Okay, my apology. I was talking about the crap the guy has already done.

How a totally OT conversation about Afghanistan, and then into Fermat's last theorem is okay, seeing how it just polarizes everyone, but any mention of a certain date in history results in paroxysms of angst and vituperation.

BTW Fermat has been proven..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles%27_proof_of_Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem

Reverting to calling them "baby killers" and "blood drinkers" [and, of course, the ever-popular "racist"] certainly may satisfy their need to prevent intelligent discourse here, but it does nothing to actually get to the heart of the problems we're discussing.

The more egos are perceived as threatened, the more prevalent the phenomena.

You have made a good case that the "invasion" of Afghanistan was technically, legally, not an "invasion" but something else.

Somehow though, about 100,000 soldiers have perched themselves in Afghanistan, and from where I sit, they seem to be running the show, at least in the pacified areas.

For the record, if teh FLQ (Front de liberation de Quebec) ever get the upper hand here in Soviet Canuckistan, I would appreciate it very much if the "UN" refrains from intervening in our little civil war. Even if the Frenchies are force feeding us Poutine while playing Celine Dionne very loudly. Also for the record, I would, from my cave, call that an "invasion". I would also very much like it if you at that time were to refrain from explaining why it's all okay.

Sorry for the misspelling..

Yes I noticed that when I did a wiki check myself. That is to say I took it on board that Fermat had been proven even though I neither understand Fermat or understand the proof. But then I don't need to. All I do know is that if Fermat's theorem has been proved then it can't in all accuracy be described any longer as just a theorem.

I want to explain something about the difference between a theorem and indisputable fact.

I'm going to use a 9/11 example not to start a 9/11 debate but because within it there is a shining example of the difference.

If you showed loads of people of all skill sets from structural engineers down to bugger all a video of wtc7 falling you could then ask them the following question.

Have you ever seen a building perform like that? Yes they would all answer. When have you seen a building perform like that? During a controlled demolition they would all answer.
Have you ever seen a building perform like that that was not a controlled demolition? No, they would all answer.

So right there and then we have at the very least a broad consensus that in all probability WTC7 must have been a controlled demolition.
But of course the indisputable facts of life are not determined by the consensus of the mob nor should they ever be.

So a story supporter asks you to show him evidence that shows that WTC7 could not have been brought down by anything other than a controlled demolition job.

Well, you don't have to write anything do you? Just dump on his desk the volumes of New York regulations governing the erections of steel framed buildings. The spec book containing all the parts used and their AS numbers. And the original logs of the building process plus the Salamon Brothers re fit program back in the eighties. In there would be all the information needed to assess that that fucking building couldn't in all probability behave the way it did on 9/11 unless it was blown the fuck up.

But you wouldn't be of the hook.

If the story believer then said do you believe that no steel framed building could ever drop through fire alone?
You'd have to be very careful how you answered.

Me, I'd say that within all my experience and knowledge and all the experience and knowledge of anyone else under the sun it would be unlikely in the extreme that a steel framed building would ever suddenly collapse due to fire alone.
And I'd have answered in that long winded way because if the bastard had asked me to prove it I would not be able to.

And that, proof positive that no steel framed building ever will suddenly collapse through fire alone is the very Holy Grail that all us all singing all dancing toothy truthers would dearly like to have but haven't nor ever will possess.

And that's the difference between a theorem and indisputable fact. We possess as tight a theorem about what happened to that particular building as is necessary in a court of law to prove that it was explosives that did it but we could never prove that that or any other steel framed building might never collapse through fire alone.

If such a proof had ever existed the planners would never have tried it on.

There are people here who, sure as shit, will argue that a squared plus b squared most certainly does not equal c squared. There's probably a website, and a YouTube video, and a guy with a Ph.D. who explains it all.

You never took any courses on non-Euclidean geometry in college?

Unless you specify the geometry that you mean, the above may well not equal c squared. I know a bunch of PhDs in math that will testify to that if you need me to call in old favors.

It most certainly was an invasion. The use of the USA air power is documented --- hell it was on TV for god's sake. The use of the covert CIA army is documented. The use of USA military is documented. The use of a proxy army is documented.

Go peddle the bullshit to others, I am not buy your stupid assertions.

What next? Will you tell Glenn his article today is wrong since he mentioned a war going on in Afghanistan?

Jesus on a stick you are dumb.

I sure as hell wouldn't be prepared to swing standing by anthing I had to say on the maths front that's for sure. I might have also been incorrect about the Simon Singh book it was twenty years ago that I read it. But:

It has little or nothing to do with Fermat's last theorem which is that x^n + y^n = z^n has no triple of integers, x,y,z, for n greater than or equal to 3. Fermat's last theorem was proven by Andrew Wiles in 1995.

As your last statement there is true then if a theorem has been proved its status must have now changed for which there must surely be a new name.

In this world different things must have different names. Now you started all this unnecessary caper with your assertion that a theorem was an indisputable fact.

So I'll ask you, forgetting the Rumsfeldian, "There are things we don't know that we know we don't know" for a moment was Fermat's Theorem an indisputable fact in man's knowledge before Wiles proved it or only became one after he had?