The Ham Sandwich fake theorem of Old Math, but it exists in New Math, for in New Math a midpoint in all calculus derivatives but destroyed by Old Math pi transcendental evenly divisible by two or irrationals.

The fools that created the Ham Sandwich fake theorem in the Reals and continuum of Old Math seemed to have forgotten that pi and irrationals are not evenly divisible by 2 nor are odd numbers when you reach the last cut. One can easily argue from numbers of people to land hectares and if odd number, you cannot evenly divide, as that contradicts the principle of a Odd Number is not Divisible by 2.

This theorem survives in New Math where numbers are discrete and have holes in between one number and the next, and where calculus derivative requires a midpoint.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo, King of Science diploma and portfolio
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 17, 2022, 11:57:15 PM (1 hour ago)

Archimedes Plutonium 11:28 PM (26 minutes ago)    to A counterproof to the Ham Sandwich theorem--
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
12:21 AM (20 minutes ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Archimedes Plutonium
12:08 AM (11 minutes ago)



to sci.math

On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 11:59:44 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

> On 12/17/2022 9:54 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Sorry I take that back-- this theorem is not true in general even for New Math, hence not a theorem at all, but a kook pipedream. Let us say we are working in 1000 Grid where the smallest numbers are 0.001, 0.002 etc And say we have land where we have a odd number as total hectares, say 33.333 hectares. Each one of those points can be pixeled as a point, so as you cut, the total number of points is odd, and one land will have slightly more than the other. The theorem is false in both Old Math and in New Math.
> >
> > Basically the theorem can be totally boiled down to the question should any number be evenly divisible by 2?? The Ham Sandwich theorem is a kook theorem that ignores the idea a odd number is not divisible by 2. Whether in Old Math or New Math.
> >
> > This Ham Sandwich Theorem is a piece of shit that smells up all of math, and Wikipedia and Mathworld should eject this piece of shit out of their pages.
> >
> > Yes, the Ham Sandwich theorem can be reduced to the statement-- all numbers, whether even or odd are divisible by 2. Which is simply a total logical error.
> [...]
>
> Humm...
>
> 2 / 2 = 1
> 3 / 2 = 1 1/2 = 1.5
> 4 / 2 = 2
> 5 / 2 = 2 1/2 = 2.5
> ...
>
> See the pattern?

Yes, good argument from Chris, never expected any good argument out of Chris.

So you have land geometry that is composed of 33,333,333 atoms of surface area, actually a string of 25 of 3's. Atoms are not able to be cut. Now you are asked to cut this in half. You violate the math principle of a odd number is not divisible by 2.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
12:18 AM (now)



to

Let us take the argument to 3rd dimension. The Ham Sandwich Theorem would say the volume no matter what it is, is divisible by 2.

That is bullshit.

For let us take the volume of a metal solid. Say it is composed of a total number of 33,333,333,333. atoms of gold. So Chris would say you can have a half atom. AP would say that Ham Sandwich Theorem violates the math principle that a odd number is Not Evenly Divisible by 2. And thus the Ham Sandwich Theorem is directly in contradiction to division by 2.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
unread,
12:40 AM (now)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 18, 2022, 12:26 AM (13 minutes ago)



to sci.math
No, sorry I have to step back from that once again. The Ham Sandwich theorem is true in New Math, but not in Old Math with its continuum and Reals.

In New Math we can always get a division by 2, for the numbers are discrete.. In Old Math, if the total is a odd number, and you divide by two, one side has more than the other side, else you contradict a odd number is divisible by 2.

So the Ham Sandwich theorem is true in New Math, for we need that -- always a midpoint for the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Alright this is likely to be one of my easiest proof in mathematics. The counterproof of the Ham Sandwich Theorem. It takes but only two words or two numbers.

Counterproof: pi/2, sqrt2/2.

Reasoning: In Old Math, numbers were foggy and messy, no one single mechanism fetched all the numbers. In Old Math, they paid no attention to physics in 1900-2000 where it was quantum mechanics and a repulsion of continuum and only discrete satisfied. So when you have a continuum and no rhyme or reason to how you build all the numbers, you end up with symbols for numbers, yet those numbers do not even exist. All transcendental and irrational numbers cannot be divided by 2 and end up writing out that number. But in New Math, every number is clear and transparent for every number is built from one mechanism-- mathematical induction to build the Decimal Grid Number System. No Grid number is a mere symbol like pi/2 or sqrt3/2. You see, these are symbols, not numbers. Same as listing the people in a city, you list all the people and there is an actual person, not a ghost/2 or a witch/2.

The Ham Sandwich theorem is a fake theorem of Old Math for they had a fake number system coupled with a continuum. In New Math, you can say you can divide all numbers by 2.

AP

The Ham Sandwich fake theorem is phony and fake for it is contradicted by the fact that a Odd number is not divisible by 2. A direct contradiction. And this is a huge problem in mathematics where you have supercharged imps who know no Logic and want to be famous and rich. They end up giving and proving (falsely) more and more nonsense and burden and labor our youth with their folly.

No theorem exists that says-- any number is divisible by 2 in Old Math. For that is the gist, the essence of the Ham Sandwich stupidity.

Math does not recognize acre or hectare or any other measure unit of land as a recent stupid thread in sci.math asking for 7 acres to be evenly cut. Math only recognizes numbers. And if the Stupid Ham Sandwich theorem is to be accepted then math accepts the idea that 7 is evenly divisible by 2.

A theorem of Ham Sandwich is possible if in the statement we say-- all even numbers are divisible by 2 in one cut. That is a true Ham Sandwich theorem..

But because the mathematics community of 1900-2022 were full of logical airheads, none of them could ever possibly realize that 7 is not divisible EVENLY by 2 nor any other odd number. And so, well, mathematicians from 1900-2022 chased after glory fame and riches and not the truth of mathematics.

Old Math cannot accommodate a Ham Sandwich theorem for it had Reals and the continuum, and impossible to cut in half any and every number in such a delusional crazy system of Reals.

In New Math where we need the fact that every number has a midpoint we have the Decimal Grid System. For Calculus itself needs to have a midpoint for each and every number. In Decimal Grid System all of our numbers end in a string of Zeroes. Yes, zeroes end everyone of the true numbers of mathematics. Because of that fact any number is divisible by 2 such as the Grid number 1.333333333300000.... but in Old Math, the stupid math of Reals and continuum, the Ham Sandwich Theorem would be shown a counterexample by 7, by 13333333.... by sqrt2/2 by pi/2.

Here the mistake of Old Math is that they have little to no logical brains, not recognizing that a division by 2 must involve the actual numbers of mathematics, not what a kook seeking fame finds in his cutting up of geometry..

AP

It was reported in many science journals that over 75% (forgot the actual figure quoted) of all psychology reports were anti-science because people just could not repeat the experiments and arrive at same result. So that 75% of psychology science just went down the drain for being "not science".

Well, hard to believe that a science called math is likely to have 90% of all theorems proved from 1900 to 2022 is a phony theorem based on Reals, on continuum and the authors have little to no logical marbles in the head. I easily can think of several sham proves by Tao-Green, Wiles, Appel-Haken, Thomas Hales, Roger Penrose geometry. And that all the math proofs from 1900 through 2022 need a re-inspection to see if actual math or just some fool chasing after fame and fortune.

AP