On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:02:25AM -0400, Viktor T. Toth wrote:
> I looked at some of your Maxima code associated with "paper 93" out of
> curiosity. It made me wonder if your bold statements about general
> relativity are based, in part, on a piece of code that displays the message
> "Einstein equation R^q=0 not fulfilled!".
>
> I note that this message appears only if the code that displays R is also
> executed (e.g., line %i10 in your Kerr.pdf worksheet.) That code, as a side
> effect, factors R. The apparent failure of your R^q test is a consequence of
> this factorization, and can be easily cured by either removing the
> factorization, or by inserting a ratsimp in the R^q part of your code (%i47
> in Kerr.pdf), as in
>
> [...]
>
> R_q:ratsimp(R[mu,sigma,nu,rho]+R[mu,rho,sigma,nu]+R[mu,nu,rho,sigma]),
> if R_q#0 then
> [...]
>
> Generally, one must be very careful with claims based on the inability of a
> CAS to simplify an expression or verify an equality. Not being able to show
> that A=0 is not the same as proving that A is nonzero. In general, the
> failure of a CAS to prove a theorem should not be taken as an indication
> that the theorem is disproved.
>
> Other than that, allow me to gently point out that responding to a request
> for help with self-study on a CAS mailing list is probably not the most
> appropriate way to promote a controversial theory.
>
>
> Viktor
Viktor,
Thanks Very Much for your analysis of the Maxima Code for paper 93.
That's what I was hoping to get. I will foreward your comments to Dr. Evans.
Dave Feustel