articles Support geometry function search

[quote="Tare"]I still disagree with the war because no matter what pro came out of this whole war for the Iraqi people on the extreme long run Iraq will just get all it's wealth sucked up by the U.S. . . . . and overall Iraq will become an American colony.

Now some of the opinions here are a bit radical but I think it captures the general idea...[/quote]

Just as a point of comparison, do you think that Japan has had all of its wealth sucked out by the United States? Is Japan now a United States colony? I ask only because I figure you might have an opinion on those questions, and there does seem to be a bit of a historical analogy here . . . .

Just wondering, from someone whose time in Japan consists entirely of changing planes a few times in Narita or Kansai airports . . . .

[quote="Tare"]Simple: Japan didn't have a lot of wealth, some rice and that was it. However it was historically rich (and also the president at that time were a little more considerate) they were extremely careful not to destroy anything. Still they had a bit of an influence on the Japanese law and they've got a couple of bases. Accoding to the new laws Japan can not have any army of it's own, only a "self-defending force" (whose strength can be shown by the prime minister asking for "the protection" of the self-defending force in Iraq if they were sent there by the U.S. Army). Therefore if anything happens to us (most likely from North Korea) we're all dead until big U.S. comes and saves us. Therefore Clinton and Hashimoto made a treaty (who's name is in Japanese) which practically said U.S. will protect Japan in case of an invasion. At the same time we must do whatever we can do in our power to not get the U.S. even remotely upset or else we'll be completely vulnerable to outside attacks. Just look at how our prime minister agreed completely with the Iraqi War, Bush practically showed that speech as an "example" of how other countries should react towards the war. We can not argue, we must obey. That's why in a sense we're not completely free from the U.S.

Yeah it is a bit radical...some of the extreme long run is just a prediction (though some are relatively accurate like the oil part; although this is under the assumption Bush will continue to be the president)[/quote]
Tare, it seems that you can scarcely utter a sentence without also uttering a fallacy.

Japan didn't have a lot of wealth at the end of WWII? What the heck are you talking about? They'd conquered most of China and many other regions, looting all the time. They also had incredible industrial prowess, which is a form of wealth in and of itself. The United States certainly WAS NOT careful not to destroy things - we destroyed everything we could before Japan surrendered. *ahm*Hiroshima*ahm* *ahm*Nagasaki*ahm* *ahm*Tokyo (firebombed)*ahm* We did our best to decimate Japan... and we did. I believe the US bases in Japan were built significantly later, though I am not sure. The US army is not sending Japanese troops to Iraq - the Japanese president is, which has caused a row in Japan over the clause in the constitution about an army only for defensive purposes. Basically, most of what you just said is wrong. If you're going to cite historical events and such, get them correct or don't talk at all, please. That applies to everyone.

[quote]Therefore if anything happens to us (most likely from North Korea) we're all dead until big U.S. comes and saves us.[/quote]

I think a lot of Japanese would take offense at that statement.  You make Japan out to be a hopeless, helpless puppet

[quote]Therefore Clinton and Hashimoto made a treaty (who's name is in Japanese) which practically said U.S. will protect Japan in case of an invasion. [/quote]

I don't like the word practically.  That means that you're stretching the truth in some way, or oversimplifying.

[quote]Just look at how our prime minister agreed completely with the Iraqi War,[/quote]

Great Britain's prime minister agreed with the Iraqi war, too.  Does that mean that Great Britain is also [u]completely[/u] helpless against the U.S.?  How about Poland?  Italy?  So anyone who agrees with the Iraqi war is a [u]complete[/u] U.S. puppet?  I think that at least [u]part[/u] of their decision was their own.

[quote="MysticTerminator"]I thought it was sort of unspoken but known that Blair would follow Bush in everything... (England would follow USA in most international affairs)[/quote]
Blair doesn't follow Bush in quite everything, but regardless, we're allies, so it makes sense that we agree on a lot of things.

OK, starting from the top:
I'm talking relatively comparing Japanese wealth to Iraqi national wealth. Sure Japan possessed lots of stuff but it doesn't continuously produce wealth and you can't "take" industrial prowess the same way you can take materials. Sure you can steal the knowledge but it'll be very difficult and takes some time.

Fine, I'll rephrase it "they were extremely careful not to destroy anything important"; Sure they destroyed many valuable things but they knew what was the most important: our historical heritage. We can (and did) rebuilt most of the things the U.S. destroyed in that war but we could've never rebuilt historical sites, temples, etc. that Japan has so much. Since it's such a small country with tons of mountains it is hard not to destroy certain things while destroying some.

*ahem* Japanese [b]prime minister[/b] himself didn't just say out of the blue "Hey let's get them troops over to Iraq so they can get killed!" That would mean major drop in votes. The U.S. president "asked" or rather pressured him to do it and Koizumi is one of the more timid and obedient prime minister so he's working on it (which will take at least a couple of years: the soonest is somewhere in 2006 even if it does happen)
This is ironic because the U.S. made (or forced depending on where you're looking things from) that [b]article[/b] themself.

*[b]ahem[/b]* What makes you so sure you know more about Japanese history than a Japanese person eh?

I practically rebuttled every "correction" you had so that second to last sentence loses it's meaning for now.

Actually nowadays some people have come to accept that fact. Even if they don't it is still a fact. Just look at the number and skill level (especially real-life experience) these so-called "soldiers" have (which does not include the ability to build houses/schools/etc., make a public works system, treat sick people, and other things which does not involve actual fighting, killing, and other things which doesn't help humanity)

The resource I have is in Japanese and it's a bit complicated both to understand and to translate (I'm sure there's an English version for it somewhere...pshaw I'm feeling a bit tired writing all this...I'm feeling lazy enough not to translate that thing...*sigh*)

Great Britain has a different circumstances, (well to some extent) they have the freedom to act independently just like France. They [b]chose[/b] to support the U.S. Japan cannot do that. I guess it's hard to see the pressure Japanese people feel as an outsider: we practically live under a nuclear threat from a maniac, now if you were under that circumstance wouldn't you support this big country who (says) they'll protect you in case that maniac do something to you?

OK we're way off topic...this is about Iraq not Japan :)

Who was U.S. ally in this war again? I know France and U.N. in whole isn't but Great Britain, Japan, Poland and Italy is but I forgot the rest...

Japan did do some nasty things to the Chinese. If you said they had nothing during/after the war after they ransacked China, then it puts Japan to a worser image than it has already relating to its conquest over Asia

I didn't say that...I said not a lot which is qualitative anyways...besides the Japanese image for some people can't get any worse, that's how bad they were...

Tare...no. [url=http://www.tribo.org/nanking/]I suppose you're going to tell me the Japanese didn't do that, aren't you?[/url] Japan possessed a ton of stuff, including fish. To say that industrial prowess is not a resource is ludicrous - it's the main source of wealth in today's world.

Oh, and we didn't give a crap about preserving Japanese national heritage, just like the Japanese didn't give a crap about preserving U.S. lives. Telling yourself anything else would be stupid. We didn't bomb historical sites because historical sites do not produce airplanes, ships, guns, and troops. They don't produce anything useful, but if one was in the way or had been manufacturing weapons, it would have ceased to exist.

The Japanese prime minister said that the US was an ally that had done much in Iraq to set up a democracy and that it wasn't fair for Japan to stand by and do nothing. Japan has sent troops abroad before, such as in 1992 when they sent troops to East Timor.

Furthermore, the US drafted the Japanese constitution because 1) we won, you lost 2) it was obvious that the Japanese people weren't capable of taking care of themselves without being a threat to world peace. The people of Japan were starving and refused to kill and eat ducks swimming in the ponds because "those are the emperor's ducks." They believed the Emperor was a living God that could do no wrong. Japan fought WWII with two goals: either to conquer new land for its population or to kill off some of its population so that Japan's islands would be sufficient. Obviously they needed a bit of help forming a sensible government that wouldn't threaten the world.

[quote="Tare"]*ahem* What makes you so sure you know more about Japanese history than a Japanese person eh?[/quote]
The fact that you're blatantly ignorant about the topic but continue to speak. No, don't argue with that one, just accept it and go read a history book.

[quote="Tare"]I practically rebuttled every "correction" you had so that second to last sentence loses it's meaning for now.[/quote]
You might want to look up the definition of the words you're using. You agreed with me in your second paragraph. Changing your views when you realize you're wrong does not equate to refuting my arguments.

A couple of your paragraphs near the end make next to no sense - they're simply rambling without coherency. However, let it be known that Japan also has a choice to make when supporting the US, just like every other sovereign nation. If Japan so chose, she could sever ties with the US and modify her constitution to allow for imperialistic expansion. As for "living under a nuclear threat from a maniac" - stop talking, your ignorance is showing.

[quote="Tare"]Who was U.S. ally in this war again? I know France and U.N. in whole isn't but Great Britain, Japan, Poland and Italy is but I forgot the rest...[/quote]
France is not a US ally. Nor are Germany and Russia. Notable US allies include Great Britain, Poland, and Italy, but we have 63 nations fighting with us in Iraq.

Ugh! I think it's time you moderate yourself confuted, not only was the first part inappropriate, the middle part an insult, and you practically changed everything I said (not the exact word but what I meant by them)

I explicitly said the Japanese were terrible during the war and I do not plan to cover up that fact, I am strong enough to withstand that fact and live with it. Besides our ancestors have nothing to do with who [b]we[/b] area anyways.

Fish!?!? Oh great, we're gonna invade Sweden for a [b]fish[/b] because [b]fish[/b] is so valuable, it's not like the U.S. doesn't have any coastal boundaries. And you say I don't make any sense :roll:

don't swear, especially if you're moderating this "serious" forum, geez.

Oh I beg to differ on that one. The U.S. explicitly did not bomb any cultural grounds because "it would make them even more upset and they will be even less willing to surrender" Sure part of it was that it didn't make weapons or have a lot of population but certainly that wasn't all the reason why not to attack them.

If someone's having a war would they be reluctant to kill each other? That's the bary basic of a war isn't it, to kill off all the enemy. If they cared about each other they wouldn't be having a war.

East Timor mission is completely different from Iraq, don't mix the two up. There was different political, religious (yes, religious; some have different religions), and other circumstances which I'm sure you have extensively researched on just like you did with rest of Japanese history.

That's what the Japanese prime minister [b]said[/b], a one little tid-bit of information. First off he is a U.S. supporter and does not represent the feelings of the majority of the Japanese population, that only a Japanese person/a person close to Japan would know/feel and again I'm sure you have a lot of friends/connection in Japan and talk about politics with Japanese people now that the internet have evolved so much.

Oh really. Perhaps if the U.S. had a royal family they'll do the same. (Note: that's a [b]major[/b] insult to Japanese people and we're talking something like Jap*1000 here) The first one was true but the second is not. Japan just tried to do what Great Britain or France did, gain colonies, have more land (since Japan is so small and all), and more wealth. Sure they went completely crazy, I wouldn't argue with that :), but they didn't try and kill off it's population. In fact they thought of the population as a "supply" so less populations means less work force and ultimately less money. Besides we would've suicided if that was one of the reasons why we fought. (and please don't make references to whales)

Maybe you ought to use dictionary.com on the definition of "rebuttal," as well as these things: ""

The couple of paragraphs after the double space were meant for Neal not you.

Sure, we could sever ties with the U.S. Just as long as no one invades us we'll be fine off. It's not like it's any of your business anyways.

"living under a nuclear threat from a maniac"
Question: Who and what country am I refering to?

You talk a lot about ignorance, yet you still keep on talking about Japan in a thread about [b]Iraq[/b], now if it was Australia and Austria I'd understand but Japan and Iraq aren't even remotely close now are they?

Let me remind *everyone* that if you're going to discuss politics, which is a very passionate matter for some people, to be civil and respectful of other people's opinions. You might not agree with them, but you have to learn to disagree without making it personal or using insults.

[quote="Confuted"]Japan possessed a ton of stuff, including fish. To say that industrial prowess is not a resource is ludicrous - it's the main source of wealth in today's world. [/quote]

While fish is probably not the best example, Japan was fifth in world trade prior to WWII.

[quote="Tare"] The U.S. explicitly did not bomb any cultural grounds because "it would make them even more upset and they will be even less willing to surrender" Sure part of it was that it didn't make weapons or have a lot of population but certainly that wasn't all the reason why not to attack them. [/quote]

I agree with Confuted here; I highly doubt the U.S. preserved cultural grounds just because bombing them would infuriate the Japanese. There was simply no reason to go after the cultural sites. However, I'm not an expert on this subject... Tare, where did you get that information from?

I believe my parents told me that. They said the U.S. planned very carefully not to destroy any religious or historical sites.

I believe that can be supported since the U.S.'s main goal especially after the V-E Day was to get Japan to surrender, not to kill them all. I think that's why they used the A-bombs even though some of it's effects were still unknown.

Again it is ironic that the UN was established by the US but now the UN is being an obstacle towards the Iraq war...*desperate effort to tie the conversation in and back to Iraq War*...US policies were so much better than...*sigh*

confuted can you please at least split this? Thanks.

[quote="Tare"]I believe my parents told me that. They said the U.S. planned very carefully not to destroy any religious or historical sites.

I believe that can be supported since the U.S.'s main goal especially after the V-E Day was to get Japan to surrender, not to kill them all. I think that's why they used the A-bombs even though some of it's effects were still unknown.[/quote]

I think both of those factual points are correct. I have read quite a lot of the history of the period, and it is clear, for example, that Kyoto was spared the kind of bombing that Tokyo endured through incendiary bombs and Hiroshima endured through an atomic bomb in large part because it held many important Japanese cultural sites but rather few sites of military significance. The U.S. war planners--in contrast, I have read, to the Australian war planners--desired an intact Japan with some cultural continuity after the war.

Similarly, it is generally agreed by historians, at least here in the United States, that the atomic bombs were regarded as the lesser-of-two-evils choice to force an end to the war and to save lives on BOTH sides. It was thought by all of the Allied war planners that a landing and invasion on the Japanese home islands with only conventional arms would cost millions of lives, both among the invading Allied forces and among the Japanese military forces and civilian population. That was based on the example of the costly invasion of Okinawa, in which people of my personal acquaintance were on opposite sides and barely managed to survive.

To relate this reply to the original post by Tare (ahem), I think the war aim of the United States in Iraq is, again, to end up with a country that is intact, more prosperous than it was before the war (as Japan indubitably is compared to 1937), more free than it was before the war (as Japan and especially Germany are today, compared to their prewar condition), and with cultural continuity while enjoying being part of the community of civilized countries. It's unclear whether the majority of Iraqis expect such a bright future as a result of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, but I sincerely believe that is what most of the common soldiers now in Iraq and most of the war planners who launched the war expect, based on the historical precedents that I mentioned in my earlier reply. What will actually happen in the future remains to be seen, and will surely be suprising to all of us in some respects.

Tare, the first part was not inapporpriate - it was history. Unless I'm mistaken, the site did not contain any horribly explicit pictures. We will not [url=http://www.abbc.com/aaargh/engl/dl/denying1.html]deny things that happened in the past[/url] just because they aren't nice, or because we don't like them, or because the events of the past don't make us think happy thoughts about our nation. I won't tolerate [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684818868/103-3498503-6232650?v=glance]revisionist history[/url].

Fish, are, indeed, a valuable resource.

I didn't swear.

Of course population is essential to manufacturing, but Japan wasn't able to feed all of its people. That means expand or reduce the population.

I know precicely what nation you were referring to with your comment about "nuclear threat from a maniac." What I'm saying is that you are woefully misinformed. It would take something incredibly extreme for the US to use a nuclear weapon in an act of war - which is why we haven't done it since WWII.[/url]

Now I'm a bit confused.  I thought Tare was referring to the maniac from North Korea, not the maniac from the US.

Surely Kim Jong Il knows that if he nukes anyone, his entire country will be glowing in <12 minutes.

Yeah but he'll still do it, that's why he's a maniac.

I doubt the U.S. will ever use a nuke again, even if Bush was the president.

There were people's heads lined up on the ground. That is inappropriate for AoPS. I am not saying that teaching about these things are inappropriate nor am I trying to revise history (which I am completely against unlike what you're trying to say), however there is a time and place for everything and that picture on a public forum for teenagers about math is not the place, do you see?
My line: If the picture's on rotten, it's inappropriate, period.

Oh I didn't know the c word wasn't a swear...

Japanese people were willing to survive/endure the starvation because we believed (part of us still do believe) in conserving energy and minimizing waste, not to mention to do whatever it takes for the greater good. You see unlike other countries who throw away piles of food or throw it all up, gather fortune for themselves and not really circulate it, and cares more about themselves than others we believe in a more Buddhistic approach of sharing and being a community in whole, people helping each other out. As you can see, that doesn't really mix well with fighting :).
Besides I think we would've still fed the population if there were no war.

Heh guess not :)

By the way the two topics in this thread has nothing (well they're both wars but that's not my point :)) to do with each other, I didn't ask for the two to be smushed together into a stew, I asked for it to be seperated so that they don't get all mixed up.

Several posts (most recently TA's) have involved both topics. It would be a huge pain to split.

[quote="Tare"]
Japanese people were willing to survive/endure the starvation because we believed (part of us still do believe) in conserving energy and minimizing waste, not to mention to do whatever it takes for the greater good.
[/quote]

Minimize waste??? They surely didn't minimize the waste of blood that spewed over Shanghai when they bombed the city to shreds, and i would think China suffered more of starvation and poverty during/after the Japanese invasion.

and you're right Japan will do whatever it takes for the greater good. very true indeed. VERY. They did do whatever it took for THEIR greater good (including mascarading/pillaging/bombing/raping/etc. Chinese cities and population.

but even though Japan doesn't have a good name from the past, its changed over the years to be a respectable nation.

Um...I'm talking about minimizing wasted food...

...*sigh* Entropy is increasing very rapidly here...

[quote="confuted"]The fact that you're blatantly ignorant about the topic but continue to speak. No, don't argue with that one, just accept it and go read a history book.[/quote]

I concur. Randomness is not rising tare... my point was very direct, and it was on topic.

On topic with what? Japan in WWII?

My original intention for this thread was to discuss whether or not the war on Iraq was legitimate or not and it was [b]somehow[/b] changed to Japan in WWII and now we're talking about Chinese-Japanese relationship or something like that, the topic is flowing like it was in Etc.! If we're going to talk about what happened in China during WWII then lets do it on another thread, if we're going to talk about North Korea then another one. The discussion is getting so confusing, hurtful, and irrelevent it seems to me like everyone's trying to make a different point about slightly different topics. I apologize for replying to tokenadult's point in the first place but can we please go back to Iraq now?

P.S. I still think I know more about my country then you do confuted.

I think it might be best not to do that at this point. Just let the conversation flow where it will. If some people want to be hurtful, just ignore the hurtful comments. If those hurtful comments are right, try to avoid the mistake that led to it. This is a very interesting thread though.

just one look at those long long posts made me not read this. I am lazy!

[url=http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200312/06/eng20031206_129821.shtml]Tare,[/url] [url=http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/jp-germ4.htm]you[/url] [url=http://www.japan-101.com/history/history_ww1_ww2.htm]are[/url] [url=http://www.loyno.edu/~seduffy/WWII.html]right[/url] [url=http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html]China[/url] [url=http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/17/china.bombs/]has[/url] [url=http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=605]nothing[/url] [url=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~hist.307/WW2.html]to[/url] [url=http://fpeng.peopledaily.com.cn/200009/18/eng20000918_50736.html]do[/url]  [url=http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/multi/war/WWII/japan.html]with[/url]  [url=http://www.museumofworldwarii.com/TourText/Area15a_RisingSun.htm]Japan[/url] [url=http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/2003/0814/bz9-1.html]in[/url] [url=http://csucub.csuchico.edu/services/SummerFld/sum03/TQ/addrenalin/jpn.htm]WWII.[/url]

I agree, Tare, a bunch of human heads lined up is rather offensive. Perhaps the Japanese shouldn't have ruthlessly raped and slaughtered all those people. Then I could have posted a link to a field of daisies as a narrative of the history of your country. Oh, too bad. As for the word "crap" being offensive - how old are you? I have trouble believing that's offensive. Furthermore, I'm not ignorant to the fact that I linked to that site - I did it on purpose.

*sigh* Again you have sadly mistaken what I was trying to say. I believe I made my point quite clear that China has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. The second question was being sarcastic and obviously you missed it.

*huge sigh* "confuted linked to an inappropriate picture even though he is a mod" now this fact is true and you just confirmed it yourself. Now this fact has nothing to do with Japan or China or Iraq, it has to do with the way you acted in this board. Don't try to confuse/justify what you did by bringing up a lot of irrelevant facts to cover up this fact. Just don't.

Just keep in mind this site was designed for all audiences not just middle/high schoolers and above even if they're the majority here and you of all people should've got this fact burnt into your brain since you are a moderator.

Also I'll ask this nicely: Can you please stop bringing up irrelevant facts and trying to insult Japan? What did it ever do to you? Why are you discussing it in the first place? What's the point in all this, to beat me in an argument and prove every single thing I said is "blatantly ignorant" and is "fallacy"? What are you ultimately trying to prove, that I'm a stupid dum-dum head person who's a hard-headed Japan supporter who denies everything that happened in the past? I think you need to revisit yourself and think about what you're trying to do in this argument because I think you lost yourself in the midst of this discussion (and please correct me if I'm wrong confuted).

[quote="Tare"] Why are you discussing it in the first place? What's the point in all this, to beat me in an argument and prove every single thing I said is "blatantly ignorant" and is "fallacy"? What are you ultimately trying to prove, that I'm a stupid dum-dum head person who's a hard-headed Japan supporter who denies everything that happened in the past?[/quote]

yes

Look at the Title Tare, it also has Japan in WWII

And I think that Japan in WWII has a lot to do with China... and the rest of Asia.

And... these remarks are not random as you said by pointing out that "entropy is rising". No randomness/sillyness has ever been issused here. (except for the remark about being too lazy to read the long threads). This is a serious topic, and we are not swerving from what the title is.

Tare, I think, if you don't want us to misunderstand you, u should really put the words into different format.

And no, our facts are not irrelevant, and they are not meant to cover up your facts (some of them are, some of them are). Your post about Japan having nothing at all was a very disturbing issue, although you might have not noticed. As I pointed out, if Japan had nothing at all, then why did they massacre/rape/pillage Asia?

And no, we're not insulting Japan. I said that right now, its a great nation, but again, your remark about Japan having nothing at all was very disturbing.

We're not trying to prove you wrong, but we want to confront you with the facts. And what's wrong being a patriotic nationalist? I'm as hard-headed trying to tell you what China went through as you are defending Japan's recent past.

And we are not lost. And I am glad you find those pictures disturbing, because they are, but even though you say this, you don't agree with what they tell you.

Again, Japan's past is not great, so don't support it or defend it either, accept it. I don't support the Chinese Communist government, but since they're making reforms towards capitalism, I am willing to start supporting it. We are not saying Japan is bad. Its history has some scars, but right now, Japan in a good and sophisticated nation, and that's what you should support, the good stuff, and not the bad stuff. If you already support the good stuff already(which i think u do), that's just great.

yeah. remember tare, this is for serious discussions. not the pansy things that happens in fun and games

Huh? All the while I was trying to make it so that it [b]won't[/b] be the level Fun and Games are at, did you read all my posts?

Yes I know that but originally it just said "Iraqi War" but confuted just threw it in there so it won't look like everyone's off-topic (which they should be because now no one's discussing Iraq at all)

Of course.

Again I originally meant for this thread to be about Iraq so from my point of view unless it's about self-defending force deployment in Iraq everything Japan-related is considered off-topic and a random thing people brought up.

*sigh* I'll keep that in mind

I did [b]not [/b]say nothing, I said little or something like that. If people are going to quote me quote it right don't make studd up about what I did or didn't say please.

You keep on pointing out Japan killed/raped/stole/etc. from rest of Asia over and over and over...when really we got that point, we accept it, lets move on but you still say that over and over and over...it's not very productive and it looks like you're trying to keep that bad image Japan deserved decades ago even though Japanese young people now had nothing to do with it.

Yeah I know Japanese people did gross stuff, I came across a lot of stuff on my net-surf. However is it really appropriate to put them here? This isn't the place for gross images even if they are our undeniable history. Perhaps if you'd like to suggest to us another place for this discussion to go on I'll be happy to oblige but until then, no inappropriate pictures (well post them all you want but only until rippledance or admins come by) please

Ultimately then what is your goal?

If someone is actually taking a serious interest in the threaad, (s)he is old enough to accept such uncomfortable pictures. I feel that it is completely appropriate that they be placed here, as they were in context, and they would [i]have[/i] to be mildly offensive in order to prove the point.

Why is there such a tendency to stagnate on one topic? Let the conversation flow. So we're now talking about Japan and moving on to China. Big deal.

There is a lot wrong with being a hard-headed nationalist. As you are obviously from that nation, your parents are going to feed you their points of views, which unless you are slightly different from the majority, is going to be pro-that country. In addition, the schools in that country, and indeed most of your education, will obviously portray the history of that country as being just nice and kind, and if not, it was because evil bad countries took advantage of your nice kind country. You need to grow up and look at all points of views. However, that maxim seems to be taken a bit too seriously in the US...

Mysticterminator was right when he said that the education recieved in any given country is somewhat biased toward that country. I'd been learning about WWII for years in school before a teacher even thought to mention that the United States put thousands of Japanese-Americans in internment camps.

Furthermore, Tare, I'm going to say this once more, and hopefully you'll get it this time. [u]That picture wasn't inappropriate, it was history.[/u] The history of your country, too. Perhaps that's why you don't like it. Regardless, if you have a problem with the picture, stop clicking on the link.

I disagree. I thought the picture was inappropriate just because Tare has never tried to deny or diminish what Japan did in WWII. I think he is being unfairly accused of that (although he's clearly stated that he acknowledges it several times). [Note: I assume Tare is a he, I apologize if I'm wrong about that].

I also don't think these two topics should be connected in the same thread. There really aren't very many similarities between the situation now in Iraq and in Japan after WWII. The circumstances are very different, and the purposes of the wars were very different.

Occupation of a country can have a really wide range of outcomes. I'm sure the long term situation in Afghanistan will be different than the situation in Iraq. The demographics of the  populations are different, the feelings of the people are different, and the justifications for occupation are different.

Fine, fine, I give in. Official ruling:
Thread split, no more whining.
The link stays, no more whining.
The word "crap" is not inappropriate, no more whining.

Now, let the serious conversation continue. No more whining.

[quote="Tare"]*huge sigh* "confuted linked to an inappropriate picture even though he is a mod" now this fact is true and you just confirmed it yourself. Now this fact has nothing to do with Japan or China or Iraq, it has to do with the way you acted in this board. Don't try to confuse/justify what you did by bringing up a lot of irrelevant facts to cover up this fact. Just don't.[/quote]

Before we go anywhere with this point, let me ask you this: who ever said it was inappropriate?

Second of all, let me remind you that [b]you[/b] have done "more inappropriate" things than that.  Remember the "ways to torture Saddam Hussein" thread?  Wasn't that inappropriate?  Didn't that describe methods that were ten times as graphic as seeing a couple of heads lined up in a row?  I mean, thinking about drilling holes in people or slowly chopping them into bits or hanging them from the skin on their elbows isn't my idea of appropriate, either.

[quote]Just keep in mind this site was designed for all audiences not just middle/high schoolers and above even if they're the majority here and you of all people should've got this fact burnt into your brain since you are a moderator.[/quote]

Confuted will keep that in mind, thank you very much.  Please do the same; keep it in your head [i]before[/i] you go about suggesting gruesome methods of torture for Saddam, or any of fifty other threads of yours that aren't exactly appropriate.

[quote]Also I'll ask this nicely: Can you please stop bringing up irrelevant facts and trying to insult Japan? What did it ever do to you? Why are you discussing it in the first place? What's the point in all this, to beat me in an argument and prove every single thing I said is "blatantly ignorant" and is "fallacy"? What are you ultimately trying to prove, that I'm a stupid dum-dum head person who's a hard-headed Japan supporter who denies everything that happened in the past?[/quote]

Whoa, whoa.  What makes you think that confuted is trying to insult Japan?  I get the impression that he's trying to prove his point, which is that 1) japan had plenty of wealth, both in industries and in industrial processes; 2) japan is not a U.S. puppet and can make decisions on its own; 3) your writing doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[quote]the feelings of the majority of the Japanese population, that only a Japanese person/a person close to Japan would know/feel and again I'm sure you have a lot of friends/connection in Japan and talk about politics with Japanese people now that the internet have evolved so much.[/quote]

Are you trying to make yourself out to be an authority on the subject so that everyone else will bow to your opinion?  In this forum, I think the goal is to let everyone have an equal voice.  Just because you have lived in Japan does not necessarily make you necessarily correct.  The same goes for tokenadult; I find his argument rather persuasive because it is well-founded, not because he claims some sort of authority.  Call me a cynic, but I tend to take words from various people that I don't know at face value.

[quote]I think you need to revisit yourself and think about what you're trying to do in this argument because I think you lost yourself in the midst of this discussion (and please correct me if I'm wrong confuted).[/quote]

To use a cliche, practice what you preach.

P.S. If you try "rebuttled" on dictionary.com, I doubt you'll get anything.

[quote]I practically rebuttled every "correction" you had so that second to last sentence loses it's meaning for now. [/quote]

[quote]Maybe you ought to use dictionary.com on the definition of "rebuttal," as well as these things: ""[/quote]

*sigh* I admit I did post some [b]literal[/b] material also but still I believe we should keep off people's past mistakes especially since I can make this a whole lot uglier than it is now.

I agree, and I am [b]not[/b], for the last time [b]not[/b] a hardcore Japan-supporting nationalist, I am liberal, I am open towards new ideas (though it may take me a while like that whole "my teacher blurts out Mr. ****'s gay" thing but that's another story for another day) and the past/history, and I spent most of my most thoughtfully active time here in the U.S. (I've been here from second grade until now and that's a whole lot of more education in the U.S. then in Japan; besides I form completely different ideas from what they teach in school; for example I found out that whole Revolutionary War rape crimes thing by myself even though I had an overly patriotict S.S. teacher)
And if you could name me one instance in which I denied that a historical event happened that would be helpful.

now onto confuted's first post since my last visit...

I wouldn't make that generalization but I do say that stands true at least for Japan and U.S.

modedit: There will be no whining.

Now onto mathfanatics:

Fifty? Oh really.

confuted (and Chinaboy who brought up China in the first place) kept talking on and on about how I was denying the past (which I'm not), whining about how things are run here, keep on bringing up irrelevant facts, and tons of other things which clearly changed how the conversation was flowing (and it became much more bitter too)

Pshaw yes my grammer isn't perfect no English is not my first language. If we want to fight on fair grounds then we'll need a translator.

Fine but confuted was insulting the accuracy of my knowledge and information without any sufficient evidence which I take to be an offence.

I know exactly what I'm doing: Protecting myself from false accusations, trying to prove Japan in fact is under a threat and must keep good relationship with the U.S. (which have floated down the stream because of all the China stuff that really hadn't been productive at all)

He-heh :)

[quote="Tare"]* trying to prove Japan in fact is under a threat and must keep good relationship with the U.S. (which have floated down the stream because of all the China stuff that really hadn't been productive at all)

He-heh :)[/quote]

Before I start YELLING/DEBATING/SCOLDING you for that quote, i want to make sure i understand it.

do you mean that what I brought onto this forum cause the topic to go down the stream/not productive.

or

are you blaming China for impeding on a good relationship between Japan and the U.S.

i might not have to yell if i misunderstood.

tare and matfan. i'm getting pissed. not so much pissed at matfan. why are you discussing various issues that are completely irrelevant. stop it. the picture was not inappropriate; it was in context. if someone is taking a serious interest in this thread, (s)he is old enough to view the picture. nuff said. i don't want to hear anything about the stupid picture again. ok. no need to discuss people's grammar. wastes time. tare don't use smilies in makes me suspicious that you're being facetious which would really tick me off now. tare i never specifically said YOU weren't liberal i was just posting thoughts. ok. stop discussing irrelevant issues. if they're politically related, that's fine. if they're about people's grammar or someat, just drop it.

[quote="Tare"]Fine fine, I'll ignore whatever the mods doing, I can't hear you blahblahblah blah blah :lol:

Talking about being blatantly ignorant aren't you being a bit ignorant of the fact that you're linking to pictures with human heads lined up and saying crap? (which may or may not be considered a swear but I still think it's very offensive)

OK fine I'm going to reply to Chinaboy's comment now: Starvation in China have nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make, I was trying to disprove the fact that Japanese government were killing its people just because they can't feed them anymore which is incorrect.
Besides did I mention China once before you brought it up?

Also China in whole has nothing to do with this thread...well I'm not sure anymore since this became a War stew with everything war related so now China may be part of the discussion, I don't know.

I completely agree with your second paragraph. Practically all country who went to war did almost the same thing, even way back before (course they didn't have bombs back then :)) Even in the Revolutionary War people basically did the same thing with Japanese and Chinese, killing, raping, stabbing, shooting, etc. This is the sad truth of war.

P.S. I just realized this could be the epic showdown between the Emperor and me :)[/quote]

The only reason i came into this topic is because its title said something along the lines "Japan, [b]China[/b] in WWII"

i believe the title has been changed occasionally during the course of discussion. btw, the emperor will kick your -.

*scrolls* *frowns* *scrolls* *shakes head*

-.-" Hornets' nest.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The London Review of Books, Vol 25, No 22: 20 November 2003

The Looting of Asia - Chalmers Johnson

Gold Warriors: America's Secret Recovery of Yamashita's Gold by Sterling Seagrave and Peggy Seagrave | Verso, 332 pp, 17.00

It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimized. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced laborers - and, in the case of the Japanese, as prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4 per cent chance of not surviving the war; the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30 per cent.

The real differences between the two nations, however, developed in the years and decades after 1945. Survivors and relatives of victims of the Holocaust have worked for almost six decades to win compensation from German corporations for slave labor and to regain possession of works of art stolen from their homes and offices. Litigation continues against Swiss banks that hid much of the Nazi loot. As recently as July 2001, the Austrian Government began to disburse some $300 million out of an endowment of almost $500 million to more than 100,000 former slave laborers. The German Government has long recognized that, in order to re-establish relations of mutual respect with the countries it pillaged, serious gestures towards restitution are necessary. It has so far paid more than $45 billion in compensation and reparations. Japan, on the other hand, has given its victims a mere $3 billion, while giving its own nationals around $400 billion in compensation for war losses.
One reason for these differences is that victims of the Nazis have been politically influential in the US and Britain, forcing their governments to put pressure on Germany, whereas Japan's victims live in countries that for most of the postwar period were torn by revolution, anticolonial movements and civil wars. This has begun to change with the rise of Sino-American activists. The success of Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking (1997), a book the Japanese establishment did everything in its power to impugn, heralded the emergence of this group.
More significant, however, are differences in US Government policies towards the two countries. From the moment of Germany's defeat, the United States was active in apprehending war criminals, denazifying German society, and collecting and protecting archives of the Nazi regime, all of which have by now been declassified. By contrast, from the moment of Japan's defeat, the US Government sought to exonerate the Emperor and his relatives from any responsibility for the war. By 1948, it was seeking to restore the wartime ruling class to positions of power (Japan's wartime minister of munitions, Nobusuke Kishi, for example, was prime minister from 1957 to 1960). The US keeps many of its archives concerned with postwar Japan highly classified, in violation of its own laws.
Most important, John Foster Dulles, President Truman's special envoy to Japan charged with ending the occupation, wrote the peace treaty of 1951 in such a way that most former POWs and civilian victims of Japan are prevented from obtaining any form of compensation from either the Japanese Government or private Japanese corporations who profited from their slave labor. He did so in perfect secrecy and forced the other Allies to accept his draft (except for China and Russia, which did not sign). Article 14(b) of the treaty, signed at San Francisco on 8 September 1951, specifies: 'Except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty, the Allied Powers waive all reparations claims of the Allied Powers, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the war, and claims of the Allied Powers for direct military costs of occupation.' As recently as 25 September 2001, three former American Ambassadors to Japan - Thomas Foley, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Michael Armacost, the president of the Brookings Institution, and Walter Mondale, Carter's Vice-President - wrote a joint letter to the Washington Post denouncing Congress for its willingness even to think about helping former American slave laborers get around the treaty.
Why do these attitudes protecting and excusing Japan persist? Why has the US pursued such divergent policies towards postwar Germany and Japan? Why was the peace treaty written in the way it was? Many reasons have been offered over the years, including that Japan was too poor to pay, that these policies were necessary to keep postwar Japan from 'going Communist', and that the Emperor and Japanese people had been misled into war by a cabal of insane militarists, all of whom the occupation had eliminated from positions of responsibility. The explanation offered in the Seagraves' book is considerably more sinister. It concerns what the United States did with Japan's loot once it discovered how much of it there was, the form it took, and how little influence its original owners had.
Almost as soon as the war was over, American forces began to discover stupendous caches of Japanese war treasure. General MacArthur, in charge of the occupation, reported finding 'great hoards of gold, silver, precious stones, foreign postage stamps, engraving plates and ...currency not legal in Japan'. His officials arrested the underworld boss Yoshio Kodama, who had worked in China during the war, selling opium and supervising the collection and shipment to Japan of industrial metals such as tungsten, titanium and platinum. Japan was by far the largest opium producer in Asia throughout the first half of the 20th century, initially in its colony of Korea and then in Manchuria, which it seized in 1931. Kodama supplied heroin and liquor to occupied China in return for gold coins, jewellery and objets d'art, which the Japanese melted down into ingots.
Kodama returned to Japan after the surrender immensely rich. Before going to prison he transferred part of his booty to the conservative politicians Ichiro Hatoyama and Ichiro Kono, who used the proceeds to finance the newly created Liberal Party, precursor of the party that has ruled Japan almost uninterruptedly since 1949. When Kodama was released from prison, also in 1949, he went to work for the CIA and later became the chief agent in Japan for the Lockheed Aircraft Company, bribing and blackmailing politicians to buy the Lockheed F-104 fighter and the L-1011 airbus. With his stolen wealth, underworld ties and history as a supporter of militarism, Kodama became one of the godfathers of pro-American single-party rule in Japan.
He was not alone in his war-profiteering. One of the Seagraves' more controversial contentions is that the looting of Asia took place under the supervision of the Imperial household. This contradicts the American fiction that the Emperor was a pacifist and a mere figurehead observer of the war. The Seagraves convincingly argue that after Japan's full-scale invasion of China on 7 July 1937, Emperor Hirohito appointed one of his brothers, Prince Chichibu, to head a secret organization called kin no yuri ('Golden Lily') whose function was to ensure that contraband was properly accounted for and not diverted by military officers or other insiders, such as Kodama, for their own enrichment. Putting an Imperial prince in charge was a guarantee that everyone, even the most senior commanders, would follow orders and that the Emperor personally would become immensely rich.
The Emperor also posted Prince Tsuneyoshi Takeda, a first cousin, to the staff of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria and later as his personal liaison officer to the Saigon headquarters of General Count Hisaichi Terauchi, to supervise looting and ensure that the proceeds were shipped to Japan in areas under Terauchi's control. Although assigned to Saigon, Takeda worked almost exclusively in the Philippines as second in command to Chichibu. Hirohito named Prince Yasuhiko Asaka, his uncle, to be deputy commander of the Central China Area Army, in which capacity he commanded the final assault on Nanking, the Chinese capital, between 2 December and 6 December 1937, and allegedly gave the order to 'kill all captives'. The Japanese removed some 6000 tonnes of gold from Chiang Kai-shek's treasury and the homes and offices of the leaders of Nationalist China. All three princes were graduates of the military academy and all three survived the war; Chichibu died in 1953 of tuberculosis but the other two lived to a very ripe old age.
With the Japanese capture in the winter and spring of 1941-42 of all of South-East Asia, including the Philippines and Indonesia, the work of Golden Lily increased many times over. In addition to the monetary assets of the Dutch, British, French and Americans in their respective colonies, Golden Lily operatives absconded with as much of the wealth of the overseas Chinese populations as they could find, tore gilt from Buddhist temples, stole solid gold Buddhas from Burma, sold opium to the local populations and collected gemstones from anyone who had any. The gold was melted down into ingots at a big Japanese-run smelter in Ipoh, Malaya and marked with its degree of purity and weight. Chichibu and his staff inventoried all this plunder and put it aboard boats, usually disguised as hospital ships, bound for Japan. There was no overland route to Korea, the closest point on the mainland to Japan, until very briefly in late 1944.
A lot of gold and gems were lost as a result of American submarine warfare; and by early 1943, it was no longer possible for the Japanese to break through the Allied blockade of the main islands except by submarine. Chichibu therefore shifted his headquarters from Singapore to Manila and ordered all the shipments to head for Philippine ports. He and his staff reasoned that the war would end with a negotiated settlement, and they believed (or imagined) that the Americans could be persuaded to transfer the Philippines to Japan in return for an end to the war. From 1942, Chichibu supervised the building of 175 'Imperial' storage sites to hide the treasure until after the war was over. Slave laborers and POWs dug tunnels and caves and then were invariably buried alive, often along with Japanese officers and soldiers, when the sites were sealed to keep their locations secret. Each cache was booby-trapped, and the few extant Golden Lily maps are elaborately encoded to hide exact location, depth, air vents (if any) and types of booby trap (e.g. large aerial bombs, sand traps, poison gases). In Manila itself, Golden Lily constructed treasure caverns in the dungeon of the old Spanish Fort Santiago, within the former American military headquarters (Fort McKinley, now Fort Bonifacio), and under the cathedral, all places the Japanese rightly assumed the Americans would not bomb. As the war came to an end, Chichibu and Takeda escaped back to Japan by submarine.
Soon after the liberation of the Philippines, American special agents began to discover a few of the hidden gold repositories. The key figure was a Filipino American born in Luzon in either 1901 or 1907 named Severino Garcia Diaz Santa Romana (and several other aliases), who in the mid-1940s worked for MacArthur's chief intelligence officer, General Willoughby. As a commando behind the lines in the Philippines he had once witnessed the unloading of heavy boxes from a Japanese ship, their being placed in a tunnel, and the entrance being dynamited shut. He had already suspected what was going on. After the war, Santa Romana was joined in Manila by Captain Edward Lansdale of the OSS, the CIA's predecessor. Lansdale later became one of America's most notorious Cold Warriors, manipulating governments and armies in the Philippines and French Indo-China. He retired as a major-general in the Air Force.
Together, Santa Romana and Lansdale tortured the driver of General Tomoyuki Yamashita, Japan's last commander in the Philippines, forcing him to divulge the places where he had driven Yamashita in the last months of the war. Using hand-picked troops from the US Army's Corps of Engineers, these two opened about a dozen Golden Lily sites in the high valleys north of Manila. They were astonished to find stacks of gold ingots higher than their heads and reported this to their superiors. Lansdale was sent to Tokyo to brief MacArthur and Willoughby, and they, in turn, ordered Lansdale to Washington to report to Truman's national security aide, Clark Clifford. As a result, Robert Anderson, on the staff of the Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, returned to Tokyo with Lansdale and, according to the Seagraves, then flew secretly with MacArthur to the Philippines, where they personally inspected several caverns. They concluded that what had been found in Luzon, combined with the caches the Occupation had uncovered in Japan, amounted to several billion dollars' worth of war booty.
Back in Washington, it was decided at the highest levels, presumably by Truman, to keep these discoveries secret and to funnel the money into various off-the-books slush funds to finance the clandestine activities of the CIA. One reason, it has been alleged, was to maintain the price of gold and the system of fixed currency exchange rates based on gold, which had been decided at Bretton Woods in 1944. Just like the South African diamond cartel, Washington's plotters feared what would happen if this much 'new' gold was suddenly injected into world markets. They also realized that exposure of the Imperial household's role in the looting of Asia would destroy their by now carefully constructed cover story of the Emperor as a peaceful marine biologist.
Washington concluded that even though Japan, or at least the Emperor, had ample funds to pay compensation to Allied POWs, because of the other deceptions, the peace treaty would have to be written in such a way that Japan's wealth would remain secret. The treaty therefore gave up all claims for compensation on behalf of American POWs. To keep the Santa Romana-Lansdale recoveries secret, MacArthur also decided to get rid of Yamashita, who had accompanied Chichibu on many site closings. After a hastily put-together court martial for war crimes, Yamashita was hanged on 23 February 1946.
On orders from Washington, Lansdale supervised the recovery of several Golden Lily vaults, inventoried the bullion, and had it trucked to warehouses at the US Naval base at Subic Bay or the Air Force base at Clark Field. According to the Seagraves, two members of Stimson's staff, together with financial experts from the newly formed CIA, instructed Santa Romana in how to deposit the gold in 176 reliable banks in 42 different countries. These deposits were made in his own name or in one of his numerous aliases in order to keep the identity of the true owners secret. Once the gold was in their vaults, the banks would issue certificates that are even more negotiable than money, being backed by gold itself. With this seemingly inexhaustible source of cash, the CIA set up slush funds to influence politics in Japan, Greece, Italy, Britain and many other places around the world. For example, money from what was called the 'M-Fund' (named after Major-General William Marquat of MacArthur's staff) was secretly employed to pay for Japan's initial rearmament after the outbreak of the Korean War, since the Japanese Diet itself refused to appropriate money for the purpose. The various uses to which these funds were put over the years, among them helping to finance the Nicaraguan counter-revolutionaries in their attacks on the elected government in Managua (the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan Presidency), would require another volume. Suffice it to say that virtually everyone known to have been involved with the secret CIA slush funds derived from Yamashita's gold has had their career ruined.
Santa Romana died in 1974, leaving several wills, including a final holographic testament, naming Tarciana Rodriguez, a Filipina who was the official treasurer of his various companies, and Luz Rambano, his common-law wife, as his main heirs. They set out to recover the gold since, after all, it was in his name in various banks and they had custody of all the account books, secret code names, amounts, records of interest paid, and other official documents proving its existence. Using the famous San Francisco attorney Melvin Belli as her representative, Rambano actually filed a suit against John Reed, then CEO of Citibank in New York and today president of the New York Stock Exchange, charging him with 'wrongful conversion': that is, selling $20 billion of Santa Romana's gold and converting the proceeds to his own use. The Seagraves vividly describe the extraordinary meetings that took place between Rambano and Reed, with phalanxes of lawyers on both sides, in Citibank's boardroom in New York. Reed apparently ordered the gold moved to Cititrust in the Bahamas.

Santa Romana and Lansdale by no means discovered all the Golden Lily sites. Over the years, a cottage industry developed of treasure hunters digging holes in obscure places in Luzon, often claiming they were looking for the remains of family or lovers. A regular feature of life in the village of Bambang, in the Cagayan Valley, Nueva Viscaya province - one of the places where Takeda was most active - is the appearance of elderly Japanese 'tourists' bearing not the usual bag of golf clubs but sophisticated metal detectors. This area of the Philippines is one where guerrillas of the New People's Army are active, and it has no major tourist attractions. Many local Filipinos have gone into business as professional 'pointers', telling gullible visitors, for a fee, where to search, before skipping town.

Twenty years after Santa Romana stopped searching in 1947, a secondary - and quite violent - hunt for gold began, carried out by Ferdinand Marcos. Marcos recovered at least $14 billion in gold - $6 billion from the sunken Japanese cruiser Nachi in Manila Bay, and $8 billion from the tunnel known as 'Teresa 2', 38 miles south of Manila in Rizal province. During 2001, Philippine politics were rocked when the former solicitor-general Francisco Chavez alleged that Irene Marcos-Araneta, Marcos's youngest daughter, maintained an account worth $13.2 billion in Switzerland. Its existence apparently came to light when she tried to move it from the Union Bank of Switzerland to Deutsche Bank in Dsseldorf. Marcos, who personally supervised the opening of at least six sites and routinely used his thugs to steal any treasure that local peasants happened to find, died in exile in Honolulu in 1989. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Hawaii affirmed a judgment against his estate for the astonishing sum of $1.4 billion in favour of a Filipino who retrieved a solid gold Buddha and then had it stolen from him by Marcos, who also had him tortured for protesting.
The key to Marcos's discoveries was the services of one Robert Curtis, a Nevada chemist, metallurgist and mining engineer, whom Marcos hired to resmelt his gold, to bring it up to current international requirements for purity so that it could be marketed internationally. Curtis proved to be the only person who could decipher the few Golden Lily maps that survived, in the possession of Takeda's former valet, a Filipino youth from Bambang. The Seagraves describe very thoroughly Curtis's activities, including his narrow escape from death on the orders of Marcos's henchman General Ver, after he struck gold at Teresa 2.

The Seagraves' narrative is comprehensive, but they are not fully reliable as historians. They have a tendency to overreach, exaggerating the roles of Japanese gangsters and ex-military American bit-players when the bankers, politicians and CIA operatives are scary enough. They know the Philippines well, but are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese. The book is full of errors that could easily be corrected by a second-year student of the language - the ship they repeatedly call the Huzi is accurately romanised Fuji ; the important Japan Sea port is Maizuru, not Maisaru; tairiki is not a Japanese word: they mean tairiku ronin (a 'Continental adventurer' or a 'China carpetbagger'); and their mysterious Lord Ichivara is an absurdity - no one was ever called 'Lord' in postwar Japan and Ichivara is an impossible name (it is surely Ishihara).

The authors seem to sense that they might have a credibility problem, and have therefore taken the unusual step of making available two CDs containing more than 900 megabytes of documents, maps and photographs assembled in the course of their research. The CDs can be ordered from their website (http://www.bowstring.net). These are invaluable, particularly in what they reveal of the US Government's vicious sting operation against a former American deputy Attorney General, Norbert Schlei. Schlei represented about sixty Japanese people on whom the Japanese
Government had unloaded huge promissory notes in an attempt to hide the M-Fund after the former Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka was convicted of bribery. The Government persisted in calling these notes forgeries (thus engaging in another form of illegal conversion) and Schlei's career was ruined. Gold Warriors is easily the best guide available to the scandal of 'Yamashita's gold', and the authors play fair with their readers by supplying them with massive amounts of their raw research materials.

The Seagraves end their 'authors' note' with these words: 'As a precaution, should anything odd happen, we have arranged for this book and all its documentation to be put up on the Internet at a number of sites. If we are murdered, readers will have no difficulty figuring out who "they" are.' Unfortunately, the list of potential killers from this book alone would include at least several thousand generals, spies, bankers, politicians, lawyers, treasure hunters and thieves from half a dozen countries. So I wish the Seagraves a long life. Meanwhile, a substantial portion of the treasure stolen by the Japanese from East Asian countries remains buried in the Philippines.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post-WWII US-Jap relations. It's really long, apologies.


[quote="billzhao"]Is it just me, or is everything he's saying sheer nonsense?[/quote]

I'm asking about this on the sci.math newsgroup. I suspect that the answer is that everything he is saying is nonsense. China does well enough in talent identification of mathematicians that I think if he had the right stuff to prove those claims, he could get proper research support.

[quote="Osiris"]I think TokenAdult and others who understand Chinese here would get a kick out of some of the guestbook entries too...  :lol:

http://www.mxdmath.com/ly/display.asp [/quote]

YES! This was LOL of the day. I especially liked " 麻烦您拿出您的高中课本再好好读一读吧，后面那些东西估计也是根植于一些很低级的错误 "

No one has commented on this yet on sci.math, but it doesn't look promising for anyone taking this guy seriously.

[quote="tokenadult"]YES! This was LOL of the day. I especially liked " 麻烦您拿出您的高中课本再好好读一读吧，后面那些东西估计也是根植于一些很低级的错误 "[/quote]

Would you mind translating this to English (since I don't know Chinese)? I'm curious as to what people thought of his "proofs".

It means "please take out and re-read your high school math textbook; the subsequent 'proofs' probably all suffer from errors of such a low level."

My father and I got quite a laugh out of that ``proof'' of Goldbach's conjecture. Yes, let's just take the product of all the primes. [i]All of them.[/i]

3+7 = 10

But where does it say that?  I don't know enough to not be scared away by all the weird symbols and believe that he's crazy.

[quote="confuted"][quote="Magnara"]That's the worst you could find in his proof?  Howzabout the fact that he "proved" that no even number greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of 2 primes.[/quote]
No, he claimed that an even number greater than two EXISTS that can not be expressed as the sum of two primes; not that no even number greater than two can be expressed as the sum of 2 primes. The problem with his proof is that he took the product of all primes and called it [i]m[/i] - but [i]m[/i]+1 is always prime, so you can't take the product of all of them... which was what Simon was saying.[/quote]

Got it.  I sort of skimmed  :blush:

Though I did see the problem with his proof, for what its worth.

I believe that the contents of this person's cranium can be summed up in a single word:

Codswallop.

[quote="Osiris"]#1 is wrong because he proved that "If m :le: 0, then the equation x2 + x - m = 0 has no real roots" (i.e. the negative, not reverse proposition) is false. "If the equation x2 + x - m = 0 has no real roots, then m :le: 0" is a true proposition.

I fonud the Chinese versions of these proofs and are re-reading them. Trying to poke a hole in #2...

Then I gave up and went to read the commentary. Some are very colourful in pointing out the fundamental flaws of his proofs, the others cheer him on (what the?!) to do further demonstration of his mathematical prowess.

I think TokenAdult and others who understand Chinese here would get a kick out of some of the guestbook entries too...  :lol:

http://www.mxdmath.com/ly/display.asp

*a slight chuckle*[/quote]
The comments are really funny
I agree with the person who wrote 这个网站太搞笑了，这个马老师肯定是神经有病了

[quote="beta"][quote="Osiris"]I think TokenAdult and others who understand Chinese here would get a kick out of some of the guestbook entries too.

http://www.mxdmath.com/ly/display.asp
[/quote]
The comments are really funny
I agree with the person who wrote 这个网站太搞笑了，这个马老师肯定是神经有病了[/quote]

I'll translate this one, anticipating the likely request from participants who don't read Chinese. The comment was "This Web site is too funny; this Teacher Ma surely is crazy."

I think the latter part of the comment, alas, must be correct.

this is my favorite one:马老师是真正的数学天才，有着无比深刻的分析力和敏锐的洞察力，马老师的成就之大前所未有，10个Fields奖也不足以表彰。从此整个数学将被改写，数学史上最光辉伟大正确的名字诞生了。我从小喜欢数学，也曾拿过奥赛金牌，但今天拜读了您的论文，我才知道了什么什么是真正的数学， 我要拜您为师，和您相比poincare，cantor，kolmogorov之流就像是侏儒，数院的那些老师还不如蚂蚁。你一定要收下我啊！！！！
It means: Mr. Ma is a true mathematical genius. His mathematical ability is beyond anyone. His achievement is greater than anyone, 10 Field Prize is not even enough. He changed the entire concept of mathematics, he's the greatest mathematician ever. I love math when I was young, I did get gold medals on olympiads, but after reading your proofs, I understand what is true mathematics. People like poincare，cantor，kolmogorov are retards compare to you, professors of math department are ants. Please accept me, I want to be your student!

LOL Beta. The guy really has some mental and psychy issues. No doubt about that. They might characterize a mental disorder named after this - THEIHAVENOCLUEWHATIAMTALKINGABOUT syndrome.

#2 is absolutely correct, except for the assertion at the end that it disproves Goldbach's conjecture. He proved that the product of all primes can't be written as the sum of two primes. Which is exceedingly obvious. But now it's rigorously proven. ;)

It's rather unfortunate that the same type of argument doesn't work with finite sets of primes. If it did, we'd not only have a proof of the falsity of Goldbach's conjecture, but probably of the Riemann Hypothesis and Twin Primes conjecture as well...and maybe even a polynomial-time algorithm for factoring numbers!

Come to think of it, do you suppose that we could prove the TRUTH of Goldbach from the same premise (the product of all primes p is a perfectly good integer?) That would strike down his #2 once and for all.

[quote="RobinHood3000"]Were they genuinely serious?!

If so, then it's probably a relative of some sort...or perhaps Ma himself...[/quote]

No, I think whoever wrote this was making fun of Mr.Ma.


Given a positive integer $n$, an allowed move is to form $2n+1$ or $3n+2$. The set $S_{n}$ is the set of all numbers that can be obtained by a sequence of allowed moves starting with $n$. For example, we can form $5 \rightarrow 11 \rightarrow 35$ so $5, 11$ and $35$ belong to $S_{5}$. We call $m$ and $n$ compatible if $S_{m}$ and $S_{n}$ has a common element. Which members of $\{1, 2, 3, ... , 2002\}$ are compatible with $2003$?

We  have $n\rightarrow 2n+1$ and $n\rightarrow 3n+2$ if we add 1 to all numbers we get $n\rightarrow 2n$ and $n\rightarrow 3n$ so if m and n are compatible then m+1 and n+1 are compatible when we change the allowed moves to $n\rightarrow 2n$ and $n\rightarrow 3n$.
 But now it is obvious that m and n are compatible (with the new conditions) if and only if $m= 3^{a}2^{b}k$ and $n =3^{c}2^{d}k$ where (6,k)=1. Since $2004 =2^{2}3.167$ 2004 is compatible with 167, 2.167, 3.167, 4.167, 6.167, 8.167 and 9.167. From here 2003 is compatible with these numbers minus 1.


trigonometry
inequalities proposed
inequalities

prove that in a triangle with three angles A,B,C respectively we have :
$ (1\plus{}cos(\frac{A}{2}))\plus{}(1\plus{}cos(\frac{B}{2}))\plus{}(1\plus{}cos(\frac{C}{2}))>4$ :o

we have,
 $ \cos \frac {A} {2} \plus{} \cos \frac {B} {2} \plus{} \cos \frac {C} {2} \geq 2$
then proved.


In the 2002-2003 season, the weekly salaries of musicians in major orchestras ranged from $ \$734$ to $ \$1925$.  Orchestras have different season lengths ranging from 24 through 52 weeks.  In one orchestra season, what is the positive difference between the most that could be earned and the least that could be earned in a year?

The smallest salary is $ 734$ dollars, and the smallest amount of weeks is $ 24$ weeks. So we have:

$ 734*24 \equal{} 17616$

The smallest possible salary was $ 17616$ dollars.

The largest salary was $ 1925$ dollars, and the largest amount of weeks is $ 52$ weeks. So we have:

$ 1925*52 \equal{} 100100$

The largest possible salary was $ 100100$ dollars. Now we simply subtract.

$ 100100 \minus{} 17616 \equal{} 82484$

The answer is $ \boxed {82484}$

[quote="thdanh90"]Thanks isabella. I know how to do it and it seems quite computational oriented. Is there a better way which you can do in your head rather than on scratch paper?[/quote]
No.  That's probably because it's a Target Round question where use of calculators is assumed.


analytic geometry
projective geometry
geometry
conics
calculus
integration
absolute value

Hi  :D
I'd like to have a proof of these theorem that is the dual of Pappus' theorem

Given two distinc points U y U’, three lines p, q, r throught U (p, q, r  don’t pass by U’) and three lines p’, q’, r’ through U'  (p’, q’, r’  don’t pass by U). Also
x is the line passing by  p $\cap$ q’ and p’ $\cap$ q
y is the line passing by  q $\cap$ r’ and r $\cap$ q’
z is the line passing by r $\cap$ p’ and p $\cap$ r’
then x, y and z are concurrentes

(Obviously I need a proof without using duality)

Also I'd like to anybody tell me why is it one of the 5 axioms of the duality (I took these from Coexter "Introduction to Geometry"... In fact I don't know if it's the name of the book but I supposed thta because in spanish the name is "Introduccion a la Geometria")

PS 1. $\cap$ means intersection
PS 2. Sorry... my English is too Basic  :blush:

Thanks a lot
José Carlos

Pappus' axiom is equivalent to one of the algebraic axioms about the field of coordinates (associativity, distributive law, or something like that).  This is why it is added to the list of axioms for the projective plane.  The same is true for Desargues' theorem; there are "non-Desarguesian planes" corresponding to skew fields.

Then I've got a big problem... I suppose that it's imposible to prove this using elemental geometry.... How can I explain this on a olympic text???

A mounth ago (when I read this theorem and this chapter) I prove this theorem using polars but I'd like a proof using another tools (I think using polars is very similar to using duality)

Does anybody can give more references or explain to me this????

José Carlos

[quote="hucht"]I'd like to have a proof of these theorem that is the dual of Pappus' theorem

Given two distinc points U y U’, three lines p, q, r throught U (p, q, r  don’t pass by U’) and three lines p’, q’, r’ through U'  (p’, q’, r’  don’t pass by U). Also
x is the line passing by  p $\cap$ q’ and p’ $\cap$ q
y is the line passing by  q $\cap$ r’ and r $\cap$ q’
z is the line passing by r $\cap$ p’ and p $\cap$ r’
then x, y and z are concurrentes[/quote]

First, do I correctly understand that you want a proof without using duality, but just using the (standard) version of the Pappos theorem would be okay? Because, if this is the case, such a proof can be easily done.

[color=blue][b]Pappos theorem.[/b] Let P, Q, R be three collinear points, and P', Q', R' be three collinear points. Let $X=QR^{\prime}\cap RQ^{\prime}$, $Y=RP^{\prime}\cap PR^{\prime}$, $Z=PQ^{\prime}\cap QP^{\prime}$. Then, the points X, Y, Z are collinear.[/color]

[color=blue][b]Dual Pappos theorem.[/b] Let p, q, r be three concurrent lines, and p', q', r' be three concurrent lines. Let x be the line joining the points $q\cap r^{\prime}$ and $r\cap q^{\prime}$, let y be the line joining the points $r\cap p^{\prime}$ and $p\cap r^{\prime}$, let z be the line joining the points $p\cap q^{\prime}$ and $q\cap p^{\prime}$. Then, the lines x, y, z are concurrent.[/color]

[i]Proof of the dual Pappos theorem.[/i] Let A be the point of intersection of the lines p, q, r, and let A' be the point of intersection of the lines p', q', r'. Let $B=r\cap p^{\prime}$, $C=r\cap q^{\prime}$, $B^{\prime}=q\cap r^{\prime}$, $C^{\prime}=p\cap r^{\prime}$. Applying the Pappos theorem to the three collinear points A, B, C and the three collinear points A', B', C', we see that the points $BC^{\prime}\cap CB^{\prime}$, $CA^{\prime}\cap AC^{\prime}$ and $AB^{\prime}\cap BA^{\prime}$ are collinear. In other words, the point $BC^{\prime}\cap CB^{\prime}$ lies on the line joining the points $CA^{\prime}\cap AC^{\prime}$ and $AB^{\prime}\cap BA^{\prime}$.

Now, the line BC' is the line joining the points $B=r\cap p^{\prime}$ and $C^{\prime}=p\cap r^{\prime}$ and thus coincides with the line y; similarly, the line CB' is the line x. Also, $CA^{\prime}\cap AC^{\prime}=p\cap q^{\prime}$ and $AB^{\prime}\cap BA^{\prime}=q\cap p^{\prime}$. Hence, this becomes: The point $y\cap x$ lies on the line joining the points $p\cap q^{\prime}$ and $q\cap p^{\prime}$, i. e. on the line z. In other words, the lines x, y, z are concurrent. The dual Pappus theorem is thus proven.

[quote="hucht"]Also I'd like to anybody tell me why is it one of the 5 axioms of the duality (I took these from Coexter "Introduction to Geometry"... In fact I don't know if it's the name of the book but I supposed thta because in spanish the name is "Introduccion a la Geometria")[/quote]

As for the book, it is indeed called [url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471504580/103-5864747-5401438?v=glance&n=283155]"Introduction to Geometry"[/url]. As for the axiom aspect, you don't need to worry about that: from the viewpoint of the standard Euclidean geometry, the Pappos theorem is a theorem like any other theorem, surely not an axiom. It actually can be used as an axiom if you are doing geometry on planes different from the usual Euclidean plane, mostly incidence geometries.

  Darij

Thank you but What happen if I want to develop duality??... I thought that I can prove the theorems and their duals and that's all... Is it correct?

I develop Geometry using 26 axioms (I thought that it was a good idea to develop metric and projective geometry using those 26 axioms like GEOMETRY by Moise - I add an axiom to order develop Revolution Solids)

So... Am I correct???

Thanks a lot

José Carlos

In projective geometry, the dual of every axiom (there are 5-10 of them, not 20) is an axiom, so dualizing every statement in a proof gives a proof of the dual theorem.

In Euclidean geometry, which properly developed has some 20 axioms, the principle of duality is the theorem that polarization with respect to a conic (a circle will suffice) preserves incidence.  This is equivalent to Pascal's theorem or one of its specializations.

In neither case is it necessary to prove separately the dual of any given projective theorem.

So do you mean that if I develop duality... the only one tools that I will use is polarity? I had thoungh that it was sufficient but I was no sure...

These are my axioms.

1. To each pair of points correspond a only positive number.

2. We can establish a correspondence between the points of a line and real numbers such that:
     - To each number corresponde a only real number
     - To each real number correspond a only point of the line.
     - The distance between two any points is the absolute value of the diference between these number

3. Given two points P and Q of a line, we can choose the cordinate system such that the corrdinate of P is 0 and the corrdinate of Q is positive.

4. Given any two points, then there's just a line that contains these.

5.
      - all plane contains al least three non-collinear points
      - The space contains al leaste four points non-coplanar

6. If two points of a line are in a plane, then the line is in the plane.

7. Any three points are in al least a plane and three ponits non-collinear are in a plane.

8. Two intersecting planes have as intersection a line

9. Given a line and a plane containing this line. The points of the plane that don't are in the line determine two sets such that:
      - the two sets are convex.
      - If P are in one of these sets and Q in the other, then PQ intersect the line

10. The points of the space that don't are in a given plane determine two sets such that
      - Each one of these sets are convex
      - If P are in one of these sets and Q in the other, then PQ intersect the plane.

11. To each angle correspond a teal number between 0 and 180.

12. Le AB be a ray of the arist of the semi-plane H. To each number r between 0 and 180 there's exactly a ray AP, with P in H sucha that m<PAB=r

13. If D is inside <BAC, then m<BAC=m<BAD+m<DAC.

14. If two angles form a linear pair, then their sum is 180.

15. All correpondence SAS is a congruence.

16. All correpondence ASA is a congruence.

17. All correpondence SSS is a congruence.

18. Thought a extern given point then there's just a line parallel to a given line.

19. To all poligonal region correspond a only positive number.

20. If two triangles are congruente, then their triangular region determine by them have the same area.

21. let's suppose that R is the union of two regions R1 and R2. Let's suppose that R1 and R2 intersect in at most in a finite number of lines and points. Then [R]=[R1]+[R2]

22. The area of a square region P with l as side is [P]=l^2

23. the volume of a rectangular paralelepipedo is the product of its height and the area of its base.

24. Principle of Cavalieri (I prefer don't write this because my english is not very good  :blush: - I know that it's a theorem but you know I can not proof this theorem without use integrals)

25. The gravity center of a segment is it's middlepoint.

26. If a region have a simetric axis then its gravity center is in this axis.

These are my axioms. Could anybody give me an opinion???

thanks a lot.

PS. I also define the infinite points.
PS2. I also proof the cavaliere planar case
PS3. Does anybody know how to prove the Cavalieri's principle using limits?? (I think I got a proff but I'm not sure...  :( )

José Carlos


modular arithmetic
number theory proposed
number theory

[quote="aviateurpilot"]$ \varphi(n)\mid n$ iff $ \prod_{p\mid n}(p-1)\mid \prod_{p\mid n}p$. We take $ m_{n}=|\{p\mbox{ primes}: p\mid n, p \neq 2\}|$. If $ 2 \nmid n$: $ \prod_{p\mid n}(p-1)\mid \prod_{p|n}p$. So $ 2^{m_{n}}\mid \prod_{p\mid n}p$. Then $ m_{n}=0\;\Longrightarrow n = p$ prime $ >2$. [Then] $ \varphi(n)\mid n$ gives $ n=3$[/quote]
But actually $ \varphi(3) = 2$ and $ 2 \nmid 3$.

[quote="aviateurpilot"]if $ 2\mid n$: $ \prod_{p\mid n; p \neq 2}(p-1) \mid 2 \prod_{p\mid n; p \neq 2}p$, so $ 2^{m_{n}}\mid 2 \prod_{p\mid n;p\neq 2}p$. Then $ m_{n}=1$ or $ 0$. So $ n=2^{h}p$ ($ p$ prime $ >2$) or $ n=2^{h}$, and we have if $ n=2^{h}$: $ \varphi(n)\mid n$ and if $ n=2^{h}p$:  $ \varphi(n)=2^{h-1}(p-1) \mid n=2^{h}p$ iff $ p=3$. So $ n=2^{m}$ or $ n=2^{m}3$.[/quote]
As a fact, $ \varphi(2^{a}3^{b}) \mid 2^{a}3^{b}$, for any $ a,b \in \mathbb{N}$. So I think there's more work to do before posting a complete answer. :maybe:

sorry , I did this fault because I writes derectement on mathlinks without sheet  :oops: , sorry but it is the idea which gives the solution, I have find that $ 2|n$ and $ \{p\ primes: \ p\neq 2,p|n\}=\{3\}$ but I have write $ n=3.2^{a}$ in the place then $ n=3^{b}.2^{a}, (a>0,b\ge 0)$ I made a fault in an obvious implication and thus in what continuation, but my solution gives $ n=3^{b}.2^{a}$ and then we have just to see $ n|\sigma_{k}(n)=\frac{(3^{k(b+1)}-1)(2^{k(a+1)}-1)}{2}$ :wink:

[quote="aviateurpilot"]sorry, [...] I made a fault in an obvious implication and thus in what continuation, but my solution gives $ n=3^{b}.2^{a}$ and then we have just to see $ n \mid\sigma_{k}(n)=\frac{(3^{k(b+1)}-1)(2^{k(a+1)}-1)}{2}$ :wink:[/quote]
No, this is still wrong. In fact, $ \sigma_{k}(n) = \frac{2^{(a+1)k}-1}{2^{k}-1}\cdot \frac{3^{(b+1)k}-1}{3^{k}-1}$, whenever $ n = 2^{a}\cdot 3^{b}$, with $ a, b \in \mathbb{N}_{0}$. At least, it's right that $ n\in\mathbb{N}$ is divisible by $ \phi(n)$ iff either $ n = 1$ or $ n = 2^{a}\cdot 3^{b}$, with $ (a,b) \in \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}_{0}$. So we got a new starting point. :wink:

[quote="s.tringali"]As usual, let $ \mathbb{N}= \{1, 2, \ldots\}$ and $ \mathbb{N}_{0}= \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}$. Then find any couple $ (n,k) \in \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}_{0}$ such that $ \phi(n) \mid n$ and $ n \mid \sigma_{k}(n)$, where $ \phi(n) = |\{a \in \mathbb{N}: a \le n\;\wedge\;\gcd(a,n) = 1\}|$ and $ \sigma_{k}(n) = \sum_{i = 1}^{r}d_{i}^{k}$, provided that $ d_{1}, d_{2}, \ldots, d_{r}\in \mathbb{N}$ are the (pairwise distinct) divisors of $ n$.[/quote]

You might want to reword this?  $ (n,k)=(6,a)$ satisfies your inquiry where $ a$ is any odd integer.
Maybe you could ask for all $ (n,k)$ such that  $ \phi(n) \mid n$ and $ n \mid \sigma_{k}(n)$ which should not be too hard when looking at $ n/\phi(n)$.

[quote="s.tringali"][quote="baz"]
$ (n,k)=(6,a)$ satisfies your inquiry where $ a$ is any odd integer.[/quote]
Yes, that's true. But actually I'm asking for a complete listing of [i]any[/i] couple $ (n,k)$ which satisfies the conditions in hand with the problem. So are you sure there are no other solutions, apart from those you've addressed? :wink:[/quote]

[b]Here are some ideas:[/b]
Find all $ (n,k)$ such that $ \phi(n) \mid n$ and $ n \mid \sigma_{k}(n)$.  I see.  :idea:   Nice problem... :)

To avoid triviality, assume $ n>1$.  Say $ n=\prod_{p\mid n}p^{a_{p}}$ where $ a_{p}$ is the integer such that $ p^{a_{p}}\mid n$ but $ p^{a_{p}+1}\nmid n$.  Observe that we want the following to be an integer:
\[ \frac{n}{\phi(n)}=\prod_{p\mid n}\frac{p}{p-1}.~~~~~(1) \]
If there are any odd primes dividing $ n$, then $ 2\mid n$ too.  Moreover, there can only be one odd prime dividing $ n$.  It is now easy to see that if $ n$ is even and has an odd prime divisor $ p$, then it must be $ p=3$.  Indeed, if $ 2p \mid n$ for some $ p>3$ then $ p-1 \nmid 2p$ which results in a contradiction.  Clearly, if $ 2\mid n$, (1) is satisfied.  So, the only possible solutions satisfying (1) are when $ n$ is of the form $ 2^{b}3^{c}$.

Now, we want the following to be an integer:
\[ \frac{\sigma_{k}(2^{b}3^{c})}{2^{b}3^{c}}= \frac{(2^{k(b+1)}-1)(3^{k(c+1)}-1)}{2^{b}3^{c}(2^{k}-1)(3^{k}-1)}~~~~(2) \]
which forces $ 2^{k(b+1)}\equiv 1 \pmod{3^{c}}$ and $ 3^{k(c+1)}\equiv 1 \pmod{2^{b}}$.  Euler's theorem asserts that
\[ k(b+1) \equiv 0 \pmod{2\cdot 3^{c-1}}\mbox{~~and~~}k(c+1)\equiv 0 \pmod{2^{b-1}}~~~~(3). \]
So, this narrows down the possibilities for $ k,b,c$.  Now, one can proceed by fixing one of the variables $ k,b,c$, and then deduce what the other two must satisfy.  Be careful, since in between (2) and (3) we multiplied through by $ 2^{k}-1$ and $ 3^{k}-1$.  (As said before, there are an infinite amount of solutions.)

[quote="baz"][...] the only possible solutions [...] are when $ n$ is of the form $ 2^{b}3^{c}$. Now, we want the following to be an integer:
\[ \frac{\sigma_{k}(2^{b}3^{c})}{2^{b}3^{c}}= \frac{(2^{k(b+1)}-1)(3^{k(c+1)}-1)}{2^{b}3^{c}(2^{k}-1)(3^{k}-1)}~~~~(2) \]
which forces $ 2^{k(b+1)}\equiv 1 \pmod{3^{c}}$ and $ 3^{k(c+1)}\equiv 1 \pmod{2^{b}}$.  Euler's theorem asserts that
\[ k(b+1) \equiv 0 \pmod{2\cdot 3^{c-1}}\mbox{~~and~~}k(c+1)\equiv 0 \pmod{2^{b-1}}~~~~(3). \]
[/quote]
Indeed, this isn't quite true: for example, whenever $ k$ is odd and $ b \ge 3$, it's $ 3^{k(c+1)}\equiv 1 \pmod{2^{b}}$ iff $ k(c+1) \equiv 0 \bmod 2^{b-2}$. Anyway your ideas are the right ones! :) Now try to conclude, though from here on going - I won't deny - it's to do just some boring case chasing.


trigonometry
inequalities unsolved
inequalities

Let [tex]a,b,c,d \in[\frac{-\pi}{2},\frac{\pi}{2}][/tex] be real numbers such that:
[tex]\sin a+\sin b+\sin c+\sin d=1[/tex]

and:
[tex]\cos 2a+\cos 2b+\cos 2c+\cos 2d\geq \frac{\ 10}{3}[/tex]
Prove that [tex]0\leq a,b,c,d \leq \frac{\pi}{6}[/tex]

Denote$x=\sin a$ and so on. Then $ \cos 2a+\cos 2b+\cos 2c+\cos 2d\geq \frac{\ 10}{3}$ is equivalento to $\frac{1}{3}\geq x^2+y^2+z^2+t^2$.
Suppose $x<0$, then $y+z+t>1$. It follows that $y^2+z^2+t^2> \frac{1}{3}$ (it is AM-QM). Contradiction. Therefore, $x,y,z,t>0$.
Suppose $x>\frac{1}{2}$, then $y^2+z^2+t^2\geq \frac{(1-x)^2}{3}$ (again AM-QM), so $x^2+y^2+z^2+t^2\geq x^2+\frac{(1-x)^2}{3}>\frac{1}{3}$ for all $x>1/2$. Contradiction.

Finally, we have $0\leq x\leq \frac{1}{2}$, i.e. $a\in [0,\pi/6]$.


Let us play THE GAME. Oh wait, I heard it is cancelled, so we will do something else.

Maybe you'd like to tell us what's in the zip file, or else I'd think it's a virus.

[quote="jonathanchou711"]this is cool! i have no idea how to make these. but i think u should improve on the format cause its not very appealing...[/quote]
It is a command line interface.

Prove that every number is contained in a pythagorean triple.

Question 1: besides 1 and 2, you mean?
Question 2: Only primitives or not?

knowing the algorithms for generating pythagorean triplets, it's pretty easy...

[quote="james4l"]Question 1: besides 1 and 2, you mean? obviously
Question 2: Only primitives or not? no.[/quote]


quadratics
number theory proposed
number theory

Suppose that $ a,b$ are positive integers for which $ A\equal{}\frac{a\plus{}1}{b}\plus{}\frac{b}{a}$ is an integer.Prove that $ A\equal{}3$.

[hide="solution"] We have $ A \equal{} \frac {a^2 \plus{} b^2 \plus{} a}{ab}$. Suppose $ A\ne{3}$ and consider the solution $ (a, b)$ with minimal $ a \plus{} b$.

Rearranging to form a quadratic in $ a$, we have
\[ a^2 \plus{} a(1 \minus{} Ab) \plus{} b^2 \equal{} 0\]
Let $ x$ be the other root of this quadratic. Then, $ x \equal{} Ab \minus{} 1 \minus{} a$, implying that $ x$ is an integer. Additionally, $ x \equal{} \frac {b^2}{a}$, implying $ x$ is positive. Thus, $ x$ is a positive integer so that $ (x, b)$ is a solution to this equation. We must have $ x\ge{a}$ so $ \frac {b^2}{a}\ge{a}$, meaning $ b\ge{a}$.

Now rearrange to form a quadratic in $ b$:
\[ b^2 \minus{} b(Aa) \plus{} a^2 \plus{} a \equal{} 0\]
Let the other root of the quadratic be $ y$. Then by the same reasoning as before, $ (a, y)$ is a solution to the equation. We must have $ y \equal{} \frac {a^2 \plus{} a}{b}$. As $ y\ge{b}$, we have $ a^2 \plus{} a\ge{b^2}$. However, $ (a \plus{} 1)^2 \equal{} a^2 \plus{} 2a \plus{} 1 > a^2 \plus{} a$, so $ b^2 < {(a \plus{} 1)^2}$, implying $ b < a \plus{} 1$.

Thus, $ a\le{b} < a \plus{} 1$, so $ a \equal{} b$. Substituting, $ A \equal{} \frac {2a^2 \plus{} a}{a^2} \equal{} 2 \plus{} \frac {1}{a}$. To be an integer, we must have $ a \equal{} 1$, which gives $ A \equal{} 3$, a contradiction.

Hence, $ A \equal{} 3$.[/hide]

$ A.a.b\equal{}a^2\plus{}a\plus{}b^2$. Therefore $ a|b$.Hence we must have that $ \dfrac{a\plus{}1}{b}$ in an integer.But $ a|b$.Therefore $ a\equal{}1$ and the result follows.

Sorry if I'm missing the obvious, but how do you know $ a|b$...?

[quote="pythag011"][quote="v235711"]$ A.a.b \equal{} a^2 \plus{} a \plus{} b^2$. Therefore $ a|b$.Hence we must have that $ \dfrac{a \plus{} 1}{b}$ in an integer.But $ a|b$.Therefore $ a \equal{} 1$ and the result follows.[/quote]

a=4 b=2 is a counterexample to a divides b[/quote]

Sorry about my dumb mistake. :(

Let $ d\equal{}(a,b),a_1\equal{}a/b,c\equal{}b/d$, then $ (a_1,c)\equal{}1$  and $ A\equal{}\frac{d(a_1^2\plus{}c^2)\plus{}a_1}{a_1c
d}.$ Therefore $ d|a_1$ and $ a_1|dc^2\to a_1|d$. It mean $ a_1\equal{}d,a\equal{}d^2,b\equal{}dc,(c,d)\equal{}1, A\equal{}\frac{d^2\plus{}1\plus{}c^2}{cd}>2$.
These question consider in these forum at least 2 times, that only $ A\equal{}3$ give solutions for Pell like equation
$ d^2\plus{}c^2\minus{}Acd\equal{}\minus{}1$, and had infinetely many solutions.


Something tells me that this problem is too familiar. I think that under different forms it was posted at least 5 times. I remember to have posted a solution, but I do not know where. Try solved problems area. I think there are also 2 solutions in Old and New inequalities.

I can see that almost every day an inequality from this book is posted. It should be a good one.

Wait a minute, this inequality is not posted from the book, it was given in a vietnamese TST. We took it and put it in the book. And by the way, the book could have been much better with some patience...

You've got all the time from the world to re-edit it, at least that's my opinion. And of course, I understood that the inequality is not [i]originaly[/i] from the book.

Indeed:
[url]http://www.mathlinks.ro/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=2735[/url]
[url]http://www.mathlinks.ro/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=3544[/url]
[url]http://www.mathlinks.ro/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=4208[/url]

Talk about a classical problem.

Let $ a,b,c>0$ and $ab+2bc+2ca \leq 12.$  Prove that $$ \frac2a+\frac2b+\frac1c \geq 3$$
Equality holds when $a=b=2,c=1.$
Let $ a,b,c>0$ and $ab+2bc+ca \leq 8.$  Prove that $$\frac2a+\frac3b+\frac3c \geq 4\sqrt{2}$$
Equality holds when $a=b=c=\sqrt{2}.$
$$ \frac1a+\frac3b+\frac3c \geq \frac{5\sqrt{15}}4$$
Equality holds when $a=\frac4{\sqrt{15}},b=c=2\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}.$

[hide=Yeah.][quote=wardtnt1234][quote=darkmaster]For $ a,b,c>0$ and $ 21ab+2bc+8ca \leq 12$ . Prove that $ \frac1a+\frac2b+\frac3c \geq \frac{15}2$.
Maybe this problem is a good wild animal for hunting.[/quote]

It's Viet Nam TST 2001[/quote][/hide]

[url=https://artofproblemsolving.com/community/c6h42401p3736440]Viet Nam TST 2001[/url]
[url=https://artofproblemsolving.com/community/c6h3544p10571]Viet Nam TST[/url]
[url=https://artofproblemsolving.com/community/c6h2735p8287]MOSP Homework 2003[/url]
[url=https://www.mathematica.gr/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=69349&sid=8301a0584bfca0eacbe615dbc89ba322]Pancyprian Selection Competition for EGMO / BMO / IMO, 2021[/url]
Let $a,b,c$ be positive real number and $24a+44b+33c\leq 1.$ Prove that
$$\frac{1}{a}+\frac{1}{b}+\frac{1}{c}\geq 30$$(Math and Youth Mag 2017)
Let $a,b,c$ be positive real number and $2a+4b+7c\leq 2abc.$ Prove that
$$a+b+c \geq \frac{15}{2}$$(China Jilin 2008)
Let $a,b,c$ be positive real number and $a+2b+3c\leq abc.$ Prove that
$$5a+22b+c \geq 48$$(SXTB,(8)2012)

[quote=sqing]Let $ a,b,c>0$ and $ab+2bc+2ca \leq 12.$  Prove that $$ \frac2a+\frac2b+\frac1c \geq 3$$
Equality holds when $a=b=2,c=1.$[/quote]


induction
function
logarithms
superior algebra
superior algebra unsolved

Let $ \delta(n)$ be the number of divisors of $ n$.  Question: what is the solutions of the equation $ \sqrt {n}\leq \delta(n)$? whether is the number of  the solutions finite?

$ \delta (n)$ is a multiplicative function.

So checking the problem for powers of primes would be a good idea to start with.
Let's try to solve $ p^{\frac {n}{2}} \le n \plus{} 1$.
If $ p \ge 5$ we have $ \sqrt {p} > 2$ and an easy induction will show that $ \sqrt {p^n} \ge \sqrt {p}\cdot n > (n \plus{} 1) \forall n \in \mathbf{N} \minus{} \{1\}$.

Its easy to check that $ p \equal{} 2,4,8,16,32,3,9$ are the only prime powers satisfying your condition.

Thus any $ n$ satisfying the condition should atleast have one of the above prime powers as its factors and no higher power of these primes.

We have these cases generated from the above prime powers.
$ A \equal{} \{2,4,8,16,32,3,9,6,18,12,36,24,72,48,144,96,188\}$ and its easy to check that these are indeed solutions.

All other $ n$ will be of the form $ n \equal{} ak$ where $ a \in A$ and $ (a,k) \equal{} 1$.
$ \delta (n) \equal{} \delta(a) \delta(m)$.

Finding all solutions might be an unpleasant numerical work but the finiteness of the solution set can be proved easily.

$ \because A$ is a finite set $ \frac {\delta(a)}{\sqrt {a}}$ is bounded (below and above).
Let the upper bound be $ M$.

We have to prove that
$ \exists P \in \mathbf{N}$ such that $ \frac {\delta (n)}{\sqrt {n}} \equal{} \frac {\delta(a)}{\sqrt {a}} \cdot \frac {\delta(m)}{\sqrt {m}}\le M \cdot \frac {\delta(m)}{\sqrt {m}} < 1 \forall n \ge P$

For any individual prime power $ p^k$ such that $ p \ge 5$, $ f(p,k) \equal{} \frac {\delta(p^k)}{\sqrt {p^k}} \equal{} \frac {k \plus{} 1}{p^{\frac {k}{2}}} \le 1$ ( as checked earlier).
$ f(p,k)$ is a decreasing sequence in $ k$ converging to 0.

We define $ F(p)$ as the smallest $ k$ for which $ f(p,k) < \frac {1}{M}$.
Also $ p_1 > p_2 \Rightarrow F(p_1) \le F(p_2)$. So the sequence $ F(p_n)$ where $ p_n$ is the $ n^{\textrm{th}}$ prime is a decreasing sequence and is thus bounded above.

Now I will give some less rigorous arguments (which can be easily given the required rigour).
Let $ n \equal{} p_1 ^{\alpha_1} \cdots p_z ^{\alpha_z}$ with $ p_1 \le p_2 \le \cdots \le p_z$.
$ n \rightarrow \infty \Rightarrow log \, n \rightarrow \infty \Rightarrow \alpha_1 log \,p_1 \plus{} \cdots \plus{} \alpha_z log \, p_z \rightarrow \infty$.
$ \Rightarrow$ either $ z \rightarrow \infty$ or some $ \alpha_i$ is arbitrarily large.
which is equivalent to saying, either $ p_z \rightarrow \infty$ or some $ \alpha_i$ is arbitrarily large.

In either case, we have that $ \exists P \frac {\delta(m)}{\sqrt {m}} < \frac {1}{M} \forall m \ge P$ having no common factors with $ 6$.
We have proved
$ \exists P' \in \mathbf{N}$ such that $ \frac {\delta (n)}{\sqrt {n}} < 1 \forall n \ge P'$

The divisor function has growth rate [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisor_function#Approximate_growth_rate]slower than any power of $ n$[/url]; it is, on "average", on the order of $ \ln n$, so the answer is clearly finite.

[quote="rulin"]Thanks, romanovodka.

You say:"...Its easy to check that  $ A \equal{} \{2,4,8,16,32,3,9\}$ are the only prime powers satisfying your condition. Thus any $ n$ satisfying the condition should atleast have one of the above prime powers as its factors and no higher power of these primes."

Maybe this is not true, for example $ n \equal{} 2\cdot 3^3, 2^2\cdot 3^3, 2^3\cdot 3^3$.

I wonder that if the largest prime divisor of $ n$ is more than $ 7$, then $ \delta (n) < \sqrt {n}$?[/quote]

Ya, I guess, I made a mistake there...
But still the no. of numbers of the form $ 2^{k_1}\cdot 3^{k_2}$ which satisfy the condition has to be finite...

Check that the function $ \frac {x \plus{} 1}{p^ \frac{x}{2}}$ is decreasing for $ p\ge 3$ in $ [1,\infty]$ and for $ p \equal{} 2$ in $ [3,\infty]$.
In any case, whenever $ n \ge 1$, we have $ \frac {\delta(2^n)}{\sqrt {2^n}} \le \frac {3}{2}$
If $ n > 1$, $ \frac {\delta(3^n)}{\sqrt {3^n}} \le 1$
If $ n \ge 1$, $ \frac {\delta(5^n)}{\sqrt {5^n}} < \frac {2}{\sqrt {5}} < 1$

And for $ n \ge 1,\frac {\delta(11^n)}{\sqrt {11^n}} < \frac {2}{\sqrt {11}} < 2/3$.

Now it is clear that if $ a$ has prime factor greater than $ 7$ and power of $ 3$ dividing it more than 1, $ \frac {\delta(a)}{\sqrt(a)} < 1$.

So, you are quite correct.
But $ n \equal{} 4 \cdot 3 \cdot 11$ is a counterexample.

If the greatest prime factor is greater than or equal to 13, then $ \delta(a) < \sqrt(a)$