Physics Banter - View Single Post - Core error argument objection refuted, short

**James Harris**

(Arturo Magidin) wrote in message ...
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
(Arturo Magidin) wrote in message ...
In article ,
James Harris wrote:

[.snip.]

It's not possible. I'll put in values to help those readers confused
by symbols (though algebra is BASED on symbols) by letting u=2, f=13,
then you have

26/w_1(m)

and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that no function
w_1(m) that actually varies with m can exist such that 26/w_1(m) is an
algebraic integer for *all* integer m.

w_1(m) = 13^{1/(m^2+1)}*2^{|m|/(m^2+1)}

I'm not saying that's the function in question (it is not), but there
is a function that "actually varies with m such that 26/w_1(m) is an
algebraic integer for *all* integer m." So the argument that no such
function can exist is simply bogus.

Well that example works, so now I'll say algebraic integer m, and it
blows up at m^2+1 = 0.

So let me see if I have this right:

(1) You claimed something was impossible under a given set of
conditions.

(2) When I proved that your claim was simply false, you changed the
set of conditions, and now argue that what I said was wrong.

You ****ing dumbass Arturo Magidin, the ring has ALWAYS been algebraic
integers, so having m in the ring of algebraic integers FOLLOWS ANYWAY
you goddamn, ****ing, stupid dumbass.

You are so ****ing stupid to supposedly be a mathematician you **** of
**** Arturo Magidin.

You are **** Arturo Magidin. You are a stupid Magidin piece of ****.

You know what Arturo Magidin? You are a ****ing dumbass.

James Harris