Lord Monckton

[Sam the Centipede]

It is proper to capitalize the "N" in "Newton" and the "J" in "Joule" as they are named after people.

It's proper for Sir Isaac N and Mr. James Prescott J (a good man - he brewed beer). But it's incorrect for the eponymous units. As is capitalizing the "m" in meganewton. C'est pas le système international.

You know all too well: just as the right-wing nuttosphere is infested with conspiracy theorists, so the Fogbow saneworld is infested with pedants. Well, not exactly pedants...

The SI system* has seven (IIRC) base units for mass, length, time, etc. and a platoon of derived units, but it doesn't have a unit for bumptious intercontinental asshattery, which clearly should be the monckton. The unit of bloviation would have to be the apuzzo (abbreviation Azzzz). If Mario's typical "winning" post is rated at 1 Azzzzz, that makes an ordinary pointless sentence (such as this one) about one milliapuzzo, or 1 mAzzzz. Of course, there is no contest for the unit of pure incompetence, the taitz.

* Yes, I know!

[Slarti the White]

Bless me, father, for I have sinned. I've failed to capitalize "Curie", "Gray" and "Sievert".

Sorry, Slarti. I think I'm overtired.

Hey! I'm not just making this stuff up!

Okay, DON'T PANIC, write out the first 100 lines of Pascal's triangle, use the Euler characteristic to prove there are only five platonic solids and have a pan galactic gargle blaster and when you come to you'll be forgiven.

rAmen

[Slarti the White]

It is proper to capitalize the "N" in "Newton" and the "J" in "Joule" as they are named after people.

It's proper for Sir Isaac N and Mr. James Prescott J (a good man - he brewed beer). But it's incorrect for the eponymous units. As is capitalizing the "m" in meganewton. C'est pas le système international.

You know all too well: just as the right-wing nuttosphere is infested with conspiracy theorists, so the Fogbow saneworld is infested with pedants. Well, not exactly pedants...

The SI system* has seven (IIRC) base units for mass, length, time, etc. and a platoon of derived units, but it doesn't have a unit for bumptious intercontinental asshattery, which clearly should be the monckton. The unit of bloviation would have to be the apuzzo (abbreviation Azzzz). If Mario's typical "winning" post is rated at 1 Azzzzz, that makes an ordinary pointless sentence (such as this one) about one milliapuzzo, or 1 mAzzzz. Of course, there is no contest for the unit of pure incompetence, the taitz.

* Yes, I know!

There is already a rating system for the quality of cocuments from tripe to Taitzed (~3.2 exa-tripe or a mega-Titanic).

[magdalen77]

Bless me, father, for I have sinned. I've failed to capitalize "Curie", "Gray" and "Sievert".

Sorry, Slarti. I think I'm overtired.

Hey! I'm not just making this stuff up!

Okay, DON'T PANIC, write out the first 100 lines of Pascal's triangle, use the Euler characteristic to prove there are only five platonic solids and have a pan galactic gargle blaster and when you come to you'll be forgiven.

rAmen

You do know that I'm a bio major, don't you?

[magdalen77]

I'm nor sure that I trust Plato anyway. What about Liebniz? I always liked his monads.

[Sterngard Friegen]

Say watt?

You've forgiven.

[Sam the Centipede]

Bless me, father, for I have sinned. I've failed to capitalize "Curie", "Gray" and "Sievert".

Sorry, Slarti. I think I'm overtired.

Hey! I'm not just making this stuff up!

Okay, DON'T PANIC, write out the first 100 lines of Pascal's triangle, use the Euler characteristic to prove there are only five platonic solids and have a pan galactic gargle blaster and when you come to you'll be forgiven.

rAmen

Only five platonic (or Platonic) solids? How few dimensions do you work in? Are you a Flatlander, or - I hardly dare say it for fear of sounding racist - a Volumista?

Forgo compactification, spread out the manifold, enjoy the higher dimensions!

[Flatpointhigh]

That ol' Janx Spirit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcS6WduFkYs

[SueDB]

[Slarti the White]

Bless me, father, for I have sinned. I've failed to capitalize "Curie", "Gray" and "Sievert".

Sorry, Slarti. I think I'm overtired.

Hey! I'm not just making this stuff up!

Okay, DON'T PANIC, write out the first 100 lines of Pascal's triangle, use the Euler characteristic to prove there are only five platonic solids and have a pan galactic gargle blaster and when you come to you'll be forgiven.

rAmen

Only five platonic (or Platonic) solids? How few dimensions do you work in? Are you a Flatlander, or - I hardly dare say it for fear of sounding racist - a Volumista?

Forgo compactification, spread out the manifold, enjoy the higher dimensions!

You got me on small-"p" Platonic, but I'm not doing the math for more than three dimensions. If I had wanted to know how the Euler characteristic applied to surface volume, side area and vertex length I would have studied algebraic topology. *shudder*

[Slarti the White]

I'm nor sure that I trust Plato anyway. What about Liebniz? I always liked his monads.

Academically speaking, I'm the great¹²-grandson of Leibniz through Euler, two Bernoullis, Lagrange, Poisson and Hildebrandt.

[Sam the Centipede]

Hey! I'm not just making this stuff up!

Okay, DON'T PANIC, write out the first 100 lines of Pascal's triangle, use the Euler characteristic to prove there are only five platonic solids and have a pan galactic gargle blaster and when you come to you'll be forgiven.

rAmen

Only five platonic (or Platonic) solids? How few dimensions do you work in? Are you a Flatlander, or - I hardly dare say it for fear of sounding racist - a Volumista?

Forgo compactification, spread out the manifold, enjoy the higher dimensions!

You got me on small-"p" Platonic, but I'm not doing the math for more than three dimensions. If I had wanted to know how the Euler characteristic applied to surface volume, side area and vertex length I would have studied algebraic topology. *shudder*

I'm not particularly mathematical, so I too stick with three spatial dimensions in my ordinary life.

A few years ago, I wondered why there are only 5 (three-dimensional ) Platonic solids and came up with the simple reasoning that it requires at least there faces to meet at each vertex and the combined internal angles of those faces at the vertex must sum to a total that is strictly more than 180° and strictly less than 360° (radians are available on request for vegetarians). Hence triangles with 60° internal angles can have 4 (total 240°) or 5 faces meeting but not 3 (total 180°) or 6 (total 360°), squares can only have 3 (total 270°, a cube), pentagons and hexagons also 3. Regular heptagons have an internal angle of approx. 128.5° and 3×128.5°>360° so heptagons hate Plato.

I don't know the proof using Euler's characteristic, but as that uses the topology of the polyhedron's net, I guess it must be more powerful and demonstrate that the result holds even if the faces are not congruent or regular.

Is there an on-topic connection? Oh yes, the lad checks Wikipedia, slips his marker and lands one in the net! Higher dimensional analogs (polytopes) were investigated in the 19thC by Swiss mathematician Ludwig Schläfli. To me, that looks to be the same (pre-Americanization) family name as the vile racist right-wing nutjob Phyllis Schlafly and her spawn, the equally vile Andy Sclafly, the founder and chief hatemonger of the RWNJ and Christian dominionist fountain of crap, Conservapedia. Coincidentally, Andy's brother Roger is a mathematician. IIRC Roger is also gay, which must annoy his hatemongering family intensely!

Fun fact: in its early days, Conservapedia's website had a graphic proclaiming it to be "Conservapedia: the trusworthy encyclopedia" [sic].
:

[Slarti the White]

Sam,

Note that a Platonic solid is a regular polyhedron, so all of its faces are regular and congruent. Briefly, the Euler characteristic says that vertices minus edges plus faces equals two for all polyhedra (this can be proven by puncturing one face, mapping the polyhedra to a planar graph and triangulating it. With this relationship, the fact that regularity implies if the polyhedron has faces with n edges each and m faces meet at each vertex then the following equations hold:

V - E + F = 2

2E = nF

mE = 2V

The only solutions to these equations amongst the integers give us the tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedron.

[rpenner]

mE = 2V

The only solutions to these equations amongst the integers give us the tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedron.

The last equation should read n F = 2 E = m V, I think. Also, I think you need to constrain F, E and V to positive integers and n (edges per face) to an integer 3 or larger, or you get families of solutions like F = E = m, V = n = 2 or F = -1, E = -9, V = -6, n = 18, m = 3,

 F  E  V V+F–E 2E/F 2E/V
 4  6  4   2    3    3 Tetrahedron, 3 3-gons meet at every vertex
 6 12  8   2    4    3 Hexahedron, 3 4-gons meet at every vertex ( a regular hexahedron is a cube)
 8 12  6   2    3    4 Octahedron, 4 3-gons meet at every vertex
12 30 20   2    5    3 Dodecahedron, 3 5-gons meet at every vertex
20 30 12   2    3    5 Icosahedron, 5 3-gons meet at every vertex

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=n_ ... 4+%3E%3D+3

[Sam the Centipede]

Sam,

Note that a Platonic solid is a regular polyhedron, so all of its faces are regular and congruent. Briefly, the Euler characteristic says that vertices minus edges plus faces equals two for all polyhedra (this can be proven by puncturing one face, mapping the polyhedra to a planar graph and triangulating it. With this relationship, the fact that regularity implies if the polyhedron has faces with n edges each and m faces meet at each vertex then the following equations hold:

V - E + F = 2

2E = nF

mE = 2V

The only solutions to these equations amongst the integers give us the tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedron.

Yeah, I know that (although I don't have the equations committed to memory!). My point was that if this topological relationship on the net works, then the geometric condition of congruency and regularity is unnecessary and the proof is more general. That is, the proof using the Euler formula demonstrates that one could not make a polyhedron of (say) heptagons (regular or otherwise, not necessarily congruent) where some constant number N (N≥3) heptagon vertices meet at each vertex of the polyhedron. My loose geometric reasoning only works for regular congruent polygons.

But I think it doesn't demonstrate (nor does it attempt to) that one cannot make a polyhedron using regular congruent polygons but with varying numbers of polygons meeting at each vertex - imagine two tetrahedra pushed together and the joining faces removed. But triangles are always the most potent geometers! Squares won't work (unless one accepts coplanar faces), so that probably only applies to triangles.

Can one pave a polyhedron with congruent heptagons, or congruent hexagons (relaxing the condition on constant number of faces at each vertex)? You can have three faces meeting if the fatter corners are kept apart from each other, but do those fat corners eventually bite you on the backside? This is left as an exercise for the reader, or for Lord Monckton, as he's such a friggin' mathematical genius, in his own mind.

[Sterngard Friegen]

Math porn!

Now I know what you must feel like when we discuss law porn on other threads.

[Slarti the White]

Math porn!

Now I know what you must feel like when we discuss law porn on other threads.

True, I much prefer this elegant erotica to the depravity the Fog-B.A.R. sometimes engages in...

[BillTheCat]

Maths! Well at least this thread is being used for something worthwhile, as opposed to discussing human-refuse Lord Monkeypants.

[Sam the Centipede]

Maths! Well at least this thread is being used for something worthwhile, as opposed to discussing human-refuse Lord Monkeypants.

Hey! I lobbed in a couple of references to RWNJs and Lord Monkeybutt in a pretence of staying on topic!

And if Lord Monkeybutt wants to be discussed in this thread, he should do something interesting. It's his fault. Typical lord, leaving it to the peasants to do the dirty work.

[Notorial Dissent]

Speaking of the Monkeybutt, isn't he still doing time for wasting HM's constabulary's time? I'll bet he's met a whole class of society he isn't happy with during his sojourn. He's also been remarkably quiet as far as I can tell, which is all to the good in my opinion.

[Foggy]

Speaking of the Monkeybutt, isn't he still doing time for wasting HM's constabulary's time?

No, I think that was the other British frootloop ... can't remember his name. Called in a threat of a nuke at the Olympics.

[bob]

Speaking of the Monkeybutt, isn't he still doing time for wasting HM's constabulary's time?

No, I think that was the other British frootloop ... can't remember his name. Called in a threat of a nuke at the Olympics.

Shrimpton was the other British frootloop, who is doing time.

[Foggy]

Right you are! It's the shrimp cracker who's in the clink, not Monkton.

[Notorial Dissent]

Pity, I think it would do Monkeysbutt some good.

[Dolly]

Sekrit Stuffs!

<snip>
the vile racist right-wing nutjob Phyllis Schlafly and her spawn, the equally vile Andy Sclafly, the founder and chief hatemonger of the RWNJ and Christian dominionist fountain of crap, Conservapedia. Coincidentally, Andy's brother Roger is a mathematician. IIRC Roger is also gay, which must annoy his hatemongering family intensely!

Fun fact: in its early days, Conservapedia's website had a graphic proclaiming it to be "Conservapedia: the trusworthy encyclopedia" [sic]. :

One of my real life acquaintances and Facebook friends, is a frequent copy/paster of Conservapedia text rather than writing his own opinions in comments.

Are you aware that they are in the process of rewriting the Bible?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

The Conservative Bible Project is a project utilizing the "best of the public" to render God's word into modern English without archaic language and liberal translation distortions.

Isaac Newton, who was merely an average student, worked on translating the Bible and that gave him the inspiration and insight for inventing calculus, developing mechanics, and discovering gravity. Going beyond reading the Bible to translating it also enables eradication of liberal distortions that have crept in, such as pro-abortion bias against references to the unborn child. Just as Shakespeare's works are losing interest in the West due to its increasingly archaic language, the use of archaic and liberal language in Western translations of the Bible loses people.

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning: <Big Snip of >

First Example - Liberal-Promoted Falsehood
The earliest, most authentic manuscripts of the Gospel According to Luke lack this verse fragment set forth at the start of Luke 23:34:[13]

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
Is this a corruption of the original, perhaps promoted by liberals (when they wrote the King James Version? ) without regard to its authenticity? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals, although it does not appear in the earliest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke. It should not appear in a conservative Bible, because in point of fact Jesus might never had said it at all.

Luke 23:34

King James Version
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Proposed Conservative Translation
They divided His clothes, and gambled for them.

Analysis
The statement attributed to Jesus in this verse is likely not authentic.[1][2] Proponents of the authenticity of these words claim they are necessary to fulfill a prophecy of Isaiah 53:12.

When I copy/paste the link it changes in the Preview. You will have to click on LUKE on the main page and choose the correct chapter. Stoopid.

Forgiveness, Compassion, Love = Liberal = Not Good Enough For A Conservative Christian Bible