• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Outstanding maths problems from wiki.

BrettNortje

Banned
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
793
Reaction score
22
Location
Cape Town
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This is a list of the outstanding "homological conjecture" problems.

[1] The zero divisor theorem. This has to do with geometry, as it deals a lot with radius, and, this theorem states that if radius plus radius does not equal a zero divisor of the module of radius, then radius is not a zero divisor of radius. this means that radius is not true - as it cannot be subtracted from itself to equal zero if it is not itself equal to itself. this means that if the 'module' equation is not equal to zero, then it is not a 'straight line.' this would mean it has a degree or more plus or minus the degree it is on to equal the degree of the sum, being [r] minus [R] = zero. this means that if the two radius are positive and negative, on either side of the 'plane,' there needs to be a equation that settles them at zero so that there is no curve to the angle they are making.
 
[2] Bass's question. if the equation or angles to the right has a finite value of angles that are non zero, then why are they finite? this would come down to the dual ring idea of mine, where the ring is cut in half from 90 degrees to 270 degrees, as that separates right from left, of course. then, there needs to be a way to see how many degrees there may be, which comes to 180 degrees for each side, including zero would just be 360. so there are either 180 or 181 degrees of injective modules.

[3] The intersection theorem. if [m n^r = 0] then [m^r = n]? this would be because if the first sum equals something finite in [n] then the n equals the projective dimension or 'projected angle or value' or m. this then means that r equals 1, of course, as the activity of multiplying by 'to the power of r' equals the same for both sums. seeing as how they equal the same thing no matter which way round you deal with them, the answer quite clearly is that the "krull of [n]" equals the value of the largest angle for m.
 
[4] The new intersection theorem. this is where the intersection is less than or equal to the module from the finite module. this means that the finite module, or, module that has to have a value is where the ring value equals or is less than the module. to prove this correct or incorrect means we need to find out if the module or 'bunch of equations' [R] is less than or equal to [n]. this means that we need only observe that either the [R] module has a value or is zero, and if that value, it is less than or equal to [n]. this means that simply, since the [R] module is fixed with it's possible values, first must not equal zero. this can be seen to be that if the ring exists, it is not zero. righty ho. then, we need to observe that if it is something we are actually doing, it must have a value, but, is it equal to or less than the module? the module of the ring equals a value of the ring, so must be equal to the ring value, or, fit into the module.
 
[5] The improved new intersection conjecture. This is where we must give a non infinite number that is less more than zero that the dimension is equal to or less than the natural number. this degree answer will also be equal to [R] by a module of itself, and, need to prove that the degree ring is equal to or less than the module. [this is the biggest lot of rubbish i have ever heard!] If we were to try to find the value of the angle, then we will no doubt find that all those equations either equal it or are less than the module. if the module is equal to zero, then they are equal. if the module is not zero, then it needs to be greater than zero, which is what this comes down to. so, if the module is greater than zero, it is equal to zero plus the ring, which leaves the ring, yes? this ring or degree or angle will be as much as 0 - 90 degrees and 271 - 360 degrees on the right side, or 91 - 270 on the left hand side, so or so. this means that we need to work to the left as that is finite, as the finite ring is not infinite, therefore cannot be zero, as zero is infinite, and that means the angel or ring falls on the left hemisphere of the circle.

[6] The direct summand conjecture. this is where we need to prove that one angle goes into another angle, as a power would put in 'into that number.' this means that one ring goes into another ring at with having the bearings of 0 - 90 degrees equaling half of the left hand upper side, and the left hand upper side equaling half of the lower right hand side. this is because if you half something that is on the left upper hand side, that side goes from 91 - 270, yes? this means that it will divide into the 90 degree right hand upper side of the circle. then, the lower right hand side is nearly exactly double the values of the upper right hand side in degrees.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krull_dimension said:
In commutative algebra, the Krull dimension of a commutative ring R, named after Wolfgang Krull, is the supremum of the lengths of all chains of prime ideals. The Krull dimension need not be finite even for a Noetherian ring. More generally the Krull dimension can be defined for modules over possibly non-commutative rings as the deviation of the poset of submodules.

The Krull dimension has been introduced to provide an algebraic definition of the dimension of an algebraic variety: the dimension of the affine variety defined by an ideal I in a polynomial ring R is the Krull dimension of R/I.

A field k has Krull dimension 0; more generally, k[x1, ..., xn] has Krull dimension n. A principal ideal domain that is not a field has Krull dimension 1. A local ring has Krull dimension 0 if and only if every element of its maximal ideal is nilpotent.

This means that every krull dimension begins are zero, and, works it's way up to be a greater ring or degree. this whole set of equations is supposed to show that sets of krull's equaling anything other than zero or one would leave very little to calculate, so, using geometry as a visual guide, it is easy to calculate the krull values, as, the values will always be greater than zero or one as those are not really used in geometry.

If you were to calculate that the krulll sets of equations has a lot to do with primes, then we could easily sum up krull numbers as odd numbers that are real numbers, as they are used in algebra and have a practical use - anything with a practical use has positive numbers, yes?

So, if the krull numbers are all ideal primes, then they need to fit into finite equations - they cannot be infinite. this means they will always have real values, of course. if the prime must fit into another number, then it is not prime, and that means it is a waste of time.
 
The beal conjecture states that [a^x + b^y = c^z]. this means that two prime powers equal another prime power, but, this is impossible as a prime to the power of a prime is not a prime, so this means that a prime plus a prime cannot equal a prime? but, a prime times a prime equals a value, and that value might be the same as another even value. so [p^p + p^p = p^p]?

This would mean that [2p^p^2] = 4p^p. then, it would be that [4p * 4p = p^p] equaling [16p = 16p].
 
Fermat-catalan conjecture states that a^m + b^n = c^k needs to satisfy [1/m + 1/n + 1/k] is less than one. as these are primes that are being discussed, i would say that 1/p + 1/p + 1/p, would be at least [1/3 + 1/5 + 1/7] using different primes, so, that the least amount without them being replicas is like that, and, that is less than one.
 
When will you realize that nobody is interested?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobian_conjecture said:
In mathematics, the Jacobian conjecture is a celebrated problem on polynomials in several variables. It was first posed in 1939 by Ott-Heinrich Keller. It was widely publicized by Shreeram Abhyankar, as an example of a question in the area of algebraic geometry that requires little beyond a knowledge of calculus to state.

The Jacobian conjecture is notorious for the large number of attempted proofs that turned out to contain subtle errors. As of 2016, there are no plausible claims to have proved it. Even the two variable case has resisted all efforts. There are no known compelling reasons for believing it to be true, and according to van den Essen (1997) there are some suspicions that the conjecture is in fact false for large numbers of variables. The Jacobian conjecture is number 16 in Stephen Smale's 1998 list of Mathematical Problems for the Next Century.

So, this conjecture states that there are a number of variables that can be swapped for other values and still get the same answer, or, other answers that form a pattern with the other answers, as the equations differ yet 'add up' so too does the answer differ yet 'add up.'

F(c^1, ..., c^N) = (f^1(c^1, ...,c^N),..., f^N(c^1,...,c^N))

So, the sum inside the brackets is equal to double what it is, and [f = 4f^n]. this means that n is a negative number, yes? this means that n is also a negative number to get it back to a natural number, of course. this means [f] is a negative number, so [4f] is the negative number times by four, making it [minus x]. then, it is multiplied by another negative value, where the value goes back to equal [f]! of course this means that [n] is [minus 5f], leaving positive f1.
 
Schanuel's conjecture. this states that a value can be calculated to be worth more than the original value. this means that the original number, the one you are working with, has fields or something that make it greater than it is, because, these are like lee way in geometry, or, values of discrepancy or values to give a little bit of error correction, okay?

So, the problem is;

[z^1...z^n] is the same as field [z^1...z^n , e^z^n...e^z^1] yet the n is valued at being divided by the z, more or less. z is constant in all of the equation, so, this means that it should be [4z^2e^2]. this will give us the value that n is divided by.

Now, the answer is [n] / [64e^4z].
 
Perfect cuboids are rumored to be true, but unproven;

Euler_brick_perfect.svg.png

So, they say that due to length breadth and width, there should be a 'perfect calculation' for [g]. if we were to observe that [g] = [a] + + [c] = [3g], because the original equation they want to prove is [a^2] + [b^2] + [c^2] = [g^2] it is natural to also say that all these to the power of two instances equals [4x], as [a] to the power of one equals [2a] and two times two equals 4, yes? this means that [4a] + [4b] + [4c] = [4g], yes?

This results in [e + b + c + d + f] = [g / 1.5].
 
Geometric continuity is about smoothness over a 'long area.' this is where the curves are calculated, of course. if the curve is from one point to the next point, then you need to calculate the curve, yes? this is usually done with the straight line in question.

Basically, if the curve ever enters the realm of forty five degrees or more, it will never meet up, as, that is a direct line away from each other. that means any line that is under forty five degrees would possibly meet up with the other side of it. this means that curves with greater then forty four degrees on both side will never meet up to conclude the 'circle.'

So, the curve needs to 'come down' at some point. this means that you need to have two points, at least, in the curved shape. basically, the angle needs to change towards these points as soon as possible, making 'a curve that meets up.' this would mean that we would have to have a constantly changing curve, of course. the degrres need to change by at least one degree from forty four degrees each step of the way, unless due to constraints they need to change quicker.
 
... this would mean that the curve needs to take the length of the two points, and divide it into one hundred and eighty degrees to find the curve.
 
This one hundred and eighty degrees should be calculated into the two points, with, the one hundred and eighty degrees being divided into the length, with each degree of length equaling one hundred and eighty degrees too.
 
When will you realize that nobody is interested?
What???

This is why God gave us calculators.

It is a thread of one.....
 
Geometric continuity is about smoothness over a 'long area.' this is where the curves are calculated, of course. if the curve is from one point to the next point, then you need to calculate the curve, yes? this is usually done with the straight line in question.

Basically, if the curve ever enters the realm of forty five degrees or more, it will never meet up, as, that is a direct line away from each other. that means any line that is under forty five degrees would possibly meet up with the other side of it. this means that curves with greater then forty four degrees on both side will never meet up to conclude the 'circle.'

So, the curve needs to 'come down' at some point. this means that you need to have two points, at least, in the curved shape. basically, the angle needs to change towards these points as soon as possible, making 'a curve that meets up.' this would mean that we would have to have a constantly changing curve, of course. the degrres need to change by at least one degree from forty four degrees each step of the way, unless due to constraints they need to change quicker.

Look up the word "parabola".
 
Back
Top Bottom