# Cambridge Chat (previously New Cambridge Students Entry 2004)

Scroll to see replies

homoterror
you guys do know that fermat's little theorem is just the prime case of euler's totient theorem?

yes. I can stay not caring about it for the next 3 month.
homoterror
you guys do know that fermat's little theorem is just the prime case of euler's totient theorem?

It's also Lagrange's Theorem applied to the multiplicative group of the field of p elements

and euler's theorem is another simple application of lagrange's theorem
RichE

It's also Lagrange's Theorem applied to the multiplicative group of the field of p elements

and euler's theorem is another simple application of lagrange's theorem

Is this how mathmos do the bitching?
My willy is bigger than your willy!! (I dare not convert that to maths speak )
~Raphael~
My willy is bigger than your willy!! (I dare not convert that to maths speak )

dude...
Camford
Is this how mathmos do the bitching?

Not really - I would have been much more to the point

It's just that there was no need to mention euler's theorem really as its generality is not needed for the RSA to work
RichE
Not really - I would have been much more to the point

It's just that there was no need to mention euler's theorem really as its generality is not needed for the RSA to work

Obviously, compscis don't do as much maths as mathmos do.
Camford
dude...

I apologise
~Raphael~
My willy is bigger than your willy!! (I dare not convert that to maths speak )

I hope Willa has a go at proof by contradiction with this - perhaps with photograph evidence - and accounting for Lorentzian contraction of course
Camford
Obviously, compscis don't do as much maths as mathmos do.

...Their fatal flaw
~Raphael~
I apologise

hmmmm - why does that emoticon not exude sincerity?
RichE
I hope Willa has a go at proof by contradiction with this - perhaps with photograph evidence - and accounting for Lorentzian contraction of course

Well, he wouldn't know what to do with it. (the proof by contradiction that is )
RichE
hmmmm - why does that emoticon not exude sincerity?

Why, indeed
~Raphael~
Well, he wouldn't know what to do with it. (the proof by contradiction that is )

That's true. I guess that's the reason why he was only a pseudo-compsci.
RichE
I hope Willa has a go at proof by contradiction with this - perhaps with photograph evidence - and accounting for Lorentzian contraction of course

That's just making it worse when you trying to make it all very formal...
Camford
That's just making it worse when you trying to make it all very formal...

How can my post be worse? It didn't even mention willies?

BTW I see Scullion's been made a Knight - a right gentleman he be
RichE
How can my post be worse? It didn't even mention willies?

BTW I see Scullion's been made a Knight - a right gentleman he be

Oxbridge Master > Knight
~Raphael~
Oxbridge Master > Knight

Have you met many of either?
RichE
How can my post be worse? It didn't even mention willies?

BTW I see Scullion's been made a Knight - a right gentleman he be

Who?
RichE
Have you met many of either?

I've met knights, yes; but I was talking about prestige or gravitas, in my mind, at least