No what makes it true is it is an empirical fact.
And all we have for that is your word.
As we have established, your word is not enough.
The Tesla could be used as proof due to the independent observations as well as the live footage
Again, as someone that is no where near the launch site, how can I confirm it was/is live footage?
I'd need more information to believe the maths is equivalent tbh.
Yet you seemed just fine to state it cannot be equivalent.
That's nowhere near the level of group theory being discussed. Also the pattern is not something that can easily be spotted
Really?
For regular polygons, 3 sides has 6, 4 sides has 8, 5 sides has 10, 6 sides has 12.
Almost anyone can see that pattern.
It is linear; it goes up by 2, so it would likely be something of the form 2*n+c.
Sticking in one of them you get c=0.
Even a very basic understanding of symmetry would easily allow one to see that, a regular polygon can be drawn as triangles from the centre. Each triangle is identical and each side has 1 triangle. This means it will have n rotational symmetries.
The only "tricky" part is the mirror symmetry which varies between odd and even shapes.
But the key part is cutting the shape in half from a midpoint of an edge or a corner will be a mirror symmetry for a regular polygon.
For odd numbers, the corners and edges match up meaning it is the number of corners or the number of sides.
For even numbers, then they don't match up, but each side has a side opposite it which it pairs to and each corner has a corner opposite that it pairs to. Thus you half half the number of sides plus half the number of corners, which again ends up being n mirror symmetries.
That gives a total of 2*n symmetries, but it does ignore other forms like centre of inversion, however that will often be equivalent to other forms.
I don't have a degree in math, yet I can easily find this pattern.
Even the more complex one could be done with enough work without a degree.
It's not arrogance, it's a fact. I made the examples up myself for my work, that's why they won't be on Google. Unless someone picked the exact same project as me with the exact same worked examples and then decided to publish it online. Whilst it is niche, someone who's studied group theory at a high level has a decent chance of figuring it out, after all I had to do so for my dissertation.
As would other people with intelligence who are capable of using google to find information regarding it.
I don't believe I'm that special
If that was the case you wouldn't be claiming crap like you are the most renowned RET poster.
I just like to claim I'm the most renowned RET poster because it is amusing for me to do so.
And thanks for admitting to everyone you care more about amusement than the truth, that you aren't claiming it because it is true, but to amuse yoruself.
So good job for showing that no one should trust anything you say.