🚀 go-pugleaf

 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.
 
 >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).
 
 >
 >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.