dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrnc54m9t.985.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> Sergey Karavashkin: 
>  >dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:
>  
>  >> 
>  >>   \nabla x (\nabla\Phi) = e_ijk \nabla_i\nabla_j\Phi
>  >> 
>  >>                         = \nabla_i\nabla_j\Phi - \nabla_j\nabla_i\Phi
>  >> 
>  >>                         = (\nabla_i\nabla_j - \nabla_j\nabla_i)\Phi
>  >> 
>  >>                         = 0
>  >> 
>  >> Tell me. What's next on the selflab agenda? Do you plan to show that
>  >> sin^2 + cos^2 != 1 for "dynamic fields"?
>  >
>  >Dear Bilge,
>  >
>  >For people defending not the objective truth but interests of definite
>  >school, and defending by any price, our works really are only an
>  >irritant. 
>  
>   It's a mathemaical identity, sergey. Rather than engage in a verbose
> diatribe and rant about me being an irritant, why don't you simply
> point out how that identity doesn't follow from the definitions of
> the gradient and curl. Anything else is just a smokescreen.

No smokescreen. I have presented just the proof. Determine the
circulation of vector in my diagram and after this state
curl(grad(phi)) = 0 identically. Still I see the smokescreen from your
side, but the wing is from mine - this is why you are suffocating with
your own smokescreen. Until you understand it, this will irritate your
eyes. Your, not mine. ;-)
 
>  >You really cannot make use of them, since you filter the
>  >information into convenient and inconvenient. As the overwhelming
>  >majority of our information appears inconvenient for you, nothing can
>  >pass your filter except some connective words. Of course, you cannot
>  >understand from them the new idea that we represent. Well, this is out
>  >of the author's control, as your way of perception depends not on the
>  >author's ability but on, how much densely are your eyes and ears tied
>  >up.
>  
>   What does perception have to do with a mathematical identity which
> follows from the definitions of the curl and gradient? Is the identity,
> cos^2 + sin^2 = 1 also only a perception (you didn't answer that).

I did not claim wrong the basic identity of trigonometry. Simply every
thing has its limits. You do not want to understand it because of
principle. From this there follows your unwilling to see the
arguments, to analyse, to follow the logic of proof. You have the only
wish - to think eternal the knowledge that was given you at your
universities. Your right, but it is not worthy to accuse others in
what is your own demerit.

>  >Better help Franz to determine the circulation of vector for a very
>  >simple problem that I suggested him in my today post. ;-) You know the
>  >main equation of trigonometry. This fact gives a small hope that you
>  >will not make an usual elementary mistake.
> 
>   I'd rather see you tell me how a mathematical identity depends upon
> my perception.


You, not me have to see. By some reason, I don't see your calculation
of circulation after my animation. As soon as you show me this
calculation and that it comes to zero, you will may stating that
something depends or not on your perception. I can only add, the field
in my animation has been built on strong classical definitions. I have
the proof in my pocket. As soon as you answer my question of
circulation of the shown vector field as such, I will give you
rigorous substantiation that this field is real. Or rather, you hardly
will do it, but I will prove you anyway.

Bye-bye,

Sergey