Quote:
Originally Posted by dessin d'enfant
Well, this is pretty much the exact opposite of what's going on. Wiles didn't bother to prove/explain hundreds of known results needed for the proof. Surely NIST isn't required to prove things to your satisfaction just like Wiles wasn't.
Known results have nothing to do with explaining a novel event such as this. This was a crime, not a commission of mathematical abstraction. And the known results Wiles used were proven. It's not as though NIST pointed to some known mechanism- they pointed to NOTHING.
NIST is not required to prove things to my satisfaction, obviously. But I believe they were paid to, if not prove, at least offer an explanation. They did not.
NIST did NOT offer ANY explanation as to how the twin towers actually fell. NIST hand waved the actual collapse, and not just hand waved as in offer some paltry explanation. They offered no explanation whatsoever.
It's just as though you people are members of a fing cult with your implacable faith that NIST has explained anything. Where?