> Imagine a closed path that circumscribes a region. The area of region
> will not change in value if the length of the perimeter remains the
> constant, despite changes in its shape. The changes in perimeter shape
> are reflected in a spatial view, but the constant value of its length
> and of that of the inscribed area is not immediately obvious. The
> constant or conserved quantity of area or perimeter length, despite
> arbitrary changes in spatial deformations is the concept in Noether's
> theorem.
Consider a square with sides of length 1. The perimeter is 4, the area is 1. Consider a rectangles with long side 1.5 and short side .5. The perimiter is again 4, but the area is .75, contradicting your above assertion about area being determined by perimeter. Your characterisation of Noether's theorem is thus incorrect.
I had hoped that my private correspondence concerning the errors in your earlier "mathematical" posts might result in a retraction. Instead, we get more of the same.
My suggestion to other list-members is that they take Chuck's "mathematical" pronouncements with a large grain of salt.
-- bill