Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #360608 > unrolled thread

Fermat's Theorem and Relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  Fermat's Theorem and Relativity Charles Keyser <BuleriaChk@aol.com> - 2017-01-11 11:03 -0500
    Re: Fermat's Theorem and Relativity abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com - 2017-01-11 11:34 -0800
    Re: Fermat's Theorem and Relativity Simon Roberts <retenshun@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 20:04 -0800
    Re: Fermat's Theorem and Relativity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 20:41 -0800
      stop i.t abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com - 2017-01-12 00:04 -0800
    Re: Fermat's Theorem and Relativity Pfsszxt <Pfsszxt@aol.com> - 2017-01-12 09:12 -0600
      Re: Fermat's Theorem and Relativity richard miller <richard@microscitech.com> - 2017-01-12 10:33 -0800
        oh, blah thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-01-13 02:42 -0800
          Re: oh, blah richard miller <richard@microscitech.com> - 2017-01-13 10:50 -0800
            Re: oh, blah James Waldby <not@valid.invalid> - 2017-01-14 00:30 +0000
            kill-filers synomonous thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-01-14 08:28 -0800
              Re: kill-filers synomonous thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-01-14 08:30 -0800
              and the secondpowers of the speeds of lites abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com - 2017-01-15 18:06 -0800
                Re: and the secondpowers of the speeds of lites richard miller <richard@microscitech.com> - 2017-01-16 10:05 -0800
                  Re: and the secondpowers of the speeds of lites richard miller <richard@microscitech.com> - 2017-01-16 11:06 -0800
      Re: Fermat's Theorem and Relativity John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 10:41 -0800
        joke> abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com - 2017-01-17 11:42 -0800
          h-mmm abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com - 2017-01-20 05:15 -0800
            !NoRoM abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com - 2017-01-20 11:03 -0800
            Re: h-mmm abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com - 2017-01-23 22:16 -0800
    Re: Fermat's Theorem and Relativity John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2017-01-16 10:34 -0800
      Fermat's little theorem ... yet an other thing that j.g doesn't know, that he didn't know abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com - 2017-01-31 18:33 -0800
        Re: Fermat's little theorem ... yet an other thing that j.g doesn't know, that he didn't know "George Gabriel" <abu.cunt_face@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 18:43 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#360608 — Fermat's Theorem and Relativity

Hi, all,

IMO, the idea that Fermat's Theorem has not been proven since the 1700's is either a scam or a Jedi mind trick.

For me, the proof is obvious (almost by inspection) from the Binomial Expansion, with the understanding that the two integer are independent (a,b).

However, the deeper version is a proof by Special Relativity, where two integers (a,b) are related by scaling factors t and t' with the vectors space given by (at,bt') and so covers all possibilities of the relationship.

The complete proof is a pdf on my website (where I also examine the many other topics that are proven, from Goedel's theorem to the Pauli/Dirac equations to Wittgenstein's remarks on private languages and infinite sets (and truth tables)

Anyway, the paper is at:

www.flamencochuck.com/files/Misc/RCUCircle.pdf

I would appreciate it if someone could give it a fair reading and discuss the consequences with me...

(It is especially relevant to GTR and Quantum Field Theory, and is perhaps the foundation for "Quantum Triviality"  (Google it... :)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#360648

I'm on it; film at pi

> For me, the proof is obvious (almost by inspection) from the Binomial Expansion, with the understanding that the two integer are independent (a,b).
> 
> However, the deeper version is a proof by Special Relativity, where two integers (a,b) are related by scaling factors t and t' with the vectors space given by (at,bt') and so covers all possibilities of the relationship.
> 
> The complete proof is a pdf on my website (where I also examine the many other topics that are proven, from Goedel's theorem to the Pauli/Dirac equations to Wittgenstein's remarks on private languages and infinite sets (and truth tables)
> 
> Anyway, the paper is at:
> 
> www.flamencochuck.com/files/Misc/RCUCircle.pdf
> 
> I would appreciate it if someone could give it a fair reading and discuss the consequences with me...
> 
> (It is especially relevant to GTR and Quantum Field Theory, and is perhaps the foundation for "Quantum Triviality"  (Google it... :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360737

On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 11:10:09 AM UTC-5, Charles Keyser wrote:
> Hi, all,
> 
> IMO, the idea that Fermat's Theorem has not been proven since the 1700's is either a scam or a Jedi mind trick.
> 
> For me, the proof is obvious (almost by inspection) from the Binomial Expansion, with the understanding that the two integer are independent (a,b).
> 
> However, the deeper version is a proof by Special Relativity, where two integers (a,b) are related by scaling factors t and t' with the vectors space given by (at,bt') and so covers all possibilities of the relationship.
> 
> The complete proof is a pdf on my website (where I also examine the many other topics that are proven, from Goedel's theorem to the Pauli/Dirac equations to Wittgenstein's remarks on private languages and infinite sets (and truth tables)
> 
> Anyway, the paper is at:
> 
> www.flamencochuck.com/files/Misc/RCUCircle.pdf
> 
> I would appreciate it if someone could give it a fair reading and discuss the consequences with me...
> 
> (It is especially relevant to GTR and Quantum Field Theory, and is perhaps the foundation for "Quantum Triviality"  (Google it... :)

What a laugh. I missed this RH.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360738

On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 8:10:09 AM UTC-8, Charles Keyser wrote:
> Hi, all,
> 
> IMO, the idea that Fermat's Theorem has not been proven since the 1700's is either a scam or a Jedi mind trick.
> 
> For me, the proof is obvious (almost by inspection) from the Binomial Expansion, with the understanding that the two integer are independent (a,b).
> 
> However, the deeper version is a proof by Special Relativity, where two integers (a,b) are related by scaling factors t and t' with the vectors space given by (at,bt') and so covers all possibilities of the relationship.
> 
> The complete proof is a pdf on my website (where I also examine the many other topics that are proven, from Goedel's theorem to the Pauli/Dirac equations to Wittgenstein's remarks on private languages and infinite sets (and truth tables)
> 
> Anyway, the paper is at:
> 
> www.flamencochuck.com/files/Misc/RCUCircle.pdf
> 
> I would appreciate it if someone could give it a fair reading and discuss the consequences with me...
> 
> (It is especially relevant to GTR and Quantum Field Theory, and is perhaps the foundation for "Quantum Triviality"  (Google it... :)


About Fermat's Last Theorem, 
"a^n + b^n =/= (a + b)^n".

Because a + b =/= c, then there's not 
c^n = (a+b)^n = a^n + (middle of the 
binomial theorem) + b^n for the same 
a and b.  Because, otherwise it _would_ 
be non-zero.  You've constrained a and b 
to a + b = c, and eliminated those,
not eliminated a + b =/= c.

You'll notice otherwise you'd ruin 
all the Pythagorean triples.

I imagine you're an excellent guitarist, 
it is clear that any solution of 
c^n = a^n + b^n has a =/= b 
(for integers).



Looks like another howler.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360755 — stop i.t

just stop that ... also, quadruples

> You'll notice otherwise you'd ruin 
> all the Pythagorean triples.
> 
> I imagine you're an excellent guitarist, 
> it is clear that any solution of 
> c^n = a^n + b^n has a =/= b 
> (for integers).
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like another howler.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360806

On 1/11/2017 10:03 AM, Charles Keyser wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
> IMO, the idea that Fermat's Theorem has not been proven since the 1700's is either a scam or a

Jedi mind trick.

Where have you been. It was proved years ago. The proof is 
incomprehensible to most -and runs something like 50 pages!
It's in a published journal.

> For me, the proof is obvious (almost by inspection) from the Binomial Expansion, with the

understanding that the two integer are independent (a,b).
>
> However, the deeper version is a proof by Special Relativity, where two integers (a,b) are

HUH? What does relativity have to do with mathenatical number theory??

related by scaling factors t and t' with the vectors space given by 
(at,bt') and so covers all

possibilities of the relationship.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360836

On Thursday, 12 January 2017 15:12:42 UTC, Pfsszxt  wrote:
> 
> HUH? What does relativity have to do with mathenatical number theory??
> 

It has a lot to do with number theory, at least in Unity Root Matrix Theory 
(URMT). For example:

 http://www.urmt.org/page5.html

For those not comfortable clicking a link, see the end of this post.

URMT is an all-integer theory, it starts with the following modified 
FLT equation 0=x^n+y^n-z^n+k.x.y.z, all in integers. Simplifications
reduce it to n=2, Pythagoras. Hence my recent post

 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/8w2L6YTvrV4

That aside, note that the spacetime 'interval' in relativity is Pythagorean. That is a good start even if you don't want it in integers.

URMT's philosophy is this - don't give nature too much credit, it knows how to square and sum numbers, that's it,  that's all it needs, the symmetries comes later...


Richard Miller
http://www.urmt.org

UMRT and Relativity...

The book starts by extending URMT's mathematical methods to handle arbitrary real and complex vectors, and then proceeds to show how oscillators and Special Relativity can be formulated in the language of URMT. Among the results is the embodiment of Einstein's relativistic energy-momentum equation in a 5D formulation, with mass emergent from a scalar potential. There are also some cosmological implications stemming from a relativistic Doppler solution, notably the Hubble expansion law - all quite an achievement given URMT's origins in number theory and Diophantine equations. Additionally, using URMT's unique variational methods, a 4D formulation naturally produces a quadratic, harmonic potential, with a consequent solution for the harmonic oscillator. Other topics include Lorentz transformations and some mechanics. The book finishes by showing how these real and complex formulations can be recast in integers, i.e. a return to URMT's integer foundations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360948 — oh, blah

you reduce this equation to secondpowers ...
do you have to construct tetragona;

it would take some hypothesis about curvature of space,
to impliment the secondpower canonical scalar, but
that is not a length per se ...
other than in MinkowskilanD -- I mean, flaTLand.  SO
see if any of his many numbertheoretic results have pertinent apps
in your nouborheid
 
> FLT equation 0=x^n+y^n-z^n+k.x.y.z, all in integers. Simplifications
> reduce it to n=2, Pythagoras. Hence my recent post
> 
>  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/8w2L6YTvrV4
> 
> That aside, note that the spacetime 'interval' in relativity is Pythagorean. That is a good start even if you don't want it in integers.
> 
> URMT's philosophy is this - don't give nature too much credit, it knows how to square and sum numbers, that's it,  that's all it needs, the symmetries comes later...
> 
> 
> Richard Miller
> http://www.urmt.org
> 
> UMRT and Relativity...
> 
> The book starts by extending URMT's mathematical methods to handle arbitrary real and complex vectors, and then proceeds to show how oscillators and Special Relativity can be formulated in the language of URMT. Among the results is the embodiment of Einstein's relativistic energy-momentum equation in a 5D formulation, with mass emergent from a scalar potential. There are also some cosmological implications stemming from a relativistic Doppler solution, notably the Hubble expansion law - all quite an achievement given URMT's origins in number theory and Diophantine equations. Additionally, using URMT's unique variational methods, a 4D formulation naturally produces a quadratic, harmonic potential, with a consequent solution for the harmonic oscillator. Other topics include Lorentz transformations and some mechanics. The book finishes by showing how these real and complex formulations can be recast in integers, i.e. a return to URMT's integer foundations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361008 — Re: oh, blah

On Friday, 13 January 2017 10:42:49 UTC, thugst...@gmail.com  wrote:
> you reduce this equation to secondpowers ...
> do you have to construct tetragona;
> 

re the 'oh, blah' title

Perhaps, but it is a case of 'Blahs longa, vita brevis'.

Nice one Richie!

Insert one of them smiley characters that denotes that the poster is expressing amusement, but has no confidence that their writing can convey such humour without the addition of aforesaid smiley.

Well, it is Friday night here in the UK.

Richard Miller.
http://www.urmt.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361039 — Re: oh, blah

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:50:25 -0800, richard miller wrote:
> On Friday, 13 January 2017 10:42:49 UTC, thugst...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> you reduce this equation to secondpowers ...
>> do you have to construct tetragona;
>> 
> 
> re the 'oh, blah' title
> 
> Perhaps, but it is a case of 'Blahs longa, vita brevis'.
> 
> Nice one Richie!
> 
> Insert one of them smiley characters that denotes that the poster is expressing amusement, but has no confidence that their writing can convey such humour without the addition of aforesaid smiley.
> 
> Well, it is Friday night here in the UK.

I didn't see the post you quoted, having killfiled the poster 
after seeing nothing useful in the several of his or her posts
I looked at.  Anyhow, while there is some truth to "Blahs longa,
vita brevis", it seems to me that "Arse longa, vita brevis" is
more appropriate with regard to OP.

-- 
jiw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361104 — kill-filers synomonous

I only follow BuckyfulleR in making fun of the Greek use
of the regular tetragon, merely becasue it tiles the plane;
whereas the canonical areal mensurement is that of the unit-
area sphere; just calculate the diameter from that, and
the circumference is pi timesed

of course, Bucky was rather defecient in *mathematica*,
which is actually four subjects, one of which used
to be arithemtic, before Boole, so that
this "canon is my cannon" -- b00

> > you reduce this equation to secondpowers ...
> > do you have to construct tetragona;

> Perhaps, but it is a case of 'Blahs longa, vita brevis'.
> humour without the addition of aforesaid smiley.
> 
> Well, it is Friday night here in the u.k

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361105 — Re: kill-filers synomonous

Saturday, and I forgot to login,
after another forgot to logout -- again

> > Well, it is Friday night here in the u.k

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361312 — and the secondpowers of the speeds of lites

is it Saturday nite, nowsville

> whereas the canonical areal mensurement is that of the unit-
> area sphere; just calculate the diameter from that, and
> the circumference is pi timesed
> > Well, it is Friday night here in the u.k

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361422 — Re: and the secondpowers of the speeds of lites

On Monday, 16 January 2017 02:06:22 UTC, abu.ku...@gmail.com  wrote:
> is it Saturday nite, nowsville
> 

No, indeed, "it was a new day yesterday, but (by golly), its an old day now"

Thank-you Ian Anderson, Jethro Tull for that one.

Insert smiley.

You see, obviously there is a lot of Prog going on here what with Rush day (21/12), Ars Longa (The Nice), and now Tull.

But, wait for it..., you see URMT is considered by its author (yours truly) to be progressive mathematics. It embraces the key elements, such as lengthy expositions (book number 5, 'A Quark Flavour Model' is out now), it borrows heavily from the classics (Number Theory, Relativity, Oscillators, Fermat, Riemann, blah.), and it ignores the audience!

Bung in another smiley for good measure.

Richard Miller
http://www.urmt.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361436 — Re: and the secondpowers of the speeds of lites

On Monday, 16 January 2017 18:05:21 UTC, richard miller  wrote:
> On Monday, 16 January 2017 02:06:22 UTC, abu.ku...@gmail.com  wrote:
> > is it Saturday nite, nowsville
> > 
> 
> No, indeed, "it was a new day yesterday, but (by golly), its an old day now"
> 
> Thank-you Ian Anderson, Jethro Tull for that one.
> 
> Insert smiley.
> 
> You see, obviously there is a lot of Prog going on here what with Rush day (21/12), Ars Longa (The Nice), and now Tull.
> 
> But, wait for it..., you see URMT is considered by its author (yours truly) to be progressive mathematics. It embraces the key elements, such as lengthy expositions (book number 5, 'A Quark Flavour Model' is out now), it borrows heavily from the classics (Number Theory, Relativity, Oscillators, Fermat, Riemann, blah.), and it ignores the audience!
> 
> Bung in another smiley for good measure.
> 
> Richard Miller
> http://www.urmt.org

if at first...., try again, seems to be a communication problem

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361429

On Thursday, 12 January 2017 07:12:42 UTC-8, Pfsszxt  wrote:
> On 1/11/2017 10:03 AM, Charles Keyser wrote:
> > Hi, all,
> >
> > IMO, the idea that Fermat's Theorem has not been proven since the 1700's is either a scam or a
> 
> Jedi mind trick.
> 
> Where have you been. It was proved years ago. 

That is entirely debatable. 

> The proof is incomprehensible to most -and runs something like 50 pages!

That alone makes me doubt it. The fact that it requires set theory and the false axiom of infinity makes me doubt it even more.

I am convinced the theorem is true, but the "proof" means nothing to me.

> It's in a published journal.

So is a lot of other crap.

> 
> > For me, the proof is obvious (almost by inspection) from the Binomial Expansion, with the
> 
> understanding that the two integer are independent (a,b).
> >
> > However, the deeper version is a proof by Special Relativity, where two integers (a,b) are
> 
> HUH? What does relativity have to do with mathenatical number theory??

You are dealing with a delusional dimwit who has never accomplished anything is his life. Chuck Keyser is not even a has-been.

> 
> related by scaling factors t and t' with the vectors space given by 
> (at,bt') and so covers all
> 
> possibilities of the relationship.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#361551 — joke>

it is just necessity & sufficiency, at least insofar
as using those two words, goes;
I know of only one serious attempt
to use Fermat's method on the problem, using 2-adics

> > The proof is incomprehensible to most -and runs something like 50 pages!
> 
> That alone makes me doubt it. The fact that it requires set theory and the false axiom of infinity makes me doubt it even more.
> 
> I am convinced the theorem is true, but the "proof" means nothing to me.
> 
> > It's in a published journal.
> 
> So is a lot of other crap.
> 
> > 
> > > For me, the proof is obvious (almost by inspection) from the Binomial Expansion, with the
> > 
> > understanding that the two integer are independent (a,b).
> > >
> > > However, the deeper version is a proof by Special Relativity, where two integers (a,b) are
> > 
> > HUH? What does relativity have to do with mathenatical number theory??
> 
> You are dealing with a delusional dimwit who has never accomplished anything is his life. Chuck Keyser is not even a has-been.
> 
> > 
> > related by scaling factors t and t' with the vectors space given by 
> > (at,bt') and so covers all
> > 
> > possibilities of the relationship.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362011 — h-mmm

he did not use 2-adics, because that would only be the p.t,
of course ... if I recall the gist, but I am sure that
he really did prove it, because it was accessible to Fermatttt
-- meaning that it was certainly Fermat's pr00f,
less or more, and it was published in '976, and,
while Fermat certainly had in hand the gist of p-adics
-- so probably did Pascal and Liebniz --
he could hardly have seen their importance, then,
other than the contradiction of such problems of Diophantus et al.

also, the little b00k, vanity-pressed, was quite humorously written;
and, he had used the press, much earlier, during the Depression,
whence no publisher would be found for monsieur m.m.m

> I know of only one serious attempt
> to use Fermat's method on the problem, using 2-adics

> > I am convinced the theorem is true, but the "proof" means nothing to me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362085 — !NoRoM

he wrote, during the Depression, the first-ever layman's b00k
on aerodynamics ... would that j.g had attempted such, or
might he, at sometimelater -- mOrOn!

> whence no publisher would be found for monsieur m.m.m
> 
> > I know of only one serious attempt
> > to use Fermat's method on the problem, using 2-adics
> 
> > > I am convinced the theorem is true, but the "proof" means nothing to me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362708 — Re: h-mmm

i.e prove that the perfect box is not,
by means of 2-adics, viz parity

> whence no publisher would be found for monsieur m.m.m
> 
> > I know of only one serious attempt
> > to use Fermat's method on the problem, using 2-adics
> 
> > > I am convinced the theorem is true, but the "proof" means nothing to me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web