Gravity

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.

What attacking nature? I'm pointing out where you were wrong. If you think that's attacking, get off a debate forum. I'm just not going to couch my words when talking to a user that's arrogant even by the standards of this site. Bluntness is better than your outright condescension, especially when you're condescending about something you don't know.
And... no. No it's not. There are a few connections between graph theory and group theory, but they are not the same thing. Graph theory's a pretty odd beast as far as mathematics goes anyway, due to a lack of typical mathematical proofs and more word-based descriptions, but I guess it would be too much for you to be expected to know what you're talking about.

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.

No. The number of edges in a graph will have a huge impact. But two colours on 8, 167, 234567890987654345678 'sides of a shape' will still give that same number of possibilities of 2.
So not only are you now retroactively claiming you were talking about number of colours, when before you were keeping it fixed, but you don't seem to understand the pretty substantial difference between sides of a shape and the various edges in a graph. Sure, theoretically you could call the edges of a graph its sides, but specifically saying 'sides of a shape' is very clearly not talking about a graph, especially in context. And on top of that, anyone who has actually done a dissertation on the topic would be able to keep things clear by second nature rather than avoiding specifying crucial aspects and just straight-up using incorrect terminology.

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

Likewise. Except I didn't attack, I pointed out the objective fact that you were wrong, that you were using words you didn't know the meanings of, and that you were refusing to back down or admit an error or overstretching. All of that, combined with your past behavior, solidifies your maturity.
It is not an insult to point out when you have made an error. It is an insult to everyone else when you expect them to ignore that because you smother it in bravado and condescension and arrogance.

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.

Why?
I'm not particularly interested in taking the time to refresh my memory on the connections between subgroups and a specific type of graph-colouring when I've already confirmed my conclusions about you. Instead of just moving on though you'd rather make a demand to try to act like you're still an authority. I can see why JRowe banned you.

Seriously. Guys. Gravity.

Macarios brought up such a nice point in another topic:

Quote from: Macarios on March 15, 2018, 11:20:08 PM

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

Quote from: Macarios on March 15, 2018, 11:20:08 PM

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?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921460#msg1921460

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 05:03:14 AM

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.

What attacking nature? I'm pointing out where you were wrong. If you think that's attacking, get off a debate forum. I'm just not going to couch my words when talking to a user that's arrogant even by the standards of this site. Bluntness is better than your outright condescension, especially when you're condescending about something you don't know.
And... no. No it's not. There are a few connections between graph theory and group theory, but they are not the same thing. Graph theory's a pretty odd beast as far as mathematics goes anyway, due to a lack of typical mathematical proofs and more word-based descriptions, but I guess it would be too much for you to be expected to know what you're talking about.

Quote

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.

No. The number of edges in a graph will have a huge impact. But two colours on 8, 167, 234567890987654345678 'sides of a shape' will still give that same number of possibilities of 2.
So not only are you now retroactively claiming you were talking about number of colours, when before you were keeping it fixed, but you don't seem to understand the pretty substantial difference between sides of a shape and the various edges in a graph. Sure, theoretically you could call the edges of a graph its sides, but specifically saying 'sides of a shape' is very clearly not talking about a graph, especially in context. And on top of that, anyone who has actually done a dissertation on the topic would be able to keep things clear by second nature rather than avoiding specifying crucial aspects and just straight-up using incorrect terminology.

Quote

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

Likewise. Except I didn't attack, I pointed out the objective fact that you were wrong, that you were using words you didn't know the meanings of, and that you were refusing to back down or admit an error or overstretching. All of that, combined with your past behavior, solidifies your maturity.
It is not an insult to point out when you have made an error. It is an insult to everyone else when you expect them to ignore that because you smother it in bravado and condescension and arrogance.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 05:09:27 AM

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.

Why?
I'm not particularly interested in taking the time to refresh my memory on the connections between subgroups and a specific type of graph-colouring when I've already confirmed my conclusions about you. Instead of just moving on though you'd rather make a demand to try to act like you're still an authority. I can see why JRowe banned you.

I didn't make an error, you were unable to answer the question. That's fine.

I do always enjoy mathematical challenges though, I guess not every mathematician is the same in the regard.

Here's a question that can't be found in Google, but I'm confident you could answer it yourself based on your previous ones. But I notice you give your answer in divisor forms, could you do the same in prime power forms?

Obviously we know there's 12 non-isomorphic Abelian groups of order 1037575.

But could you give them in prime power form? If you CBA listing all of them just do a couple.

If you have studied group theory this should be easy enough that you can answer without much thought.

Btw the previous answer was 1042605190446480, but you wouldn't be able to verify that without calculating it yourself. And for what it's worth there is no retroactive claims, if you had the knowledge of the formula you would understand that your answer of 2 is ridiculous. I have already told you what it would be with the number of colours fixed at 2 and the number of sides being 3. it is a formula that can be used no matter the number of sides or colours. But as you've said you don't understand this level of group theory.

Stop acting like the debate is still going on. I am not going to put up with condescension from someone that knows nothing.

Stop acting like the debate is still going on. I am not going to put up with condescension from someone that knows nothing.

At this point I don't really care about the "debate" I just enjoy mathematical talk.

It's rare these days I get the chance to discuss my dissertation with anyone. So even with your lack of knowledge regarding the depth of this topic, it has still been fun for me to discuss it.

Btw one of the group's would have been Z25*Z343*Z121.

Here's a group (Z, +) where + denotes addition of two integers.

What would 2^5 = in this instance?

I would like you take note for future mathematical conversations, it is better to pose questions which cannot possibly be verified on Google.

Although at this point I don't know if you understand anything I say or if you just revert to using the old internet.

Look.
I asked you a simple question. Despite your claims that it could be easily googled you refused to answer, and when pushed you not only avoided giving the actual answer but gave false workings.
When asked about this, you pretended you meant something completely different to what you previously and clearly said.
And when you asked a question, you did not have enough understanding to either state the relevant parameters or use terminology correctly. When pushed about this, you not only again lied about what you had previously said, but still apparently had no understanding of what the words you were using meant.

I am not going to put up with your arrogance or act as though your mathematical claims have any merit. It is genuinely pretty disgusting that you are still insisting on lying to us when all of this has happened. Case closed.
I enjoy maths, I don't enjoy putting up with the whims of a condescending, immature idiot.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when academic qualifications meet sheer immaturity.

Look.
I asked you a simple question. Despite your claims that it could be easily googled you refused to answer, and when pushed you not only avoided giving the actual answer but gave false workings.
When asked about this, you pretended you meant something completely different to what you previously and clearly said.
And when you asked a question, you did not have enough understanding to either state the relevant parameters or use terminology correctly. When pushed about this, you not only again lied about what you had previously said, but still apparently had no understanding of what the words you were using meant.

I am not going to put up with your arrogance or act as though your mathematical claims have any merit. It is genuinely pretty disgusting that you are still insisting on lying to us when all of this has happened. Case closed.
I enjoy maths, I don't enjoy putting up with the whims of a condescending, immature idiot.

If you didn't understand the way prime factors work with non-isomorphic groups that's on you. I assumed you would understand in terms of prime factors not just divisors.

The question was quite straightforward if you had knowledge of group theory in that depth, you clearly dont.

As to whether or not I'm the most renowned RET poster, that's clearly a tongue in cheek comment, but I'll happily concede to a physicist who survived a civil war.

As to my qualifications there is zero debate, it is a fact in the most absolute of terms.

Anyone whose got a knowledge of group theory to degree level will see the exchange and see through your attempts at poor arguments.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when academic qualifications meet sheer immaturity.

True but I doubt she'll ever admit she's wrong. Anyone who's good at group theory will see her flaws though.

This goes deep. My friends have done the Cavendish experiment at school and got masses to attract. If gravity is a lie then colleges are taking it to a new level

If you didn't understand the way prime factors work with non-isomorphic groups that's on you. I assumed you would understand in terms of prime factors not just divisors.

I like how you need to completely ignore the majority of the discussion and focus on the bit where I just stopped putting up with you to try and twist this. I really shouldn't be putting up with you, I just really don't like the kind of users that are just outright manipulative rather than honest.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 06:38:18 AM

If you didn't understand the way prime factors work with non-isomorphic groups that's on you. I assumed you would understand in terms of prime factors not just divisors.

I like how you need to completely ignore the majority of the discussion and focus on the bit where I just stopped putting up with you to try and twist this. I really shouldn't be putting up with you, I just really don't like the kind of users that are just outright manipulative rather than honest.

There's nothing to be dishonest about. My qualifications are an absolute truth that can never be undone.

As I said, you failing my question doesn't mean you're qualifications aren't legit, it just means you never studied group theory to that level.

I just enjoyed the maths chit chat so cheers mate.

Quote from: Ising on March 18, 2018, 06:34:51 AM

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when academic qualifications meet sheer immaturity.

True but I doubt she'll ever admit she's wrong. Anyone who's good at group theory will see her flaws though.

You misunderstood me, I was referring to the ludricrous pissing contest in which both you and Jane decided to engage.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 06:39:17 AM

Quote from: Ising on March 18, 2018, 06:34:51 AM

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when academic qualifications meet sheer immaturity.

True but I doubt she'll ever admit she's wrong. Anyone who's good at group theory will see her flaws though.

You misunderstood me, I was referring to the ludricrous pissing contest in which both you and Jane decided to engage.

I'm sure her dick is much bigger than mine, don't worry about that lol.

Maths talk is better than FET talk anyways.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when academic qualifications meet sheer immaturity.

Are you kidding? This is awesome?

Quote from: Ising on March 18, 2018, 06:34:51 AM

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when academic qualifications meet sheer immaturity.

Are you kidding? This is awesome?

Maybe for you, you didn't have to try talking to him.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 18, 2018, 08:14:51 AM

Quote from: Ising on March 18, 2018, 06:34:51 AM

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when academic qualifications meet sheer immaturity.

Are you kidding? This is awesome?

Maybe for you, you didn't have to try talking to him.

I also found it awesome to be fair. Even if you didn't.

And as meatloaf once said, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Quote from: Ising on March 18, 2018, 06:34:51 AM

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when academic qualifications meet sheer immaturity.

Are you kidding? This is awesome?

It's been brilliant.

It's just unfortunate for her the one topic she tried to trip me up on was the topic I did a 50 page dissertation on.

She would have had much better chance with Cyrpotgraphy, I remember hardly any of that other than click type arithmetic and big prime numbers.

It's just unfortunate for her the one topic she tried to trip me up on was the topic I did a 50 page dissertation on.

She would have had much better chance with Cyrpotgraphy, I remember hardly any of that other than click type arithmetic and big prime numbers.

I wasn't 'trying to trip you up,' I was just checking you actually possessed the degree you claimed to have, by asking you about something you absolutely would have known. You avoided and lied and changed the topic poorly and now you're too immature to let a single post go by. I mean, sure, pot kettle black, but at least I didn't feel the need to respond to literally everyone in some egotistical parade. There is no way you are even old enough to have a degree.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 08:32:31 AM

It's just unfortunate for her the one topic she tried to trip me up on was the topic I did a 50 page dissertation on.

She would have had much better chance with Cyrpotgraphy, I remember hardly any of that other than click type arithmetic and big prime numbers.

I wasn't 'trying to trip you up,' I was just checking you actually possessed the degree you claimed to have, by asking you about something you absolutely would have known. You avoided and lied and changed the topic poorly and now you're too immature to let a single post go by. I mean, sure, pot kettle black, but at least I didn't feel the need to respond to literally everyone in some egotistical parade. There is no way you are even old enough to have a degree.

I changed no topics,. Just presented a problem you were unable to answer.

Which means you're wrong there on two accounts, I never lied about my qualifications, and I most certainly am old enough. 30 years old to be precise.

Immaturity is not always a bad thing imo.

I changed no topics,. Just presented a problem you were unable to answer.

*didn't try, because you didn't understand what you were saying enough to actually give enough information for it to be answerable.

Which means you're wrong there on two accounts, I never lied about my qualifications, and I most certainly am old enough. 30 years old to be precise.

Immaturity is not always a bad thing imo.

I sincerely doubt that. And immaturity is a pretty bad thing if your ego is so fragile you need to go around demanding people acknowledge you.
Someone who is thirty years old has enough maturity to not come to a site to complain at a user who blocked them somewhere else, to not declare themselves the most renowned REer several times over consecutively rather than as a one-off quip, and to not blatantly lie about their qualifications, and to immediately defend it with accusation, distractions and lies. Thirteen would be more accurate.

I hate dragging threads so far off course and I hate snapping but people like you really rub me the wrong way.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 08:59:27 AM

I changed no topics,. Just presented a problem you were unable to answer.

*didn't try, because you didn't understand what you were saying enough to actually give enough information for it to be answerable.

Quote

Which means you're wrong there on two accounts, I never lied about my qualifications, and I most certainly am old enough. 30 years old to be precise.

Immaturity is not always a bad thing imo.

I sincerely doubt that. And immaturity is a pretty bad thing if your ego is so fragile you need to go around demanding people acknowledge you.
Someone who is thirty years old has enough maturity to not come to a site to complain at a user who blocked them somewhere else, to not declare themselves the most renowned REer several times over consecutively rather than as a one-off quip, and to not blatantly lie about their qualifications, and to immediately defend it with accusation, distractions and lies. Thirteen would be more accurate.

I hate dragging threads so far off course and I hate snapping but people like you really rub me the wrong way.

The answer was given to you after you failed.

Your doubts don't change reality.

I will rub you up the wrong way, I assume you aren't used to losing debates. Like I said previously, it's just a shame the topic you picked was one I'd written a dissertation on. Well not a shame cos I enjoyed it, but a shame for you since it highlighted gaps in your knowledge. That's what happens when something is not found on Google and your ability isn't enough to come up with an answer yourself. The number of people who will have studied group theory and it's colouring applications will be relatively small which is why I knew it was a perfect choice to pick. The dissertation I wrote did go onto 3D shapes as well, but trying to explain to you why a reflection is not a rigid motion is not something I feel inclined to do.

Quote from: John Davis on March 16, 2018, 09:08:14 PM

You likely need to go home and talk to your husband about this matter.

I realise thst same-sex marriage has recently been legalised in Australia but since I've been married for well over 50 years I don't have a husband.

Sorry about that,  but I never took the society as one that accepted such sexist ideas or is that just your personal bias?

Homophobia seems to be condoned here, so I wouldn't be surprised if sexism was too. Overall, the attitudes of the admins are a bit early 1970's.

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.

And you saying all that doesn't make it true.

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

And your comments have shown that I can't and that you are just here to pretend to be smarter than everyone else.

The Tesla is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Alone it is not.
It is only when taken with the mountains of other evidence that it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Earth is round.
Along it is only evidence.

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

But that doesn't change the fact that the math is equivalent, unlike what you claimed.

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

And that was my point.
Doing a math degree you learn a bunch of complex math with no real application to determining the shape of Earth.
So your math degree doesn't make you the most qualified person.
It makes you no more qualified than someone with no degree.

To be a teacher you need a degree.

So you need a degree because someone decided you do.

Something that could not be done via Google is quite my dissertation

However one that could easily be done with google is to google something and pretend it is a quote from a dissertation, or just making one up.
That doesn't show it is your dissertation.
Especially for such a simple idea.
Googling symmetries of regular polygons yields this:
http://bestmaths.net/online/index.php/year-levels/year-10/year-10-topics/symmetry/
Which sums up in a table nicely the symmetry of a variety of shapes and one can easily see the pattern.

You don't need a degree in math to figure it out.

You should find Google will not have the answers since it's work taken from my dissertation

And there you go with the arrogance again.
Do you really think you are so special no one else would have figured it out?
Also, if it is so niche, why would she know it or know the correct terminology?

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

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.

And you saying all that doesn't make it true.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 01:25:20 AM

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

And your comments have shown that I can't and that you are just here to pretend to be smarter than everyone else.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 01:25:20 AM

The Tesla is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Alone it is not.
It is only when taken with the mountains of other evidence that it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Earth is round.
Along it is only evidence.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 01:25:20 AM

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

But that doesn't change the fact that the math is equivalent, unlike what you claimed.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 01:25:20 AM

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

And that was my point.
Doing a math degree you learn a bunch of complex math with no real application to determining the shape of Earth.
So your math degree doesn't make you the most qualified person.
It makes you no more qualified than someone with no degree.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 01:25:20 AM

To be a teacher you need a degree.

So you need a degree because someone decided you do.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 01:25:20 AM

Something that could not be done via Google is quite my dissertation

However one that could easily be done with google is to google something and pretend it is a quote from a dissertation, or just making one up.
That doesn't show it is your dissertation.
Especially for such a simple idea.
Googling symmetries of regular polygons yields this:
http://bestmaths.net/online/index.php/year-levels/year-10/year-10-topics/symmetry/
Which sums up in a table nicely the symmetry of a variety of shapes and one can easily see the pattern.

You don't need a degree in math to figure it out.

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

You should find Google will not have the answers since it's work taken from my dissertation

And there you go with the arrogance again.
Do you really think you are so special no one else would have figured it out?
Also, if it is so niche, why would she know it or know the correct terminology?

No what makes it true is it is an empirical fact.

As I said that's your prerogative.

The Tesla could be used as proof due to the independent observations as well as the live footage, of course there's other evidence, we live on a globe.

I'd need more information to believe the maths is equivalent tbh.

Pretty much yeah.

That's nowhere near the level of group theory being discussed. Also the pattern is not something that can easily be spotted, you have to use a formula and calculate the number of orbits. Don't pretend to understand this concept, your strength posting is when you actually know what you're going on about. Or if you do understand this concept then your posts should reflect that.

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. I'd have thought she'd have been familiar with Orbits and Burnside's, but as I said failure to answer did not mean her qualifications aren't legit, it was just something I could ask which Google wouldn't be able to answer.

I don't believe I'm that special, people on my course scored much higher than I did, I got 70.14% average so only just scraped my first. I just like to claim I'm the most renowned RET poster because it is amusing for me to do so. After all we are on a website dedicated to the discussion of the logistics behind a flat earth lol.

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.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 02:43:27 PM

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.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 02:43:27 PM

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?

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 02:43:27 PM

I'd need more information to believe the maths is equivalent tbh.

Yet you seemed just fine to state it cannot be equivalent.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 02:43:27 PM

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.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 02:43:27 PM

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.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 02:43:27 PM

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.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 02:43:27 PM

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.

Again, it doesn't really matter as no exchange of words over the internet changes the validity of qualifications. Whether or not you believe me has no impact.

It was tracked by people after the event.

I did seem just fine yes.

Mate, that was embarrassing. As I said, your strength is when you actually know what you're posting about. Everyone should be able to work out a regular 2D shape has 2n symmetries, that isn't what's being discussed here. As you said, you don't have a degree in maths so there's no reason for you to have studied group theory.

As you have showed, it can't be answered through Google. Which again is why I picked that topic.

I've already said, I say that because it amuses me.

The truth is we live on a globe, the fact I can amuse myself whilst living on the globe is a bonus.

Mate, that was embarrassing. As I said, your strength is when you actually know what you're posting about. Everyone should be able to work out a regular 2D shape has 2n symmetries, that isn't what's being discussed here. As you said, you don't have a degree in maths so there's no reason for you to have studied group theory.

Yes, it is quite embarrassing for you, as you made it out to be such a big deal with it being a quote from your dissertation.
That was what was being discussed.

But enough of this irrelevant crap.
The purpose of this tangent was to show your words can't be trusted, and that has been firmly established.

So now how about you address the topic at hand without just asserting people can trust you.

Quote from: DavidOrJohn on March 18, 2018, 11:12:37 PM

Mate, that was embarrassing. As I said, your strength is when you actually know what you're posting about. Everyone should be able to work out a regular 2D shape has 2n symmetries, that isn't what's being discussed here. As you said, you don't have a degree in maths so there's no reason for you to have studied group theory.

Yes, it is quite embarrassing for you, as you made it out to be such a big deal with it being a quote from your dissertation.
That was what was being discussed.

But enough of this irrelevant crap.
The purpose of this tangent was to show your words can't be trusted, and that has been firmly established.

So now how about you address the topic at hand without just asserting people can trust you.

The big deal was the use of Orbits and Burnside's as I have said, but again you won't know what either of those are so I don't understand why you are persistent with this. As I said, 2n symmetries is not hard to work out, what is when you are combining the set of all the symmetries of a 2D shape with the composition of mapping (a symmetry group) with the set of all possible colourings of that same 2D shape (say using 2 colours) you have to first show that the set is actually a G-Set, you then have to find the orbits of of the set within that group and then you have to use Burnside's Colouring theorem.

No doubt the vast majority of that will go above your head, but as I said that's fine, you haven't studied group theory. So stop embarrassing yourself and depart from this tangent.

People can trust who they want, it's up to them to do so. My life won't change if you decide you can or cannot trust me. I'm not particularly invested in the outcome of such a choice neither. Some trust the words of astronauts, some do not, but the change in trust does to relate to a change in history, just someone's perception of such. For some perception is everything but in absolute terms it's nothing. Me quoting page 7 of my dissertation is another absolute fact because I opened my dissertation, turned to page 7 and wrote down the words I have previously typed up. Nothing you have written since has changed that.

TL;Dr - trust who you want, it's your choice.

As you said, you don't have a degree in maths so there's no reason for you to have studied group theory.

Also, there's no reason for "him" (anyone) NOT to study it for own amusement. :-)

Does he need degree for it?
Someone to confirm his knowledge on paper?
He could just enjoy it, without attempts to get hired in the field.

You get the point.

-----------------------------

Fundamental or not, gravitation results in force between objects with mass.

Newton considered it fundamnetal, which means object with mass creates force field around itself.
Does word "field" rings the bell?
Why Jane asked about "groups"?

The question is not simply "do you know it?".
Ask yourself "do you know what to do with it?".