"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote:
| Actually it is dumb of you. Obviously you have no idea what a group
is.
| Rubik's cube is solved when you find the identity.
|
| Just when you think they can't get any stupider, they do.
|
| -- Richard
You sure do. Anyway, I can't be bothered with non-mathematicians
or phuckwits writing to sci. newsgroups and saying we are stupid.
*plonk*

Androcles.

"Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org writes:

"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...
| In article .com,
| Schoenfeld wrote:
|
| I DEFINED the 'additive identity':
| Axiom: Additive Identity
| "for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"
|
| That was dumb of you.

Actually it is dumb of you. Obviously you have no idea what a group
is.

Guffaw. It just happens that identity is defined differently in a
group.

Rubik's cube is solved when you find the identity.

Are you paid for your stupidities? The above definition more or less
guarantees that for each sequence of moves on the cube, you can find a
particular move that will not change anything.

That's not really an impressive feat.

You were probably thinking about the additive _inverse_. However, the
problem is not finding the inverse of a sequence of moves reaching a
particular state, but rather decomposing this inverse into a
concatenation of a small number of elementary steps.

For someone who claims having worked in quality control, you should
try not to release completely unchecked and incoherent drivel into the
public.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

"Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote in message ...

"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...
| In article .com,
| Schoenfeld wrote:
|
| I DEFINED the 'additive identity':
| Axiom: Additive Identity
| "for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"
|
| That was dumb of you.
|
| -- Richard

Actually it is dumb of you. Obviously you have no idea what a group is.
Rubik's cube is solved when you find the identity.
Androcles

:-)
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...droGroups.html

Dirk Vdm

"David Kastrup" wrote in message ...
"Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org writes:

"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...
| In article .com,
| Schoenfeld wrote:
|
| I DEFINED the 'additive identity':
| Axiom: Additive Identity
| "for all x there exists y such that x + y = x"
|
| That was dumb of you.

Actually it is dumb of you. Obviously you have no idea what a group
is.

Guffaw. It just happens that identity is defined differently in a
group.

Rubik's cube is solved when you find the identity.

Are you paid for your stupidities? The above definition more or less
guarantees that for each sequence of moves on the cube, you can find a
particular move that will not change anything.

That's not really an impressive feat.

You were probably thinking about the additive _inverse_. However, the
problem is not finding the inverse of a sequence of moves reaching a
particular state, but rather decomposing this inverse into a
concatenation of a small number of elementary steps.

For someone who claims having worked in quality control, you should
try not to release completely unchecked and incoherent drivel into the
public.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Quality controllers and groups:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...droGroups.html
Quality controllers and limits:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...les/Limit.html
Quality controllers and equations:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...SetSolve2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...ersuasive.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...droDistri.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...ythagoras.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../ToothlessBite....
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Competent.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../UseTrans.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Sheesh.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../SetSolve.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/DivZero.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...les/Think.html
Quality controllers and square roots:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...les/STILL.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...anSpecify.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Nearly.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Quadratic.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/GrowUp.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Tautology.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../Material.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...les/GIVEN.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../PythagoRescue....
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/SqrtRev.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/NegSqrt.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...rtAnswers.html
Quality controllers and exclusive ors:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Gibberish.html
Quality controllers and partial differential equations:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...rtialDiff.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...tialDiff2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...tialDiff3.html

Dirk Vdm

wrote:
Androcles wrote:
Actually it is dumb of you. Obviously you have no idea what a group is.
Rubik's cube is solved when you find the identity.
Androcles is still looking for it.

Blindfold, in a cellar, at midnight, looking for a black
cat that isn't there. And all the time shouting 'I've
got it, I've fot it!'

Schoenfelch:
Bilge wrote:

What you've written means that if,

x_1 + y_1 = x_1

x_2 + y_2 = x_2
.
.

your definition does not require y_1 = y_2, etc.

Thanks for repeating what I said 5 times already and for agreeing with
me.

I'm not agreeing with you. You just agreed that you are wrong.
Obviously, your definition cannot be used to define a group, since
the identity for a group is unique. You said agreed that your
definition of the identity doesn't require it to be unique.


Obviously, I've
enumerated an element, y, for all x. By contrast, ``There exists
_a_ y, such that...'' implies y_1 = y_2, etc. The seconf definition
implies the identity is unique.

Thanks for repeating what I said 5 times already and for agreeing with
me.

I guess somewhere, you said you were wrong. I must have missed it.