Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (1313)	7/21/1999 1:45:00 PM
From: MNI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

It was a joke of course, but there were clear-cut criteria for both choices. For the integral numbers choice there were seven axioma plus a didactical meaning for each, where I only remember the first ("The number should not be even") and the second ("The number should be greater than 5") axioma. In the end it could be calculated that only those two numbers were left over. For the triangles it was even nicer, so he could bring it in a form to smuggle it into a scientific journal (his everlasting pride). In school maths there are two classes of "special triangles": the triangle with three equal sides and the triangles with an orthogonal angle. Now a "generic triangle" should be, for didactical reasons, easily distinguishable from both classes. This means no angle should be similar to the right angle, and no two angles should be similar to each other. Only using this information and a "didactical similarity threshold" of 15 degrees, the existence of just one triangle that is distinguishable from both special cases could be proven. (A colleague of him proved later that there is also only one generic triangle that can be used for graphic presentation of pythagoras' lemma). I tried to entertain. Regards MNI.