imatfaal

You have shown nothing conclusively in this thread. Where do you think you have proven something to anyone else's agreement?

I think normal service has been resumed. Thread reopened. Please immediately report anything else odd

I can see that your response is thoroughly messed up by the machine - but I cannot get it to replicate. Could you just try a simple quote and response now that I have posted in between

Just checking if there is a problem - eddies in the spacetime continuum - ah! And that's his sofa

No the signal and idler photons are entangled - they exist in superposition the state should be [latex]\Bra{H}[/latex] \bra{\Phi}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bra{V}_{signal} \bra{V}_{idler} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bra{H}_{signal} \bra{H}_{idler} Getting something wrong in my latex [latex]|\phi \rangle_{type 1} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |V \rangle_{signal}|V \rangle_{idler} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |H \rangle_{signal}|H \rangle_{idler}[/latex] I think and for type two conversion which is what you had in your picture in earlier post [latex]|\phi \rangle_{type 2} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |V \rangle_{signal}|H \rangle_{idler} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |V \rangle_{idler}|H \rangle_{signal}[/latex]

It was an overly sweeping statement - granted; I should have left the point at "she is no longer lay" which, I think, is defensible. Education, even education in a meta-subject, changes the student immeasurably; it sounds a little mystical and I do not intend that - but you cannot truly understand something without becoming it to an extent. To properly understand a scientific paper and recognize the thinking of the writer; to be able to read a higher court judgment and parse the ratio and obiter; or to take in a diagnosis and prognosis and see in human terms what it means for an individual when these forms of thought are presented in the language of the professional requires a subtle but profound insight into the ways, methods, and philosophy of the practitioner. Only the most ephemeral and ersatz comprehension is gained by someone who has not already invested the time to learn the subject - by someone who I would consider a layperson

It does indeed - and like so many rule systems it is only a codification of what a community would, on the whole, do anyway. It's like a red-rag to a bull - so so tempted to give you a warning point (for continued interesting posts and unrepentant good humour) just to add fuel to the flames of the "all moderators are power-crazed loons" argument.

Yes there is. If she learns the language properly then she is no longer lay - she is a scientist. The investment in time, effort, and brain-bandwidth to learn the language entails a conscious and subconscious change in the student; once you can converse properly within the terms of a scientific discourse you have taken on enough of the rationale, the preconceptions, and the attitudes of the scientist to be a layperson no more. Some will impute some quite dangerous and nefarious designs to this use of specialist language - others claim that it merely facilitates the concise and clear transfer of information.

OK CHSH is a mathematical inequality - your quibble is with Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion. For Aspect Experiment etc you take your light from the intersection of the two cones of light; here you do not have horizontal and vertical polarisation - you have entangled photons in a state of superposition. If they were not entangled you would get different results - we don't get these different results

What have you changed? And can you not upload to the site; I will not download documents onto my windows pc ( I don't mind doing so to my linux box but that is not available at present)

Indian maths was veiled in mystery and to an extent still is - heaven knows what we have lost. On the bases - I did think that was the case; I was too lazy to check it out. Nice fact

Indeed. Samuel Plimsoll saved countless lives and we wish all safety measures were so easy to implement and so simple for coastguards etc to check. Your figure of 75 ships will - tragically - be only the large ocean going vessels which are flagged in good flag states and classed reputably. Around the world the ghosts of overloaded Newcastle Coal Carriers still haunt us; big ships on the international trade routes are well organised, the crews unionised, and overall they are safe; but small coastal traders, fishing boats, and passenger ferries can still be death-traps and sink on a regular basis. We raise a glass to Samuel Plimsoll - they even named a shoe after him (true)!

I see where you were going now. That is neat - and Studiot get's his non-trigonometrical answer.

! Moderator Note Could you post an excerpt and/or summary - our rules state that members should be able to participate in a thread without needing to access other sites. Thanks

! Moderator Note I have had to edit out the body of the NYT article posted by proximity1. This content is copyrighted and should not have been posted. The New York Times has a generous offer to read a certain number of pages of their content per week online for free - so most members will be able to read the article if they search on the title. However, the NYT does not publish under any form of open commons licence - the content is copyrighted and reproduction is not acceptable. There is the concept of academic fair usage - but that cannot cover the wholesale cutting and pasting of the entire article; I have left the intro and final sentence to give a taster of the excellent article.

The modern loadline - the descendent of the plimsoll line is quite complex at first glance but easy if you look hard. There are two sections - a roundel with a horizontal line through it with two letters (AB, LR, NV etc.). The letters tell you which Authority has classified the ship as safe and measured her safe load (American Bureau of Shipping, Lloyds Register, Det Norske Veritas etc.) The Horizontal line tells you where the sea will come up to when the ship is in a safely fully-loaded situation in salt water and in the summer. This is known as the Summer draft - this is the line from which the others are calculated. Beside the roundel will be a branched symbol - this shows the level of the sea when the ship is in a safely fully-loaded condition in other sea conditions. All the other marks are calculated such that if a vessel is loaded to her summer draft and she goes into other situations (with a different density water) then the sea will come up to the other marks - and vice versa. The Marks are as follows - on the left of the tree at the very top is TF for tropical fresh; this water is warm and has no salt in it. Below that is F Fresh water; no salt but not warm. On the right of the tree at the top is T for Tropical, and going downwards S Summer, W Winter, and the lowest line WNA Winter North Atlantic. Tropical fresh water is the least dense - it is warm and has no salt in it. Winter North Atlantic is the most - it is very cold and salty. If the vessel is fully loaded in Arctic waters (ie the water is at the winter north atlantic marks WNA) when she gets to the warmer waters she will be slightly lower in the water (such that the water now reaches her Summer marks, if she then made a river passage into say Manaus she would be much lower in the water such that she was now riding with her Tropical Fresh Marks at the waterline. The summer loadline is calculated by the shipyard which built the ship, the designers who laid the plans, the owners, and most importantly a group called the Classification Society. The Classification Society (the "Class") is an internationally recognized organisation who vet plans for ship, check the build process, survey the new ships for quality, and regularly inspect and survey ships during their trading life. The other loadlines are calculated using simple physics and agreed standards for the density and temperature of water in various parts of the world. You ask about the stability of the ship - this has very little to do with the loadline; the stability depends on the overall design and most importantly the cargo plan - ie where the mass is. Basically, you have two centres of flotation; the centre of gravity and the centre of buoyancy - ideally you want the centre of gravity to be a little below the centre of buoyancy. This area is the purview of the Master Mariner (again with recommendations and rules from the Class) - a badly loaded ship will easily sink or break apart at the first sign of bad weather or adverse sea conditions

Aside from other explanations, it is possible that one mod has moved the thread to speculations and a second has locked it without much further ado; three immediately obvious reasons why this might happen occur to me. Firstly, I might move the thread not being sure about the contents but knowing enough to understand it is not mainstream - then one of the mods who is also an academic expert in the subject (and I am in a very small minority being a non-science graduate) will lock the thread as they can recognise that it is not only speculative but unarguable nonsense. Secondly, I might move the thread unaware that multiple threads on this OP have already been locked by other moderators (we try to keep aware of what is going on but our time is very limited) - then the thread is quickly locked by a staff member who realises that the OP is in breach of a request not to reopen a topic. And finally, a move to speculations is easy and done quickly by a single staff-member whereas locking a thread is sometimes something we will discuss

Yes - but why? The question was about a triangle with sides a b c - but condition 2 of the question was concerning a triangle with sides a^2 b ^2 c^2. basically the question allows you to say that if there is an isosceles triangle a b b and iff the triangle a^2 b^2 b^2 exists then all the angles of triangle a b b must be acute.

You might wish to learn about freedom of speech - at present, you are making the same mistake that Tom O'Neil did; Freedom of Speech in its most general terms is a right for the citizen to speak freely without government or state interference; it says very little about behaviour in private places . It is not the right to come into our forum and whine incessantly about how you are oppressed, to post rubbish masquerading as science or discovery, to post against the rules or spirit of the forum etc. No one apart from the admins/owners has a right to post here - it is a privilege, and that privilege comes with rules and guidelines which must be adhered to. We provide an arena for scientific discussion - and the admins make the rules; we do not have to allow anyone to have freedom of access or of speech; we are not obligated to give anyone a platform - we do, in fact, give many people we disagree with a place to discuss their ideas. What's more, if members break the rules or post in a manner which is against the spirit of the forum ("science forums dot net" remember?) then we will close threads. Furthermore, if members moan and bitch about threads being locked for the aforesaid reason and then insult the members and staff by saying we are close-minded then we will feel that a slur is being perpetrated against the members and staff and the moany thread will be locked too.

It is that there is an area - ie merely that the triangle actually exists and the triangle isn't the degenerate x=y+z . I think. I think it is also a clever distraction - I was in the process of setting up huge and daunting simultaneous equations when I saw the similarity between the triangle inequality for the A'B'C' triangle to the cosine rule for the ABC triangle. Without the figure of 140 I would have been slower to do that No. The first describes all isosceles and equilateral triangles, the second describes the degenerate triangle, and the third describes three sides which do not link up. Draw a line of length a^2 (just pick a length), then with a pair of compasses construct a triangle in which the sum of the other two sides is less than a^2 - it cannot be done Remember that the lengths of the sides of the triangle in Condition 2 are a^2, b^2 and c^2 but the fact that these lengths are numerically the squares of the lengths of the main triangle does not mean that they do not have to obey the triangle inequality

I think you are mixing ideas. a^2<2b^2 is nothing to do with pythagoras. For any normall triangle side x is shorter than the addition of side y and z ie. x<y+z As we know two of the sides are equal we can reword that as the base is shorter than the sum of the two other sides: x<2y In this case we have been told that x = a^2 and y = b^2 so we get a^2 < 2b^2

Not really; it is a proof of multiple parts. 1. All Condition 2 needs to tell us is that there exists a triangle with an area (ie not the silly degenerate triangle of zero area) - this means that side a^2 must be shorter than the sum of side b^2 plus side c^2. ie a^2<b^2+c^2 2. We know already that both the original triangle made of a b c and thus the second triangle of a^2 b^2 c^2 must be either equilateral or isosceles with side a / a^2 as the base. 3. This allows us to substitute b^2 for c^2 in the inequality in (1) to make a^2<b^2 + b^2 --> a^2 < 2b^2 4. Trigonometry tells us through the cosine rule that for a triangle XYZ with sides xyz that x^2 = y^2 + z^2 -2yzCos(X) 5. If we look at the cosine rule for angle A we get a^2 = b^2 +c^2 - 2bcCos(A). 6. We already know b=c so sub in to the equation in 5 and we get a^2 = b^2 + b^2 - 2.b.b.Cos(A) Simplified to a^2 = 2b^2 - 2b^2Cos(A) 7. If we rearrange equation in 6 we get Cos(A) = (a^2 - 2b^2) / (-2b^2) 8. The top of that fraction must be negative cos we know from (3) that a^2 is less than 2b^2 9. The bottom of that fraction must be negative cos it is simple and has a negative coefficient to b^2 10. If both top and bottom are negative the whole fraction is positive. 11. If Cosine is positive then angle A must be from 0<A<90 or 270<A<360 - for a triangle it must be 0<A<90 12. If angle A is between zero and ninety then your triangle B cannot be correct.

Exactly as Dr Krettin said - condition 2 states that the area of triangle a^2 b^2 c^2 is something. This means we can use the fact that two sides of a triangle must be greater than the third, that sides AB and AC are equal, and the Cosine Rule to make the deduction that Cosine of A is positive. A triangle's angle can only have a positive Cosine if that angle is between 0 and 90 degrees (Cos is +ve 0-->90, -ve 90-->270, +ve 270-->360) . That rules out your triangle 2 With only Condition 1 we would be left with your three triangles - but the information that a^2 b^2 c^2 also forms a triangle gives us enough to rule out triangle 2 BTW your diagram is not how I would usually label in geometry - the side of a triangle (a,b,c) is named after the opposite angle (A,B,C) ; I wonder if this is a national / language thing. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Triangle.html