Gravity

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 06:43:18 AM

I got a first class honours in pure mathematics.

First class BSc and MSc with a merit in mathematics here. If you studied pure maths there's no way you didn't go into group theory, and the classification of finite groups is a tremendous part of that, so just a quick truth test; what are the non-isomorphic finite abelian groups of order 36?
If you've a background in pure maths there's no way you wouldn't either know this, or be able to quickly check your memory's accurate. If instead you're a random person trying to look clever, it's rather easy to slip up.

As an aside, if you are what you claim, what field do you work I now, I don't need specifics, more for your reflection.

Do you find your knowledge decrease inverse exponentially?

When I studied maths I was pretty good (apart from Fourier Graphs, I avoided themike the plague) but I found once I completed my degree a lot of knowledge just wasn't required to complete my career choices (teaching).

In fact what I ultimately discovered was I became a much better mathematician once I was a maths teacher than I ever was as a student.

Just wondering if this is unique to me or if it's a shared experience.

That's assuming of course you aren't full of shit.

Of course I've studied group and set theory. But I suggest you don't pose a question that can be answered via Google.

Because actually understanding the terminology and the sites that would explain how to give the non-isomorphic groups is not easy for someone without a mathematical background. Plus there are always quirks of terminology; you can tell if someone's copying what they see on a site, or if they actually understand what they're talking about.
I notice you didn't give the answer. But if you'd prefer one that wouldn't be easy to google, how about of order 1148?

what purpose dose a master's serve.

Fun.

It's not a lie, it's a belief.

You aren't stating it as a belief, you are stating it as a fact. That means it is a lie, not merely a false belief.

The live launch is proof, people can discount it if they want but it doesn't reduce it's validity.

It is evidence, not proof.

It isn't possible for the maths to work on any other model of the planet.

Considering the entire basis of the model you were dismissing was merely mapping the round Earth to a "flat" surface in non-Euclidean space, the math would be equivalent.
As such, it does work. If it didn't, math based upon the round Earth wouldn't work either.

So 0 of your claims are a result of me lying.

Nope, all three are.
At best you could say you didn't know you were wrong and thus you were just horribly mistaken instead of lying.
But either way, the point stands, your claims are factually incorrect and thus I have no reason to trust your claims.

A lot of the conversation here involves mathematics so a better understanding of it than anyone else puts me in a better position than anyone else.

And a lot of that is based upon physics. You can do all the math you like, but if you don't understand the physical basis for it and thus understand if what you are doing is physically correct, then all the math is worthless.

I got a first class honours in pure mathematics.

So you have an honours degree. Not a big deal, not worthy of bragging about.
As Rab pointed out, plenty of other people here also have degrees, some more than just honours.

Also, honours varies from country to country. Does that mean you just studied some subjects and did well, or does it mean something else?

I studied it as part of my university degree which means it was actually reviewed by a professional qualified in the field.

Which doesn't mean anything regarding how good you are.
The person teaching you was qualified, you are not.

I doubt anyone else here can claim as much.

I highly doubt that claim, stop acting like you are so special.

That isn't lacking.

Well as you have just claimed knowledge of math and history, I would say the physical science aspect is quite lacking, and that is the part that is most relevant in debates regarding the shape of Earth.

Of course I've studied group and set theory. But I suggest you don't pose a question that can be answered via Google.

Yet you didn't even answer it.

As for you having a master's. I always wondered what was the point.

The same could be said for any degree.
What purpose does any degree serve?

In fact what I ultimately discovered was I became a much better mathematician once I was a maths teacher than I ever was as a student.
Just wondering if this is unique to me or if it's a shared experience.

This applies almost universally.
To learn as a student you often just need to remember things and be able to work a bit out, you don't need to truly understand it.
When you go to a job which just requires parts, even then you just need to remember and apply it.

But when you teach, you need to be able to understand it enough to teach it to others and answers questions they might have on it. That typically requires you to improve your understanding a lot.

Of course, there are exceptions, such as when you go into research and build upon things. That requires you to understand quite well.

But thanks for emphasising the point I made before, what's the point of a degree?
A lot of the time it means you managed to remember something for a test, with no indication you still know any of it.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 06:43:18 AM

It's not a lie, it's a belief.

You aren't stating it as a belief, you are stating it as a fact. That means it is a lie, not merely a false belief.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 06:43:18 AM

The live launch is proof, people can discount it if they want but it doesn't reduce it's validity.

It is evidence, not proof.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 06:43:18 AM

It isn't possible for the maths to work on any other model of the planet.

Considering the entire basis of the model you were dismissing was merely mapping the round Earth to a "flat" surface in non-Euclidean space, the math would be equivalent.
As such, it does work. If it didn't, math based upon the round Earth wouldn't work either.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 06:43:18 AM

So 0 of your claims are a result of me lying.

Nope, all three are.
At best you could say you didn't know you were wrong and thus you were just horribly mistaken instead of lying.
But either way, the point stands, your claims are factually incorrect and thus I have no reason to trust your claims.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 06:43:18 AM

A lot of the conversation here involves mathematics so a better understanding of it than anyone else puts me in a better position than anyone else.

And a lot of that is based upon physics. You can do all the math you like, but if you don't understand the physical basis for it and thus understand if what you are doing is physically correct, then all the math is worthless.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 06:43:18 AM

I got a first class honours in pure mathematics.

So you have an honours degree. Not a big deal, not worthy of bragging about.
As Rab pointed out, plenty of other people here also have degrees, some more than just honours.

Also, honours varies from country to country. Does that mean you just studied some subjects and did well, or does it mean something else?

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 06:43:18 AM

I studied it as part of my university degree which means it was actually reviewed by a professional qualified in the field.

Which doesn't mean anything regarding how good you are.
The person teaching you was qualified, you are not.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 06:43:18 AM

I doubt anyone else here can claim as much.

I highly doubt that claim, stop acting like you are so special.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 06:43:18 AM

That isn't lacking.

Well as you have just claimed knowledge of math and history, I would say the physical science aspect is quite lacking, and that is the part that is most relevant in debates regarding the shape of Earth.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 11:06:16 AM

Of course I've studied group and set theory. But I suggest you don't pose a question that can be answered via Google.

Yet you didn't even answer it.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 11:06:16 AM

As for you having a master's. I always wondered what was the point.

The same could be said for any degree.
What purpose does any degree serve?

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 11:11:15 AM

In fact what I ultimately discovered was I became a much better mathematician once I was a maths teacher than I ever was as a student.
Just wondering if this is unique to me or if it's a shared experience.

This applies almost universally.
To learn as a student you often just need to remember things and be able to work a bit out, you don't need to truly understand it.
When you go to a job which just requires parts, even then you just need to remember and apply it.

But when you teach, you need to be able to understand it enough to teach it to others and answers questions they might have on it. That typically requires you to improve your understanding a lot.

Of course, there are exceptions, such as when you go into research and build upon things. That requires you to understand quite well.

But thanks for emphasising the point I made before, what's the point of a degree?
A lot of the time it means you managed to remember something for a test, with no indication you still know any of it.

A lie is a blatant act of deception, if you're insisting your belief I have lied I must insist it is you who are deceiving.

Well it is proof, it literally filmed the earth in spherical form.

No, the math would not be equivalent. If you want to pretend a curved space means a flat earth can be allowed that is up to you, but it seems a very benign claim. Are we really to believe the earth is a plane and the space time it exists in is a sphere? We might as well insist we live in a matrix.

Nope, not a single claim of yours is well founded.

None of the maths is worthless. None.

I never looked into the definition, I just know it's a BSC Hons degree.

Why would I answer anything that can be answered via Google, kinda defeated the objective right?

Without my degree I could not have embarked on my career.

I already answered, to allow me to embark on my career.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 11:06:16 AM

Of course I've studied group and set theory. But I suggest you don't pose a question that can be answered via Google.

Because actually understanding the terminology and the sites that would explain how to give the non-isomorphic groups is not easy for someone without a mathematical background. Plus there are always quirks of terminology; you can tell if someone's copying what they see on a site, or if they actually understand what they're talking about.
I notice you didn't give the answer. But if you'd prefer one that wouldn't be easy to google, how about of order 1148?

Quote

what purpose dose a master's serve.

Fun.

I will reply btw, just not immediately. I finished my degree in 2009 so I am gonna brush up a bit on the definitions, axioms and terminology.

As an aside I think this is the first time I've heard the word ",group" in this context since 2009. Proper throwback so thanks for that.

As I said, I'll come back to you.

It's been a very long time since I've studied group theory. But from what i remember and glean it's down to the prime factors.

1148=2*2*7*41

So the highest power is 2 therefore the number of Abelian groups is exactly 2.

I could be wrong but that's the answer I'm going with.

Thanks for the opportunity.

It's been a very long time since I've studied group theory. But from what i remember and glean it's down to the prime factors.

1148=2*2*7*41

So the highest power is 2 therefore the number of Abelian groups is exactly 2.

I could be wrong but that's the answer I'm going with.

Thanks for the opportunity.

I asked what they were.
I chose this topic for specific reasons. One, it was something I hadn't touched for a few years so I could gauge roughly how long it'd take to refresh my memory (about a minute, tops) and by extension for another mathematician to do similar. Two, it was something you would absolutely have dealt with if you really had a degree in pure mathematics and dealt with extensively. Three, it's the kind of thing that sounds complicated but anyone who's studied it, even years ago, would know is pretty easy to solve. Even if you can't remember the formula you know there is one, and you'd know how to read mathematical shorthand; someone who needs to evade clearly knows nothing about it.
In this case, the non-isomorphic Abelian groups are C₁₁₄₈ and C₂xC₅₇₄ where C_n is the cyclic group {g : gⁿ= identity}. If you had any familiarity to the topic it would take maybe a minute to confirm your guess of 2 (presumably found by hasty googling) because with such a small number constructing the groups is simple.

Or, to reiterate, you were asked a pretty basic question, avoided it twice, and did a lot of dancing around to try to seem smart while saying nothing of substance. Quite honestly with all your "Most renowned REer," and grudge matches I doubt you're even old enough to have been to university, let alone get a degree from one.

Quite honestly with all your "Most renowned REer," and grudge matches I doubt you're even old enough to have been to university, let alone get a degree from one.

Maybe he could calculate the expected elevation and azimuth angles for a star, say Rigel (Beta Orionis) at locations over the flat earth for various times.

Maybe he could calculate the expected elevation and azimuth angles for a star, say Rigel (Beta Orionis) at locations over the flat earth for various times.

Why? It's all rather unnecessary, if you want to make an argument from that kind of premise just use the fact the Sun seems to travel in a straight line. Maths is at its most interesting when it's used to define what FET needs; finding the height of the dome in models where meteors fall from it, defining how a non-Euclidean Earth might work...
In that instance, it could potentially give how light might be affected by whatever phenomenon is responsible and from that give a vague sense of scale for the FE universe, but I'd need to know more about bendy light before I tried that. And better measurements for a large-scale FE Earth, but whatever. You can't model anything without a full description of all the factors at play, but you could give an estimate of what those factors might be.

One of the most useful mathematical tools is assuming what you're talking about is true. That way you have consequences; you have things to actually analyse, whether to locate a contradiction or to test to find evidence.

Also, just for a bonus point, he's not even right as far as the number of abelian groups being the highest power goes. The number of non-isomorphic finite abelian groups of order 72 provide an easy counter example, just figured them out for fun.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 03:35:12 PM

It's been a very long time since I've studied group theory. But from what i remember and glean it's down to the prime factors.

1148=2*2*7*41

So the highest power is 2 therefore the number of Abelian groups is exactly 2.

I could be wrong but that's the answer I'm going with.

Thanks for the opportunity.

I asked what they were.
I chose this topic for specific reasons. One, it was something I hadn't touched for a few years so I could gauge roughly how long it'd take to refresh my memory (about a minute, tops) and by extension for another mathematician to do similar. Two, it was something you would absolutely have dealt with if you really had a degree in pure mathematics and dealt with extensively. Three, it's the kind of thing that sounds complicated but anyone who's studied it, even years ago, would know is pretty easy to solve. Even if you can't remember the formula you know there is one, and you'd know how to read mathematical shorthand; someone who needs to evade clearly knows nothing about it.
In this case, the non-isomorphic Abelian groups are C₁₁₄₈ and C₂xC₅₇₄ where C_n is the cyclic group {g : gⁿ= identity}. If you had any familiarity to the topic it would take maybe a minute to confirm your guess of 2 (presumably found by hasty googling) because with such a small number constructing the groups is simple.

Or, to reiterate, you were asked a pretty basic question, avoided it twice, and did a lot of dancing around to try to seem smart while saying nothing of substance. Quite honestly with all your "Most renowned REer," and grudge matches I doubt you're even old enough to have been to university, let alone get a degree from one.

There was no guess of two, I explained exactly how I reached the number. I didn't avoid anything, I gave an objection and then answered, obviously I answered the wrong question.

Your doubts have no bearing on reality I'm afraid, but you are entitled to them.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 17, 2018, 06:49:14 PM

Maybe he could calculate the expected elevation and azimuth angles for a star, say Rigel (Beta Orionis) at locations over the flat earth for various times.

Why? It's all rather unnecessary, if you want to make an argument from that kind of premise just use the fact the Sun seems to travel in a straight line. Maths is at its most interesting when it's used to define what FET needs; finding the height of the dome in models where meteors fall from it, defining how a non-Euclidean Earth might work...
In that instance, it could potentially give how light might be affected by whatever phenomenon is responsible and from that give a vague sense of scale for the FE universe, but I'd need to know more about bendy light before I tried that. And better measurements for a large-scale FE Earth, but whatever. You can't model anything without a full description of all the factors at play, but you could give an estimate of what those factors might be.

One of the most useful mathematical tools is assuming what you're talking about is true. That way you have consequences; you have things to actually analyse, whether to locate a contradiction or to test to find evidence.

Also, just for a bonus point, he's not even right as far as the number of abelian groups being the highest power goes. The number of non-isomorphic finite abelian groups of order 72 provide an easy counter example, just figured them out for fun.

I never claimed it was the case for the highest power every time. I said when the highest power was 2, there were 2 groups. 72 does not have a highest power of 2.

I never claimed it was the case for the highest power every time. I said when the highest power was 2, there were 2 groups. 72 does not have a highest power of 2.

Try it with 36 then. Aside from how that's clearly just you trying to retcon your post, you didn't even try to check or verify what you were saying, you just jumped right in to defend nonsense.

Look, just stop. Everything from your maturity to your ability demonstrates you don't have a degree, don't dig yourself in deeper.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 17, 2018, 06:49:14 PM

Maybe he could calculate the expected elevation and azimuth angles for a star, say Rigel (Beta Orionis) at locations over the flat earth for various times.

Why? It's all rather unnecessary, if you want to make an argument from that kind of premise just use the fact the Sun seems to travel in a straight line.

That's funny!
Whenever I claim that star paths, even simple ones like Orion near the celestial equator do not fit with their circling above the flat earth, you complain that I expect Globe earth observations to fit the flat earth, or some such objection.

So, I was hoping some maths genius might be able to calculate just what might be expected on the flat earth.
The sun's movement gas been worn out with Silicon et al dragging out magic refraction, atmoplanic lensing and perspective.

I give up. Instead of making suggestions, why don't you make some perfect threads of your own and see how you get on.

A lie is a blatant act of deception

This is just going into semantics.
The definition of lie is not that rigid.
Lying can include providing a misleading or false claim or impression, with people even using it for things like stats, which can't have any intent.

Regardless, as I said earlier, THIS IS IGNORING THE MAIN POINT!
Your statements were false. That means I can't just trust something is true because you say it.
You have provided no basis for anyone to just accept what you say.

Well it is proof, it literally filmed the earth in spherical form.

But did everyone personally film it?
No.
What people actually have is footage of the launch.
All it is is a film.
Most people weren't even at the launch to watch it.
So what we really have is a video clip.

That can be faked. As such, it is not proof, it is merely evidence.

No, the math would not be equivalent.

No, it would be.
It literally takes the round Earth and maps that such that Earth's surface is flat while space is curved.
That requires the math to be equivalent.
Other than regarding curvature, what is true in one model is true in the other.

None of the maths is worthless. None.

In discussing/debating the shape of Earth, a lot is.
Tell me, what use does non-isomorphic finite abelian groups of order 36 have in discussing the shape of Earth?

I never looked into the definition, I just know it's a BSC Hons degree.

Good thing I didn't ask you for a definition.
I asked you what it involves, but it seems you can't even answer that. Do you have this degree, or are you just making it up?

Why would I answer anything that can be answered via Google, kinda defeated the objective right?

You haven't shown that it can be answered by Google. If it can be, it should also be quite easy to do so.
You are trying to present yourself as an authority, but you are yet to substantiate it in any way.

Without my degree I could not have embarked on my career.

Your "career" which you have also just asserted. If we have no reason to trust what you say, and you seem to be quite focused on bragging about yourself, why would we trust what you say about your career?

Regardless, why is your degree required for you to embark on your career?

So the highest power is 2 therefore the number of Abelian groups is exactly 2.
I could be wrong but that's the answer I'm going with.
Thanks for the opportunity.

Well there goes that alleged authority of yours.
Couldn't even answer the question yet claimed it could easily be done via google.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 08:07:23 PM

I never claimed it was the case for the highest power every time. I said when the highest power was 2, there were 2 groups. 72 does not have a highest power of 2.

Try it with 36 then. Aside from how that's clearly just you trying to retcon your post, you didn't even try to check or verify what you were saying, you just jumped right in to defend nonsense.

Look, just stop. Everything from your maturity to your ability demonstrates you don't have a degree, don't dig yourself in deeper.

2 numbers there have a power of 2, I'm just going to assume you don't actually know what you're going on about at this stage.

Again your beliefs have no power over reality. Whatever you believe is being demonstrated does not change that right now I can see my certificate on my bedroom wall, in a house I pay for through my job which requires me to have a degree in the first place.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 03:12:51 PM

A lie is a blatant act of deception

This is just going into semantics.
The definition of lie is not that rigid.
Lying can include providing a misleading or false claim or impression, with people even using it for things like stats, which can't have any intent.

Regardless, as I said earlier, THIS IS IGNORING THE MAIN POINT!
Your statements were false. That means I can't just trust something is true because you say it.
You have provided no basis for anyone to just accept what you say.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 03:12:51 PM

Well it is proof, it literally filmed the earth in spherical form.

But did everyone personally film it?
No.
What people actually have is footage of the launch.
All it is is a film.
Most people weren't even at the launch to watch it.
So what we really have is a video clip.

That can be faked. As such, it is not proof, it is merely evidence.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 03:12:51 PM

No, the math would not be equivalent.

No, it would be.
It literally takes the round Earth and maps that such that Earth's surface is flat while space is curved.
That requires the math to be equivalent.
Other than regarding curvature, what is true in one model is true in the other.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 03:12:51 PM

None of the maths is worthless. None.

In discussing/debating the shape of Earth, a lot is.
Tell me, what use does non-isomorphic finite abelian groups of order 36 have in discussing the shape of Earth?

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 03:12:51 PM

I never looked into the definition, I just know it's a BSC Hons degree.

Good thing I didn't ask you for a definition.
I asked you what it involves, but it seems you can't even answer that. Do you have this degree, or are you just making it up?

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 03:12:51 PM

Why would I answer anything that can be answered via Google, kinda defeated the objective right?

You haven't shown that it can be answered by Google. If it can be, it should also be quite easy to do so.
You are trying to present yourself as an authority, but you are yet to substantiate it in any way.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 03:12:51 PM

Without my degree I could not have embarked on my career.

Your "career" which you have also just asserted. If we have no reason to trust what you say, and you seem to be quite focused on bragging about yourself, why would we trust what you say about your career?

Regardless, why is your degree required for you to embark on your career?

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 03:35:12 PM

So the highest power is 2 therefore the number of Abelian groups is exactly 2.
I could be wrong but that's the answer I'm going with.
Thanks for the opportunity.

Well there goes that alleged authority of yours.
Couldn't even answer the question yet claimed it could easily be done via google.

It's up to you to determine whether or not you can trust me.

The Tesla is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Pretending the space is spherical instead of the earth is just silly.

Haha, ok that aspect of the maths is worthless in terms of the forum.

To be a teacher you need a degree. Well at least you did when I began my training, that's probably going to change soon due to the national shortage of maths and physics teachers.

A lot of things can be done via Google. I could upload a picture of my degree but then again that could also be done via Google. Something that could not be done via Google is quite my dissertation, ironically that was on group theory but in terms of visual representation. I assume there aren't that many people out there who chose it as a dissertation choice but then again I haven't bothered to verify that.

However a quite from my dissertation "For each regular 2D shape there are finite symmetries, for example rotating a regular triangle by 120 and rotating the triangle by 480 is the exact same mapping.

So what are the symmetries of a regular triangles?

Since it is a regular triangle and a triangle has 3 sides there are 3 rotations and 3 reflections.

Then I did a diagram showing the 6 mappings

So as you can see there are 6 symmetries of a 2D triangle. In fact for any regular n-sided 2D shape there are 2n symmetries"

That was taken from the 7th page of my dissertation, I don't actually know if what I said then is fully true. I scored 55% on my dissertation so it is riddled with mistakes.

You don't need a degree in mathematics to understand that the weight of objects is not the same everywhere, it is different exactly as it should be because of Earth's shape and spin, and so it can not be explained by uniform acceleration.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 08:07:23 PM

I never claimed it was the case for the highest power every time. I said when the highest power was 2, there were 2 groups. 72 does not have a highest power of 2.

Try it with 36 then. Aside from how that's clearly just you trying to retcon your post, you didn't even try to check or verify what you were saying, you just jumped right in to defend nonsense.

Look, just stop. Everything from your maturity to your ability demonstrates you don't have a degree, don't dig yourself in deeper.

Here's one for you Jane. I'll try and leave out certain terminology but if your knowledge is legitimate you should be able to glean enough to answer the question.

"What formula is used to identify the number of unique colourings of a 2D shape if every side can be coloured 1 of two colours."

Now it is an easy enough task that it could be completed manually but please note I am asking for the formula and as a bonus point what the mathematical terminology is for what needs to be found.

Quote from: Jane on March 17, 2018, 08:17:30 PM

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 08:07:23 PM

I never claimed it was the case for the highest power every time. I said when the highest power was 2, there were 2 groups. 72 does not have a highest power of 2.

Try it with 36 then. Aside from how that's clearly just you trying to retcon your post, you didn't even try to check or verify what you were saying, you just jumped right in to defend nonsense.

Look, just stop. Everything from your maturity to your ability demonstrates you don't have a degree, don't dig yourself in deeper.

2 numbers there have a power of 2, I'm just going to assume you don't actually know what you're going on about at this stage.

Look at the post you made. Look at what you are now claiming you were saying. You've just retconned yourself twice over and it's not even subtle. Just stop.

Here's one for you Jane. I'll try and leave out certain terminology but if your knowledge is legitimate you should be able to glean enough to answer the question.

"What formula is used to identify the number of unique colourings of a 2D shape if every side can be coloured 1 of two colours."

Now it is an easy enough task that it could be completed manually but please note I am asking for the formula and as a bonus point what the mathematical terminology is for what needs to be found.

Ah, graphs and networks, had a fair bit of fun with those, though most of that was with vertex/face colourings rather than edge colourings. For edge 2-colourings though, pretty simple. You specified 2-D shape, which is at least correct, you managed to correctly google what an edge-colouring was. Never really did much with edge-colourings, but not hard to figure out anyway, the answer's 2. No formula needed. Every edge can be coloured one of two shades, and what that colour is is defined by the rest of the shape. The only possible 2-colourings are alternating colours, or all one colour, and that's dependent on number of sides. Change one side, it all changes a fixed amount. There, have a bonus proof thrown in.
What formula exactly are you looking for? Sure, I completed it manually. Why? There is no formula for the specific instance you gave, it's fixed. If you knew what you were talking about you'd have given an indication of what parameter you're varying for the fomula to exist; whether it's the number of colours or number of sides. Implied was number of sides given you only specified 2-D shape, but that makes no difference if it remains a 2-D shape, and it's always possible to extend to more complex graphs. As it is, my guess is you've got a friend or sibling that actually studies maths, and you're just getting random tidbits from them or stealing questions from their coursework without any understanding whatsoever of what any of it means.

And further, I would point out we've gone from a major result in mainstream (as far as pure maths goes) group theory, to an obscure branch (edge-colourings) of a more obscure subject (my uni had a total of one semester with an optional module dedicated to graphs and networks, and that was experimental). As if we needed more evidence you're just picking topics stolen from someone's coursework without any clue of how it all ties together.

Stop embarassing yourself.

So, I was hoping some maths genius might be able to calculate just what might be expected on the flat earth.

Yes, it's not as though I was talking as though how that could be done and how your blithe demand is not actually how it works.

You don't need a degree in mathematics to understand that the weight of objects is not the same everywhere, it is different exactly as it should be because of Earth's shape and spin, and so it can not be explained by uniform acceleration.

Sure, but you shouldn't claim to have one when you're demonstrably not nearly mature enough to have earned one.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 01:09:56 AM

Quote from: Jane on March 17, 2018, 08:17:30 PM

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 08:07:23 PM

I never claimed it was the case for the highest power every time. I said when the highest power was 2, there were 2 groups. 72 does not have a highest power of 2.

Try it with 36 then. Aside from how that's clearly just you trying to retcon your post, you didn't even try to check or verify what you were saying, you just jumped right in to defend nonsense.

Look, just stop. Everything from your maturity to your ability demonstrates you don't have a degree, don't dig yourself in deeper.

2 numbers there have a power of 2, I'm just going to assume you don't actually know what you're going on about at this stage.

Look at the post you made. Look at what you are now claiming you were saying. You've just retconned yourself twice over and it's not even subtle. Just stop.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 01:32:37 AM

Here's one for you Jane. I'll try and leave out certain terminology but if your knowledge is legitimate you should be able to glean enough to answer the question.

"What formula is used to identify the number of unique colourings of a 2D shape if every side can be coloured 1 of two colours."

Now it is an easy enough task that it could be completed manually but please note I am asking for the formula and as a bonus point what the mathematical terminology is for what needs to be found.

Ah, graphs and networks, had a fair bit of fun with those, though most of that was with vertex/face colourings rather than edge colourings. For edge 2-colourings though, pretty simple. You specified 2-D shape, which is at least correct, you managed to correctly google what an edge-colouring was. Never really did much with edge-colourings, but not hard to figure out anyway, the answer's 2. No formula needed. Every edge can be coloured one of two shades, and what that colour is is defined by the rest of the shape. The only possible 2-colourings are alternating colours, or all one colour, and that's dependent on number of sides. Change one side, it all changes a fixed amount. There, have a bonus proof thrown in.
What formula exactly are you looking for? Sure, I completed it manually. Why? There is no formula for the specific instance you gave, it's fixed. If you knew what you were talking about you'd have given an indication of what parameter you're varying for the fomula to exist; whether it's the number of colours or number of sides. Implied was number of sides given you only specified 2-D shape, but that makes no difference if it remains a 2-D shape, and it's always possible to extend to more complex graphs. As it is, my guess is you've got a friend or sibling that actually studies maths, and you're just getting random tidbits from them or stealing questions from their coursework without any understanding whatsoever of what any of it means.

And further, I would point out we've gone from a major result in mainstream (as far as pure maths goes) group theory, to an obscure branch (edge-colourings) of a more obscure subject (my uni had a total of one semester with an optional module dedicated to graphs and networks, and that was experimental). As if we needed more evidence you're just picking topics stolen from someone's coursework without any clue of how it all ties together.

Stop embarassing yourself.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 17, 2018, 08:45:54 PM

So, I was hoping some maths genius might be able to calculate just what might be expected on the flat earth.

Yes, it's not as though I was talking as though how that could be done and how your blithe demand is not actually how it works.

Quote from: Siphersh on March 18, 2018, 01:30:26 AM

You don't need a degree in mathematics to understand that the weight of objects is not the same everywhere, it is different exactly as it should be because of Earth's shape and spin, and so it can not be explained by uniform acceleration.

Sure, but you shouldn't claim to have one when you're demonstrably not nearly mature enough to have earned one.

I know exactly what I said since it's me who said it, it still doesn't change the rules around group theory and you should know the way prime factors and their powers determine the number of Abelian groups.

So you have indeed failed. You should find Google will not have the answers since it's work taken from my dissertation, so it will be very niche, I was hoping if you had studied maths at the level you claimed you would be able to have at least attempted the answers.

I'm gonna throw a clue your way though. The bonus mathematical terminology is something that is discussed on this website an awful lot, although the meaning of the word in that context is different.

Now whilst this isn't something you can find on Google someone of your supposed ability should be able to figure it out since I was once able to and you are qualified to a higher level than me.

I will throw a bonus clue your way though, and this is the one that makes me doubt you so I'll give you a chance to rectify it, there most certainly is a formula and it is intrinsically linked with the bonus word from the previous clue.

Again Google won't help you here so let's see if your up to to the test. Failure doesn't necessarily mean you aren't what you claim to be, but tbh I just love mathematical discussion so I'll be interested to see if you can at least hold your own here.

I thought it was obvious, but the parameter is the number of sides of the shape.

And I'm gonna ignore your ludicrous answer of 2.

Quote from: Ising on March 16, 2018, 03:58:14 PM

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 16, 2018, 02:47:10 PM

As the most renowned RET poster you can trust my words when I say them.

Why do you constantly need to call yourself "the most renowned RET poster" ? Are you insecure about something ?

Well I've got a degree in maths, I teach for a living and I've studied the history of heliocentric models during my degree so I'm assuming I have better qualifications than anyone else here. If that is not the case I'll happily consider other points of view.

I often find reflection is quite an emotive tool and the way you ask about insecurity is like a path into your emotional well being, what is there to be insecure about? Let it all out mate.

As a person with degree you are surely familiar with the way science works.
There are no personal authorities, only facts and figures.

I'm 57 y/o physicist, with 11 years of teaching experience, and I still never want to say that "I'm assuming I have better qualifications than anyone else here".
You never know who that "anyone else" might be.
Obviously, before saying that you didn't check the other members (and I'm not talking about me).

So, when you're making a statement, be ready to support it with facts, not with "your personal authority".
Sooner or later everyone has to "put their money where their mouth is".

As a teacher, you should know it already.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 02:40:21 AM

Quote from: Ising on March 16, 2018, 03:58:14 PM

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 16, 2018, 02:47:10 PM

As the most renowned RET poster you can trust my words when I say them.

Why do you constantly need to call yourself "the most renowned RET poster" ? Are you insecure about something ?

Well I've got a degree in maths, I teach for a living and I've studied the history of heliocentric models during my degree so I'm assuming I have better qualifications than anyone else here. If that is not the case I'll happily consider other points of view.

I often find reflection is quite an emotive tool and the way you ask about insecurity is like a path into your emotional well being, what is there to be insecure about? Let it all out mate.

As a person with degree you are surely familiar with the way science works.
There are no personal authorities, only facts and figures.

I'm 57 y/o physicist, with 11 years of teaching experience, and I still never want to say that "I'm assuming I have better qualifications than anyone else here".
You never know who that "anyone else" might be.
Obviously, before saying that you didn't check the other members (and I'm not talking about me).

So, when you're making a statement, be ready to support it with facts, not with "your personal authority".
Sooner or later everyone has to "put their money where their mouth is".

As a teacher, you should know it already.

Supporting it with my own personal authority is much more fun though.

Why did you leave teaching? Or did you start it late?

I know exactly what I said since it's me who said it, it still doesn't change the rules around group theory and you should know the way prime factors and their powers determine the number of Abelian groups.

So you have indeed failed. You should find Google will not have the answers since it's work taken from my dissertation, so it will be very niche, I was hoping if you had studied maths at the level you claimed you would be able to have at least attempted the answers.

Yes, and we can all see exactly what you said, which you have changed twice now.
"So the highest power is 2 therefore the number of Abelian groups is exactly 2."
to
"I said when the highest power was 2, there were 2 groups."
to
"2 numbers there have a power of 2,"
If you were a mathematician with the knowledge of the latter, you would never have said the former.

Yes, I failed because your question is unanswerable. You have not given a sufficient amount of information to develop a formula as pointed out and explained; you couldn't even be bothered to say what the formula was for. But of course you'd rather ignore that because you are literally lying with every post you make at this point. Judging by maturity you aren't even old enough to go to university, just let this idiocy die. You're not the first person to claim they had qualifications they don't on the internet, but you cannot keep up the lie when you have zero understanding of any of the topic.

it's work taken from my dissertation, so it will be very niche, I was hoping if you had studied maths at the level you claimed you would be able to have at least attempted the answers.

Just... let's suppose for a moment that you are genuine. You actually know the tiniest thing about degree level maths, and you thought a smart test would be to pick a niche topic that chances are the other person might never have studied, and you expected them to derive a result in that for the benefit of someone too lazy to even give abelian groups of a certain order, because they're good at maths so they must immediately know everything about every related area?
Great, not only do you know nothing about maths, but you know nothing about the Dunning-Kruger effect; the more you know, the more you realise how much you don't know. Most of my graduating year would never have even heard of vertex-colourings, let alone edge-colourings, just like they took modules I didn't too. The intelligence on display here is plummeting.

I thought it was obvious, but the parameter is the number of sides of the shape.

Thank you for picking an option at random after having it pointed out to you that you had omitted a major factor. However, again, you demonstrate your utter lack of knowledge because 'sides of the shape' aren't going to change a thing. Number of edges in the overall graph meanwhile might well do, but that's an entirely separate thing.
You are literally messing up at every turn, mistakes no mathematician would ever make. Turns out that's what happens if you try to look smart by using terminology you don't understand. It's not even a slow moving car crash, it's crashing, getting into another car, and crashing again. These aren't one-off mistakes, it is literally everything you say that is wrong.

Just, grow up. You've been caught out, you're just digging yourself deeper because you have no clue what you're doing, it's gone from cliche to embarassing to pathetic. People would've forgotten you'd made such a stupid claim if you weren't so insistent on digging your heels to defend this nonsense. You don't know the tiniest thing about mathematics or even high level education in general and it's on display with every post you make, and the maturity that you both display and that led you to this site. You aren't going to magically make yourself more convincing just by throwing in random words you googled because it takes understanding as well as terminology, and that's something you consistently lack.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 04:26:54 AM

I know exactly what I said since it's me who said it, it still doesn't change the rules around group theory and you should know the way prime factors and their powers determine the number of Abelian groups.

So you have indeed failed. You should find Google will not have the answers since it's work taken from my dissertation, so it will be very niche, I was hoping if you had studied maths at the level you claimed you would be able to have at least attempted the answers.

Yes, and we can all see exactly what you said, which you have changed twice now.
"So the highest power is 2 therefore the number of Abelian groups is exactly 2."
to
"I said when the highest power was 2, there were 2 groups."
to
"2 numbers there have a power of 2,"
If you were a mathematician with the knowledge of the latter, you would never have said the former.

Yes, I failed because your question is unanswerable. You have not given a sufficient amount of information to develop a formula as pointed out and explained; you couldn't even be bothered to say what the formula was for. But of course you'd rather ignore that because you are literally lying with every post you make at this point. Judging by maturity you aren't even old enough to go to university, just let this idiocy die. You're not the first person to claim they had qualifications they don't on the internet, but you cannot keep up the lie when you have zero understanding of any of the topic.

Quote

it's work taken from my dissertation, so it will be very niche, I was hoping if you had studied maths at the level you claimed you would be able to have at least attempted the answers.

Just... let's suppose for a moment that you are genuine. You actually know the tiniest thing about degree level maths, and you thought a smart test would be to pick a niche topic that chances are the other person might never have studied, and you expected them to derive a result in that for the benefit of someone too lazy to even give abelian groups of a certain order, because they're good at maths so they must immediately know everything about every related area?
Great, not only do you know nothing about maths, but you know nothing about the Dunning-Kruger effect; the more you know, the more you realise how much you don't know. Most of my graduating year would never have even heard of vertex-colourings, let alone edge-colourings, just like they took modules I didn't too. The intelligence on display here is plummeting.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 04:27:54 AM

I thought it was obvious, but the parameter is the number of sides of the shape.

Thank you for picking an option at random after having it pointed out to you that you had omitted a major factor. However, again, you demonstrate your utter lack of knowledge because 'sides of the shape' aren't going to change a thing. Number of edges in the overall graph meanwhile might well do, but that's an entirely separate thing.
You are literally messing up at every turn, mistakes no mathematician would ever make. Turns out that's what happens if you try to look smart by using terminology you don't understand. It's not even a slow moving car crash, it's crashing, getting into another car, and crashing again. These aren't one-off mistakes, it is literally everything you say that is wrong.

Just, grow up. You've been caught out, you're just digging yourself deeper because you have no clue what you're doing, it's gone from cliche to embarassing to pathetic. People would've forgotten you'd made such a stupid claim if you weren't so insistent on digging your heels to defend this nonsense. You don't know the tiniest thing about mathematics or even high level education in general and it's on display with every post you make, and the maturity that you both display and that led you to this site. You aren't going to magically make yourself more convincing just by throwing in random words you googled because it takes understanding as well as terminology, and that's something you consistently lack.

Amidst the vitriol and attacking nature of the post it is clear you can't answer the question. It is a topic within group theory which you initially brought up.

But you were again wrong.

The formula was Burnside's Colouring Formula. The key terminology was orbits.

Here is the example I gave in my dissertation to show how it's answered.

How many distinguishable colourings of a regular triangle are there if each side can be painted one of two colours.

X is the set of all colourings of a regular triangle where each side can be coloured one of two colours. (S3,*) is the symmetry group of a regular triangle. Substitution tells you the answer is 24/6 which is 4.

You further claimed the sides won't affect anything, which is the a ludicrous error to make and even someone who hadn't studied grouo theory in large detail would know as such. The number of colours and the number of sides have a huge impact on the number of distinguishable shapes that can be made.

You are trying to mask your lack of knowledge behind petty attacks but it won't wash as I can see right through that poor defence.

As I said this was a niche topic for everyone, not just you and your cohort. It was a project on a list of chocies we could make for our dissertation. Picking a random topic you Google shows nothing. I wanted a specific topic that couldn't be found using Google to test your abilities and you've failed.

As I said before though, it doesn't necessarily mean you aren't what you claim, it just shows a rather defensive side to your nature. as someone who has dedicated a large portion of their life to maths I would have thought you have enjoyed the challenge.

Realistically you should have just admitted it isn't something you did in a lot of detail rather than hiding behind petty insults.

Seriously. Guys. Gravity.

Macarios brought up such a nice point in another topic:

At poles g = 9.83 m/s2, in Los Angeles 9.80, at Equator 9.78, at Mount Everest 9.77, ...

After only 30 minutes pole would go higher than equator for 81 km.

Isn't that a very clear, very simple and easily verifiable proof that the phenomenon of gravity cannot possibly be the result of a uniform acceleration of the entire Earth?

Jane you clearly have not studied this in the detail I have, that's fine.

But let's see if you are a true mathematician and enjoy the challenge or not. I've given you the formula and the terminology, now let's see if you can answer this question which I also posed in my dissertation.

"How many distinguishable regular 14-gons can be painted if each edge of a 14-gon is painted one of 15 colours and different edged can be the same colour"

I doubt such an answer can be found on Google, but just in case id like you to put your workings as best as you can.

Quote from: Macarios on March 18, 2018, 04:33:39 AM

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 02:40:21 AM

Quote from: Ising on March 16, 2018, 03:58:14 PM

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 16, 2018, 02:47:10 PM

As the most renowned RET poster you can trust my words when I say them.

Why do you constantly need to call yourself "the most renowned RET poster" ? Are you insecure about something ?

Well I've got a degree in maths, I teach for a living and I've studied the history of heliocentric models during my degree so I'm assuming I have better qualifications than anyone else here. If that is not the case I'll happily consider other points of view.

I often find reflection is quite an emotive tool and the way you ask about insecurity is like a path into your emotional well being, what is there to be insecure about? Let it all out mate.

As a person with degree you are surely familiar with the way science works.
There are no personal authorities, only facts and figures.

I'm 57 y/o physicist, with 11 years of teaching experience, and I still never want to say that "I'm assuming I have better qualifications than anyone else here".
You never know who that "anyone else" might be.
Obviously, before saying that you didn't check the other members (and I'm not talking about me).

So, when you're making a statement, be ready to support it with facts, not with "your personal authority".
Sooner or later everyone has to "put their money where their mouth is".

As a teacher, you should know it already.

Supporting it with my own personal authority is much more fun though.

Why did you leave teaching? Or did you start it late?

Left teaching in 1995, during civil war in former Yugoslavia.
Later haven't got back to it because was already doing other stuff...

Groups and an Application to Colouring Problems. That was the title of my dissertation.

Trip down memory lane now, all the other notes I made didn't survive moving to a new house, I did cryptography, tensors, markhov chains, prime factors algorithm, history of space, and then the standard calculus and algebra stuff. I'm not sure how much I'd remember from any of those.

I tutor people studying further maths do obvs I'm expert at that stuff but aside from reading my dissertation I haven't done any degree level stuff for years.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 04:37:15 AM

Quote from: Macarios on March 18, 2018, 04:33:39 AM

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 17, 2018, 02:40:21 AM

Quote from: Ising on March 16, 2018, 03:58:14 PM

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 16, 2018, 02:47:10 PM

As the most renowned RET poster you can trust my words when I say them.

Why do you constantly need to call yourself "the most renowned RET poster" ? Are you insecure about something ?

Well I've got a degree in maths, I teach for a living and I've studied the history of heliocentric models during my degree so I'm assuming I have better qualifications than anyone else here. If that is not the case I'll happily consider other points of view.

I often find reflection is quite an emotive tool and the way you ask about insecurity is like a path into your emotional well being, what is there to be insecure about? Let it all out mate.

As a person with degree you are surely familiar with the way science works.
There are no personal authorities, only facts and figures.

I'm 57 y/o physicist, with 11 years of teaching experience, and I still never want to say that "I'm assuming I have better qualifications than anyone else here".
You never know who that "anyone else" might be.
Obviously, before saying that you didn't check the other members (and I'm not talking about me).

So, when you're making a statement, be ready to support it with facts, not with "your personal authority".
Sooner or later everyone has to "put their money where their mouth is".

As a teacher, you should know it already.

Supporting it with my own personal authority is much more fun though.

Why did you leave teaching? Or did you start it late?

Left teaching in 1995, during civil war in former Yugoslavia.
Later haven't got back to it because was already doing other stuff...

Wow, that must have been intense. Can't imagine.