source Quote
TheBigDog Posted June 11, 2006 Report Posted June 11, 2006 Seagram's Five Star Whisky was produced by Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Waterloo. There is a discrepancy as to when the product originated. In 1960, it was pre-tested as "Five Star Special". In 1961, it was labelled "Five Star Special" and in 1962 the named changed to "Five Star". It was successful very quickly, and was the first brand in Canada to reach 1,000,000 cases in 1974. Features of the package included a star with a "5" on it. It is a four year old blended whisky (the extra star designates extra quality). In 1975, they changed to a five-year-old whisky. This was the first brand to ever be pre-tested by consumers across Canada under the supervision of a leading research organization before it was marketed for sales. - sourceThat would be "no" then. Bill Quote
Qfwfq Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 [math]3472073^7 + 4627011^7 = 4710868^7[/math] 5.14880622379082621171 x 10^46 How's that?Goodness, Unc, you should know better than that! Quote
cwes99_03 Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 damn, ok so no more playing with numbers while my body is full of recreational chemicals. :hihi:This is a perfect quote for the thread on how MJ or other chemicals work in your body and on your brain. I don't suppose you think you can go jump in a car and drive too do you? Anyway, but off the subject. Fermat's last theorem, sounds like it has been discussed here before. GAHD 1 Quote
UncleAl Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 Goodness, Unc, you should know better than that! [math]3472073^7 + 4627011^7 = 4710868^7[/math] 5.14880622379082621171 x 10^46 either way That is correct as stated. I didn't say Fermat's Last Theorem didn't win in the next decimal place, http://www.codehappy.net/calculator.htmhttp://www.math.harvard.edu/~elkies/ferm.html Faith has no place in science. When an impossible result appears, start from scratch and trace down the error. An unfortunate number of Hypography posts state the obviously impossible, then insist science is wrong. It doesn't work that way. Unless the poster can identify a sour founding postulate or falsifying empirical evidence, the poster is trivially wrong without further argument. Science is 100% internally self-consistent. Don't invest in anything that violates conservation laws or thermodynamics. Euclid was globally wrong (e.g., hyperbolic and elliptic geometries, then Thurston), but is still OK locally. His Fifth (Parallel) Postulate is weak. Science has many possibly weak postulates. One need only demonstrate a reproducible counterexample. Quote
cwes99_03 Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 The point of this thread unc was that a, b, and c be whole numbers and that the relationship be a^2 + b^2 = c^2 exactly. Not approximations. Quote
Roadam Posted June 12, 2006 Author Report Posted June 12, 2006 True cwes99_03, but also I preffered numbers up to hundred or maybe thousand and not more..... So,: 3,4,5;7,24,25;24,70,74;.....Missed any? Quote
TheBigDog Posted June 12, 2006 Report Posted June 12, 2006 True cwes99_03, but also I preffered numbers up to hundred or maybe thousand and not more..... So,: 3,4,5;7,24,25;24,70,74;.....Missed any?These are all the unique integer right tiriangles up to a=100. None of these are bigger versions of another triangle (like 6,8,10). We studied these here as PIRT (Perfect Integer Right Triangles) but they are also know as Primitive Right Triangles. Check the link I provided in post #2. 3 4 5 5 12 13 7 24 25 8 15 17 9 40 41 11 60 61 12 35 37 13 84 85 15 112 113 16 63 65 17 144 145 19 180 181 20 21 29 20 99 101 21 220 221 23 264 265 24 143 145 25 312 313 27 364 365 28 45 53 28 195 197 29 420 421 31 480 481 32 255 257 33 56 65 33 544 545 35 612 613 36 77 85 36 323 325 37 684 685 39 80 89 39 760 761 40 399 401 41 840 841 43 924 925 44 117 125 44 483 485 45 1012 1013 47 1104 1105 48 55 73 48 575 577 49 1200 1201 51 140 149 51 1300 1301 52 165 173 52 675 677 53 1404 1405 55 1512 1513 56 783 785 57 176 185 57 1624 1625 59 1740 1741 60 91 109 60 221 229 60 899 901 61 1860 1861 63 1984 1985 64 1023 1025 65 72 97 65 2112 2113 67 2244 2245 68 285 293 68 1155 1157 69 260 269 69 2380 2381 71 2520 2521 72 1295 1297 73 2664 2665 75 308 317 75 2812 2813 76 357 365 76 1443 1445 77 2964 2965 79 3120 3121 80 1599 1601 81 3280 3281 83 3444 3445 84 187 205 84 437 445 84 1763 1765 85 132 157 85 3612 3613 87 416 425 87 3784 3785 88 105 137 88 1935 1937 89 3960 3961 91 4140 4141 92 525 533 92 2115 2117 93 476 485 93 4324 4325 95 168 193 95 4512 4513 96 247 265 96 2303 2305 97 4704 4705 99 4900 4901 100 621 629 100 2499 2501 Bill Quote
Qfwfq Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 That is correct as stated. I didn't say Fermat's Last Theorem didn't win in the next decimal placeUnc, you wrote a plain '=' sign and did not give a range, therefore it was not "correct as stated". This thread started with a question, it is not a strange claim, so instead of cluttering it up with off-topic junk, why don't you go back to your freshman calculus courses? [math]\small 5.14880622379082621171\, 10^{46}\; <\; 4710868^7\; <\; 3472073^7\; +\; 4627011^7\; <\; 5.14880622379082621172\, 10^{46}[/math] Jay-qu 1 Quote
sebbysteiny Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 Seeing as things are getting so agro, I thought I might join in the fireworks. Technically speaking, no 3,4,5 triangle (or other entirely whole number sided triangles) actually exist. We are living in a 4 dimensional universe in curved space time and the angles of triangles do not add up to exactly 180 degrees and therefore, a triangle of length 3 cm and 4cm will not have a hypotonuse of exactly 5 cm. If we were living in a flat 4 dimensional universe, or even a 3 dimensional universe, maybe it would, but we are not. Don't believe me? Try building a right angled triangle of length 30000 Km by 40000km by 50000 km and you will see that the edges will not fit absolutely perfectly. Quote
Turtle Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 Seeing as things are getting so agro, I thought I might join in the fireworks. Technically speaking, no 3,4,5 triangle (or other entirely whole number sided triangles) actually exist. We are living in a 4 dimensional universe in curved space time and the angles of triangles do not add up to exactly 180 degrees and therefore, a triangle of length 3 cm and 4cm will not have a hypotonuse of exactly 5 cm. If we were living in a flat 4 dimensional universe, or even a 3 dimensional universe, maybe it would, but we are not. If you read a bit of Buckminster Fuller's geometry in Synergetics you will see it is you who is 180 out of phase as no lines exist save straight lines.:confused: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/synergetics.html Quote
TheBigDog Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 On a sphere a right triangle can be 1,1,1 with three right angles. Bill Quote
Turtle Posted June 13, 2006 Report Posted June 13, 2006 On a sphere a right triangle can be 1,1,1 with three right angles. BillMmmm...processing.Here is the page concerning triangles on spheres I couldn't find earlier from Fuller:http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate01z.html Quote
Qfwfq Posted June 14, 2006 Report Posted June 14, 2006 What does "straight" mean? Geodetic is the term, in a general manifold. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.