Changes

:::I've checked out some of your mathematical articles at CP, and they seem to be sound, unlike those created by by anybody else. I urge you, in all sincerity, to give up working on CP and find a better use for your time and talents. In the first place, you're never going to catch up with Wikipedia. Second, Conservapedia is not a serious site. It's a playpen for Aschafly and his cronies to promote their extreme right-wing and biblical-literalist views in front of a tiny audience, indulge in mutual back-scratching, and build up their self-esteem by ban-hammering anyone who deviates by a micron from their line. In short, it's a joke.

:::I've checked out some of your mathematical articles at CP, and they seem to be sound, unlike those created by by anybody else. I urge you, in all sincerity, to give up working on CP and find a better use for your time and talents. In the first place, you're never going to catch up with Wikipedia. Second, Conservapedia is not a serious site. It's a playpen for Aschafly and his cronies to promote their extreme right-wing and biblical-literalist views in front of a tiny audience, indulge in mutual back-scratching, and build up their self-esteem by ban-hammering anyone who deviates by a micron from their line. In short, it's a joke.

:::On a few specific points: You should care about whether the Ham Sandwich Theorem is described as a theorem of analysis or topology. They're different subjects, one should get it right, and "I don't remember just what course covered it when I was a student" is a cop-out. The use of cubic cubits was, I thought, a clear indicator that I was using the "biblical value" of pi. To digress, while I am a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, I don't regard 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 as reasons for disbelief; 3 is good enough for government work, and probably for God's work. I do find it amusing that many believers, Jewish and Christian, have expended a lot of effort on coming up with explanations for why exactly 3 was, in fact, right. Mostly they're variations on Rabbi Nehemiah, who of the four combinations of inside/outside diameter and inside/outside circumference picked the least likely. There are more bizarre explanations, such as that the measurement of the circumference was made by six men, who instead of stretching a rope around the circumference, inexplicably made a hexagon.

:::On a few specific points: You should care about whether the Ham Sandwich Theorem is described as a theorem of analysis or topology. They're different subjects, one should get it right, and "I don't remember just what course covered it when I was a student" is a cop-out. The use of cubic cubits was, I thought, a clear indicator that I was using the "biblical value" of pi. To digress, while I am a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, I don't regard 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 as reasons for disbelief; 3 is good enough for government work, and probably for God's work. I do find it amusing that many believers, Jewish and Christian, have expended a lot of effort on coming up with explanations why exactly 3 was, in fact, right. Mostly they're variations on Rabbi Nehemiah, who of the four combinations of inside/outside diameter and inside/outside circumference picked the least likely. There are more bizarre explanations, such as that the measurement of the circumference was made by six men, who instead of stretching a rope around the circumference, inexplicably made a hexagon.

:::Finally, I am indeed inappropriately mixing mathematics and theology. By now you should know why.

:::Finally, I am indeed inappropriately mixing mathematics and theology. By now you should know why.