Hans, This proof is nonsense and does not work either symbolically or mathematically. You say that 3l = r = -w. If that is true then 3l = -w . Then you say that l = r = -w. That would mean that 3l =
I beg to differ, in fact 3l = l if you pick the right values for l, say 0.... There are other mathematical systems which would lead to other values for l. You assume common layman numerical systems .
Thank you, Captain Obvious. I was attempting to cut the tension on this issue with a tongue-in-cheek parody, but I see it's far too serious an issue to be the subject of humor. CU in NAQP, 73, de Han
While you guys are expending energy on the small stuff, let me share with you, courtesy of the PVRC web page, what others are busy doing in preparation for the upcoming contest season. This month's f