- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 38428
The post that was quoted here has been removedBlimey, D. I seem to have rattled your cage!
So, are YOU, never mind 'southfast' saying my proof is incorrect?
You seem to change your mind depending upon what *support* you perceive from the crowd (even though this guy seems to criticise your proof as much as mine! Shock horror!)
You used the term 'barely correct'. Whether it was about my posts or not, I would submit that shows YOUR abysmal ignorance of written English.
I ask again, in no great expectation of a reply, how something can be 'barely correct'. Once again. It is correct, or it is incorrect. Not difficult to comprehend. Maybe it is.
My university? Nah. They let anyone in. However, I do seem to remember the entrance exam involved a question criticising the term *barely correct*. Coincidence or what?
The post that was quoted here has been removedNo, I am not familiar with the International Mathematical Olympiad rules. It took me significantly less time to work out why your proof worked, the "aha moment" being "she's used Bezout's identity", than why Blood's works.
My underlying gripe is that mathematics is a formal language. Blood on the Tracks' is doing the mathematical equivalent of using slang, which renders his proof almost incomprehensible. In your case the answer is fine for the IMO judges, if they do not require basic theorems to be named, but on an internet forum naming the theorem used is going to help people understand how the proof works - if they haven't heard of Bezout's Identity they can copy and paste into Wikipedia.
There's quite an interesting page on Wikipedia (which to my irritation I can't find) that talks about a theory concerning language, where language is a device for helping another person read one's mind. Since the purpose here is to explain to a non-specialist audience, rather than to IMO judges, overspecification is desirable to help people easily follow the argument. Blood on the Tracks' use of the term "used up" is in the same category as ACLE, part of a private language not really accessible to the audience.
Originally posted by @blood-on-the-tracksNot everyone reading the thread contributes to it. Not everyone contributing to the thread will have heard of Bezout's Identity, never mind the non-contributors. You really need to be as clear as possible if you want anyone to understand what you are writing. My background is in Theoretical Physics and number theory did not form much of my mathematical education (at least in any of the lectures I actually made it to). These days I'm a computer programmer and have to work out how basic algorithms work, which leaves me reading about number theory and so I've heard of most of this stuff because of my work and not because I went to university. If I have problems following your method then I think it is likely that you've lost everyone else in the forum as well. If no one can understand what you are presenting then why are you writing it?
It is to me . I am not a Maths teacher, I just explain as best I can what is patently obvious to me. Sorry if that falls short of your expectations, but , frankly I don't care.
I would agree with your criticism of D64's method to a point, but again, despite her/he being in full aggressive mode at the moment, I would say that in a forum in whi ...[text shortened]... of pages ago and, I think, complemented the said poster.
You sometimes wonder why you bother
- Joined
- 11 Nov 14
- Moves
- 38428
Originally posted by @deepthoughtFair enough.
Not everyone reading the thread contributes to it. Not everyone contributing to the thread will have heard of Bezout's Identity, never mind the non-contributors. You really need to be as clear as possible if you want anyone to understand what you are writing. My background is in Theoretical Physics and number theory did not form much of my mathematic ...[text shortened]... he forum as well. If no one can understand what you are presenting then why are you writing it?
Between you and me, I accept that my original explanation was hastily typed and clumsy. I don't so much accept the criticism of my reply to you, but if that is your perception, then I fair enough.
I do apologise for my tetchy reply to you.
All I would say, is that we would all like the Maths explained at a !evel that makes US understand, we don't need anything more basic than that. For example when I said 3 - 1/n = (3n - 1)/n ,you require no clarification, others may.
It is that 'grey area' that I find difficult on this forum. Well, that , plus certain posters who present their criticism in rather more aggressive ways.
I am assuming that you accept my rather long winded proof is correct?