-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.4 Jan 2005

This poeme is a stain on the face of mathematics, and a stain on the bum of literature (literature has no face, because it is obscured by a giant bum).

Again, it is mathematically uninteresting. On reading your defence of its simplicity, it became clear you have no idea about how mathematicians work. You say the protagonist's assertion that "for all x: x/(x/3)=3" has to be simple so as to eliminate any doubt. This is stupid for two reasons:

1. No mathematician doubts a theorem, because it is true by definition. The question is: how do we know if a mathematical assertion, e.g. "for all x: x/(x/3)=3", is a theorem? Answer: We obtain a proof of it (or a counter-example, if it is not a theorem). If we can find a proof of the assertion, how in Sodomy can you doubt it? It may be an incredibly complicated proof that only a genius would understand, but this is not true in most cases. It's also the case that a proof, if written out to a suitable degree of formalism, can be checked by a computer. It is therefore perfectly feasible for your dweeb to have come up with some interesting mathematics that was not open to doubt.

2. You shoot yourself in the bum because while the protagonist's assertion is a simple one, as a mathematician he has every reason at least to question it, since he has not obtained a proof. Note that showing an assertion holds for 1, 6, 7, log 7, and (2^(1/3))^(1/8) is not grounds for generalising to all x!