Don
]]>I am being as polite as I know how,
No, you must be as polite as I know how. That is my job. I have politely stated how much less can be tolerated here because there is already bad blood.
then please close this thread, along with my other thread here and I will politely go away.
If that is your wish then I will comply. But it will be your decision. It will obviously be based on your inability to accept any code of conduct other than what you think is adequate. It is possible that you do not see the big picture.
I will moderate the comments in here to be super polite. That is all that can be allowed.
]]>Don.
]]>Poster #74 is not required to respond with a yes or no. He is not being impolite or incorrect.
When you came here I told you that I was not going to allow any of what goes on in other forums in your threads.
Here politeness counts more than on other forums.
]]>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
I know it's a "hard question", but I believe that the human mind
is capable of answering it with a simple yes or no .
Don
]]>Those who are unable to answer with a simple yes or no
are free to post whatever they want,
So what then is the point of your polite request?
Unable? Are you implying that the correct and polite reply to your posts is yes or no? Is it incorrect or impolite to reply at length while you continue with any length you desire?
Why is that?
]]>It's simply a polite request.
Those who are unable to answer with a simple yes or no
are free to post whatever they want, like or desire...
as long as they are having fun.
Don
]]>Please just answer yes or no without any commentary whatsoever.
Please do not make demands like that. That just excites other posters and causes more arguments. Posters can reply with any length they like or think is necessary to explain themselves.
]]>
can we substitute
for ?Please just answer yes or no without any commentary.
Don
]]>Your whole argument is redundant.
Let me explain.
(Notice that it IS possible for , and that's why I added that important detail in).
Since we have
as well as, then your logarithmic function (if we choose not to simplify it to
) just illustrates a case where the condition holds.The 3D graph of your log function is different than the 3D graph of
, but that has nothing to do with the validity of your argument (it is neither for you nor against you) because the conditions for the values of and are not different (you just left out the fact that a can also not be equal to b in your first equation without the logs).Here's a polynomial function which shows where the condition
must hold:This supports the other possibility that a can be equal to b (a must be equal to b, that is...just as in your log function where a must not be equal to b....and we are assuming that we don't simplify our functions completely to (b/b)a^3).
An even more trivial case (which you probably thought of but didn't post) for when a must not equal b is:
Again, the graph of
and are different, but they do not disagree with the conditions. How could they? They are equal expressions once you simplify the more complicated one into the simpler one.]]>The substitution cannot be done because the of the restrictions that the lofarithms pose.
You see folks, that so called "substitution axiom of equality",
which states that we can always and in all cases substitute
We can not allow that utterly ridiculous "axiom" to be shoved down our children's throats!
Don
]]>