Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #434817 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-02-19 06:11 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-03-06 08:11 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 68 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 06:11 -0800
many case studies in a math proof is a sign of weakness and likely fakery Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 07:10 -0800
Re: many case studies in a math proof is a sign of weakness and likely fakery Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2019-02-19 15:57 +0000
how logic fruitcakes try to plug up Euler's flaw Re: many case studies in a math proof is a sign of weakness and likely fakery Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 14:02 -0800
Euler's logic fallacy-- put the cart before the horse Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 14:23 -0800
Euler's double assumptions as one in his fake FLT exp3 Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 15:16 -0800
Euler's missing case proof of three evens Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 17:48 -0800
math phd needs a logic course Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 22:00 -0800
math phd needs a logic course Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 07:11 -0800
2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 Re: math phd needs a logic course Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 08:42 -0800
Re: 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 Re: math phd needs a logic course Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 09:29 -0800
Re: 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 Re: math phd needs a logic course Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 09:56 -0800
math professors today seek fame and fortune-- not the truth of math Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 14:43 -0800
math professors today seek fame and fortune-- not the truth of math Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 21:18 -0800
math professors today seek fame and fortune-- not the truth of math Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 09:53 -0800
math professors enjoy fake math like Wiles more than they enjoy math truth Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 14:38 -0800
math professors enjoy fake math like Wiles more than they enjoy math truth Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-22 17:48 -0800
apparently Wiles choses fame and fortune, not math truth Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-22 21:57 -0800
Re: apparently Wiles choses fame and fortune, not math truth Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Bill <WhoKnows@newsguy.com> - 2019-02-23 02:22 -0500
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-23 15:28 +0000
two cases independent of each other had to be proven Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-23 12:49 -0800
Re: two cases independent of each other had to be proven Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT konyberg <konyberg@online.no> - 2019-02-23 14:35 -0800
Re: two cases independent of each other had to be proven Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-23 14:56 -0800
Re: two cases independent of each other had to be proven Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-23 22:03 -0800
case study proofs are often junky proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 00:07 -0800
Re: case study proofs are often junky proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT konyberg <konyberg@online.no> - 2019-02-24 00:46 -0800
case study proofs are often junky proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 15:32 -0800
Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-25 03:36 +0000
case study proofs are often junky proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 22:12 -0800
Re: case study proofs are often junky proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 22:24 -0800
case study proofs are often junky proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 22:24 -0800
Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-26 07:51 +0000
when math professors never take Logic in college-- it shows in their error filled fake proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 15:07 -0800
Re: when math professors never take Logic in college-- it shows in their error filled fake proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-26 23:30 +0000
Re: when math professors never take Logic in college-- it shows in their error filled fake proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 17:02 -0800
Three evens Re: when math professors never take Logic in college-- it shows in their error filled fake proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 23:47 -0800
Three evens Re: when math professors never take Logic in college-- it shows in their error filled fake proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 12:36 -0800
Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-27 21:44 +0000
Re: Three evens Re: when math professors never take Logic in college-- it shows in their error filled fake proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 13:54 -0800
Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-28 05:13 +0000
Re: Three evens Re: when math professors never take Logic in college-- it shows in their error filled fake proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 01:11 -0800
the three evens case requires proof Re: when math professors never take Logic in college-- it shows in their error filled fake proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-28 19:48 -0800
the three evens case requires proof Re: when math professors never take Logic in college-- it shows in their error filled fake proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 02:42 -0800
Re: the three evens case requires proof Re: when math professors never take Logic in college-- it shows in their error filled fake proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-01 22:11 -0800
Re: 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 Re: math phd needs a logic course Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT qbwrfmlx@gmail.com - 2019-02-20 12:19 -0800
Re: Euler's double assumptions as one in his fake FLT exp3 Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2019-02-20 09:46 +0000
Re: many case studies in a math proof is a sign of weakness and likely fakery Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Mathedman <Mathedman@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-20 12:01 -0600
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-19 16:12 +0000
STUDENTS BEWARE: AP WANTS YOU TO FAIL IN SCHOOL AND JOIN HIS SINISTER CULT Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-19 14:21 -0800
There is now an alternative to the insane asylum that sci.math has become Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-19 14:25 -0800
Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2019-02-25 10:17 +0100
Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-03-01 06:31 +0000
AP’s proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-02 13:17 -0800
Re: AP’s proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT j4n bur53 <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-03-02 14:08 -0800
Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-03-02 22:15 +0000
AP’s proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-03 00:07 -0800
One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-03 09:39 -0800
Re: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT eastside.erik@gmail.com - 2019-03-03 14:20 -0800
stalker Eastside POEM, poem corner Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-03 14:58 -0800
Re: stalker Eastside POEM, poem corner eastside.erik@gmail.com - 2019-03-03 15:10 -0800
Re: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-03 15:12 -0800
Re: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT eastside.erik@gmail.com - 2019-03-03 15:19 -0800
Re: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-03 15:34 -0800
Re: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT eastside.erik@gmail.com - 2019-03-03 15:43 -0800
Erik sickfuck Eastside says>oil & vinegar// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block,Ernest Abers,Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-03 15:53 -0800
Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-03-04 00:30 +0000
Re: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-03 15:45 -0800
need a clarity update on my 2014 proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-06 08:11 -0800
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-28 01:11 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Three evens Re: when math professors never take Logic in college-- it shows in their error filled fake proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT |
| Message-ID | <472cdf78-58ca-4345-bc14-590145c42e0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #435596 |
You see Generalized FLT has three evens as solutions and do not reduce to two odds, one even. This is why regular FLT needs to prove the case of three evens. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-28 19:48 -0800 |
| Subject | the three evens case requires proof Re: when math professors never take Logic in college-- it shows in their error filled fake proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT |
| Message-ID | <1bce03a0-02b3-454c-8fe7-c05200b2ab01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #435653 |
On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:12:03 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > You see Generalized FLT has three evens as solutions and do not reduce to two odds, one even. This is why regular FLT needs to prove the case of three evens. > AP is trying to guide those, those cripples of logic, especially math professors crippled of Logic. In the case of Generalized FLT, you have to prove two cases, that are independent of one another, the case of A,B,C are three evens, and the case where A,C are odd, B is even, two odds, one even. You cannot, ever get away with saying case of three evens is reducable to two odds and one even. No, you failed logic if you think you can dismiss three evens without a proof. Whether you prove Generalized FLT or Regular FLT, the case of three evens is a separate independent proof. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-01 02:42 -0800 |
| Subject | the three evens case requires proof Re: when math professors never take Logic in college-- it shows in their error filled fake proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT |
| Message-ID | <70ffad40-a38d-427f-b636-f4ff09981bd6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #435799 |
Easy enough mistake to fall into if you never took formal logic in college— a huge error in doling out a phd in math
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-01 22:11 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: the three evens case requires proof Re: when math professors never take Logic in college-- it shows in their error filled fake proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT |
| Message-ID | <99eeca1d-82ec-4371-96a7-8ba310d40f55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #435839 |
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 4:42:38 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Easy enough mistake to fall into if you never took formal logic in college— a huge error in doling out a phd in math I think the reasoning here is that "assume all people in the math career stream in college" already have a logical mind and no need to force them to take logic in college. But the trouble with that assumption is we have fruitcakes of math proofs such as Appel&Haken, Wiles, Hales, Tao, who still to this day accept and believe a ellipse is a conic in face of a AP proof (see below). And who can never understand that you need to prove case of three evens separate from case of 2 odds, 1 even. Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by Archimedes Plutonium -------------------- AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works Let us analyze AP's Proof On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic section = Oval, never ellipse Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the best of all. That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you lose clarity. ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse:: E __ .-' `-. .' `. / \ ; ; | G c | H ; ; \ / `. .' `-. _____ .-' F Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry. The side view of a cylinder is this | | | | | | That allows cE to be the same distance as cF But the side view of the cone is /\E /c \ F / \ The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c. Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of cylinder | | | | E | | | | |x c |x | | | | | | |F | | | | | | | So we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of EF. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry. So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse:: A ,'" "`. / \ C | c | D \ / ` . ___ .' B The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line). What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD. Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder, only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments- are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB, leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD. / \A x/ c \x B/ \ Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse. QED --Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | qbwrfmlx@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-20 12:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 Re: math phd needs a logic course Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT |
| Message-ID | <b408ba20-8d00-4b57-980b-a4ca2e0f25e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #434937 |
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 9:29:55 AM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > It is rather a puzzle. Anyone serious about FLT, how they shy away from Generalized FLT, they shove it off into the corner and pretend as if Generalized FLT is some silly remote object. Archie does have a point in this thread which does not seem to have been made. All this will be obvious to everyone except Archie. The definition of a proof is that which is written at a level of detail which is just sufficient to convince the reader while not exceeding the reader's skill level or patience or attention span. In the proof that Archie quotes, he fixates on the case where A, B, C share a common factor of 2, apparently because he sees the phrase One of the three must be even, whereas the other two are odd and believes that this invalidates the proof because this case was not explicitly handled. Fine. Proofs have to be written at a far lower level to convince Archie, but still be simple enough that they don't lose him. The definition of refuting a proof is to point out a specific step in a proof which is in error, precisely describe that error and give a specific correction, which Archie attempts to do in this specific example. Good. Just as an aside, Archie doesn't seem to see or understand the phrase x, y, and z are pairwise coprime in the proof that he quotes, but that is a whole different issue. But this sword requiring that a proof convince the reader cuts both ways. Archie has never in his life appeared to produce a single one of his claimed "proofs" that has convinced a single other person in the world that Archie's claim is correct. Yes, Archie has mastered the art of pasting exactly the same text thousands of times which has convinced him that the intersection of a plane and a cone is an "oval" or that sine waves are not actually sinusoids, but are actually semicircles, or that he has proven FLT and beyond by "comglomerating." But those are not proofs by definition *because they have convinced nobody else in the world* except Archie. I did post one attempt to follow along Archie's "oval" proof. He says that any intersection of an cone and plane which is not a point, circle, line, parabola or hyperbola results in an "oval." So I gave simple equations for specific satisfactory cone and plane. He then claims there is not a second plane of symmetry. I used algebra to demonstrate there is a second plane of symmetry. Archie very carefully avoided having anything to do with that post and continued screeching insults because nobody believes him or his "proofs." I believe that Archie's intuition about the symmetry of the intersection of a plane and a cylinder was incorrectly extrapolated to the intersection of the plane and cone and that the end points of the intersection do not lie where Archie imagines they do because he cannot see the intersection with his paper cone and jar lid and that this is the basis for Archie's incorrect conclusion that the intersection of a cone and plane is not an ellipse, but an oval. But it is unclear whether anything could convince Archie's that any of claimed "proofs" are wrong. More on that in a moment. And I did make one post demonstrating that sin giving opposite over hypotenuse, which Archie accepts, and sin being a semicircle can be simply shown to be contradictory. Archie very carefully avoided having anything to do with that post and continued screeching insults because nobody believes him or his "proofs." Archie did make a post where he stated that once he had made a claim, any claim, a handful of times that he understood that once his dog brain got his teeth into something that he could just not give it up, that even when he knew the claim was wrong, that even when he knew that the claim made him look stupid, that he realized that he just could not give it up (his words). That shows a bit of self understanding on Archie's part which I would never have expected. A few hours later he realized what he had admitted and he deleted that post. Archie has the energy, he has the compulsion to discover everything for himself. Archie might possibly have been a candidate for being trained in the Moore method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_method The only thing that Archie demonstrates he lacks to be able to do that is the ability to use his logic brain to root right down to the bottom and discover and correct the unending stream of huge horrible error filled mistakes that he has made. Archie Plutonium who will forever be known as the mentally ill crank and who will never convince a single other person of a single one of his "proofs" is correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-20 09:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Euler's double assumptions as one in his fake FLT exp3 Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT |
| Message-ID | <q4j7ko$2ecd$2@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #434855 |
Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 4:23:57 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium > wrote: >> > On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:58:01 AM UTC-6, a German logic >> > fruitcake wrote: >> > > it would be almost insulting to belabour it explicitly. If there >> > > were a solution of that equation in even numbers, there would be a >> > > smaller solution with odd numbers. Just divide A, B, C by the >> > > highest power of 2 present in all of them. > Now there is another way of describing the logical fallacy used by > Euler and all the math professors after Euler. It is a lesson in logic > that we learned in Symbolic Logic, but no math professor these days, > sadly is required to take Logic in education and it shows on something > like Euler's FLT exp3. There is no logical fallacy here. >> You see the logical error of the above German fruitcake? Can we >> characterize what that logical fallacy is that he is pushing? I think >> we can. No, you can't. >> There is a logic fallacy which I cannot remember its name, its given >> name, but it is pictorially represented by a picture that is >> unforgettable. It is called "putting the Cart, before the horse". And >> of course, the cart has to be behind the horse in order for the horse >> to pull the cart, for the horse is surely not going to push the cart >> forward. >> So, the above German clown of math thinks that a solution that is all >> even-- A,B,C must reduce to two odds and one even. So, the clown >> assumes they are a solution and then pushes the cart forward by the >> horse to say A,C are odd and B is even. >> Even the great Euler messed up on this logic and fell for the logical >> fallacy. At the outset, Euler had two cases independent of one another >> that had to be proven, either A,C are odd and B even, or, >> independently, A,B,C all three evens. Just do the maths, Archie, instead of sounding off stupidly. Suppose A^3 + B^3 = C^3, and A, B, C are all even. Then we have A = 2D, B = 2E, C = 2F. So (2D)^3 + (2E)^3 = (2F)^3, 8D^3 + 8E^3 = 8F^3. Divide through by 8: D^3 + E^3 = F^3. D, E and F are smaller numbers than A, B, C. If D, E, F are all even, we can produce yet smaller numbers which satisfy the equation in the same way. Eventually we will end up with two odd numbers and one even. > The Fallacy above is that Euler needed to prove two cases-- two odds > with one even and that of all three evens. Those two cases were > independent and each needed a proof itself, not where one case engulfs > the other case. These two cases are not independent, as I have shown above. > So the start of the proof is Two Cases -- two odds with one even and > the other case of all three evens. > What Euler did was give a valid proof of the case two odds with one > even. But then Euler used that first case to make a mess of the second > case by simply saying if true, then those three evens reduce to two > odds with one even. Of course. There was no "mess" made. The proof is valid. Look at it another way. The proof has been studied by mathematicians and students for well over a hundred years. If there had been some flaw in it, it would have been pointed out by now and published in a maths journal. This hasn't happened. [ .... ] > Euler only proved that two odds one even cannot have a solution in FLT > exp3, but Euler failed to prove three evens has no solution in FLT > exp3. As shown, this is not true. > AP -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mathedman <Mathedman@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-20 12:01 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: many case studies in a math proof is a sign of weakness and likely fakery Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT |
| Message-ID | <3e640774-e744-aa2d-c7d9-a23535df78e9@hotmail.com> |
| In reply to | #434825 |
On 2/19/2019 9:10 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Alright, I do not like to keep readers in suspense, and having had some time contemplating what the error was of Euler that his exp3 alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was no proof at all, but a fakery. I have seen some authors able to write a answer upside down in these newsgroups. The way some newspapers write the answer upside down. Afraid I cannot do that, so the answer is below. > > > On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 8:11:08 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >> Euler’s fake proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem is easy to spot provided you have a logical mind. >> >> FLT is A^3 + B^3 = C^3 >> >> Now let us plug in A=8, B=8 and we have 512+512=1024 and we see that 10^3 misses it by just 24. >> >> Now Wikipedia gives details of Euler’s error filled fake proof and i ask the reader to see if they can spot the grave error of Euler and why he has no proof at all. Let me provide two hints for Euler’s error is in the first paragraph of Wikipedia’s below, and the second hint is my example of 8^3 + 8^3 almost = 10^3. Reader, see if you are smarter logic wise than Euler. >> >> Quoting Wikipedia’s fake Euler proof: >> >> As Fermat did for the case n = 4, Euler used the technique of infinite descent.[50] The proof assumes a solution (x, y, z) to the equation x3 + y3 + z3 = 0, where the three non-zero integers x, y, and z are pairwise coprime and not all positive. One of the three must be even, whereas the other two are odd. Without loss of generality, z may be assumed to be even. >> >> Since x and y are both odd, they cannot be equal. If x = y, then 2x3 = −z3, which implies that x is even, a contradiction. >> >> Since x and y are both odd, their sum and difference are both even numbers >> >> 2u = x + y >> 2v = x − y >> where the non-zero integers u and v are coprime and have different parity (one is even, the other odd). Since x = u + v and y = u − v, it follows that >> >> −z3 = (u + v)3 + (u − v)3 = 2u(u2 + 3v2) >> Since u and v have opposite parity, u2 + 3v2 is always an odd number. Therefore, since z is even, u is even and v is odd. Since u and v are coprime, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u2 + 3v2 is either 1 (case A) or 3 (case B). >> >> Proof for Case A >> Edit >> In this case, the two factors of −z3 are coprime. This implies that three does not divide u and that the two factors are cubes of two smaller numbers, r and s >> >> 2u = r3 >> u2 + 3v2 = s3 >> Since u2 + 3v2 is odd, so is s. A crucial lemma shows that if s is odd and if it satisfies an equation s3 = u2 + 3v2, then it can be written in terms of two coprime integers e and f >> >> s = e2 + 3f2 >> so that >> >> u = e ( e2 − 9f2) >> v = 3f ( e2 − f2) >> Since u is even and v odd, then e is even and f is odd. Since >> >> r3 = 2u = 2e (e − 3f)(e + 3f) >> The factors 2e, (e–3f ), and (e+3f ) are coprime since 3 cannot divide e: If e were divisible by 3, then 3 would divide u, violating the designation of u and v as coprime. Since the three factors on the right-hand side are coprime, they must individually equal cubes of smaller integers >> >> −2e = k3 >> e − 3f = l3 >> e + 3f = m3 >> which yields a smaller solution k3 + l3 + m3= 0. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution (x, y, z) was impossible. >> >> Proof for Case B >> Edit >> In this case, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u2 + 3v2 is 3. That implies that 3 divides u, and one may express u = 3w in terms of a smaller integer, w. Since u is divisible by 4, so is w; hence, w is also even. Since u and v are coprime, so are v and w. Therefore, neither 3 nor 4 divide v. >> >> Substituting u by w in the equation for z3 yields >> >> −z3 = 6w(9w2 + 3v2) = 18w(3w2 + v2) >> Because v and w are coprime, and because 3 does not divide v, then 18w and 3w2 + v2 are also coprime. Therefore, since their product is a cube, they are each the cube of smaller integers, r and s >> >> 18w = r3 >> 3w2 + v2 = s3 >> By the lemma above, since s is odd and its cube is equal to a number of the form 3w2 + v2, it too can be expressed in terms of smaller coprime numbers, e and f. >> >> s = e2 + 3f2 >> A short calculation shows that >> >> v = e (e2 − 9f2) >> w = 3f (e2 − f2) >> Thus, e is odd and f is even, because v is odd. The expression for 18w then becomes >> >> r3 = 18w = 54f (e2 − f2) = 54f (e + f) (e − f) = 33×2f (e + f) (e − f). >> Since 33 divides r3 we have that 3 divides r, so (r /3)3 is an integer that equals 2f (e + f) (e − f). Since e and f are coprime, so are the three factors 2e, e+f, and e−f; therefore, they are each the cube of smaller integers, k, l, and m. >> >> −2e = k3 >> e + f = l3 >> e − f = m3 >> which yields a smaller solution k3 + l3 + m3= 0. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution (x, y, z) was impossible. > > AP writes why Euler had no exp3 proof of FLT: Well, some of the world's ugliest proofs of mathematics are alleged proofs that are many case-studies long. I am not saying that every long case study proof of math is a fakery. But when you have a proof that is 5, or 10 or 15 or 20 individual cases you plow through, is not a math proof of much value. Good valid math proofs have only one case study. When you run into a mathematician with a case study math proof, one is tempted to ask that person-- prove within your proof that your 5 cases covers all of what you are trying to prove. In other words, a proof inside a proof that you covered everything required. And a case study proof is not a signal of strong math and logic abilities of the author but rather a sign and signal the author is weak, very weak in math and the subject he/she is trying to prove. We have many examples of alleged math proofs that are long case studies-- Appel&Haken in 4 Color Mapping, Wiles in FLT, Hales on Kepler Packing. Long, tiresome, boring, case studies which in school we called -- not proofs, but rather "hornswaggles" and fakeries. > > Did you spot the huge error of Euler? Well, I did give a hint with 8^3 + 8^3 almost equals 10^3. Notice that the A,B,C are all three even numbers. Euler presumed that one of A,B,C was even while the two others are odd. Euler does have a valid proof that two odds and one even of A,B,C cannot have a solution to A^3 +B^3= C^3, but, Euler forgot completely that he needed to prove the case that A,B,C all three of them even numbers cannot be a solution. Completely forgot he needed to prove A,B,C all even cannot satisfy A^3 + B^3 = C^3. And that is the huge problem of Euler's offering for since he cannot prove all evens is no solution, Euler never proved exp3 has no solutions. So, no-one in the past ever proved exp3 of Fermat's Last Theorem. This is really ancient history. It has been known for decades! Since then, as the knowledgeable people here have long known, the theorem was proved and the proof published. th
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-19 16:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <q4h9st$7nn$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #434817 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >Subject: Re: Moroney & Shein Boston show Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole >Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages Again?? Plutonium failed all over the place again! Who has been feeding Plutonium Taco Bell Extra Beany Burritos laced with Ex-Lax?? Stop it! >12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon >by Archimedes Plutonium It's back!! The 12 Failures of Plutonium!! 12 claims the electron is the short-lived muon, and every single one of them is wrong! How could Plutonium fail so much?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-19 14:21 -0800 |
| Subject | STUDENTS BEWARE: AP WANTS YOU TO FAIL IN SCHOOL AND JOIN HIS SINISTER CULT |
| Message-ID | <d9eec7f0-bee4-4d19-9d30-e28224bb507b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #434817 |
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:11:08 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Euler’s fake proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem is easy to spot provided you have a logical mind. > What do you know about logic, Archie Pu? You still can't tell AND from OR! (See below.) AP's fake math designed to promote failure “The last and largest finite number is 10^604.” --June 3, 2015 “0 appears to be the last and largest finite number” --June 9, 2015 “0/0 must be equal to 1.” -- June 9, 2015 “0 is an infinite irrational number.” --June 28, 2015 “No negative numbers exist.” --December 22, 2018 AP fails the simplest possible math test scoring 0/4 in the following: 1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? __________ (Ans: 0.707) 2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 __________ (Ans: False) 3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is __________ (Ans: False) 4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is __________ (Ans: True) AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in US schools: "Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]" --November 9, 2017 AP's Sinister Atom God cult “The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.” --April 4, 1994 “Since God-Pu is marching on. Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium! Its truth is marching on. It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat; It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat; Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet! Our God-Pu is marching on.” --December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium) Dan Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-19 14:25 -0800 |
| Subject | There is now an alternative to the insane asylum that sci.math has become |
| Message-ID | <89853258-e0d8-4162-93fe-a14b547520cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #434845 |
Dear reader, Are you fed up with trolls like this idiot AP and his endless, repetitive torrents of abuse and misinformation? Join me at a new, lightly moderated math forum at Google Groups. Its open format promises to be a troll-free zone for serious discussions of mathematical topics at all levels. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sci-math-moderated All can visit and read. Dan Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-25 10:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <q50bqh$8os$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #434817 |
AP brain farto says: I am usually doing infantile worthless math posts here. So why post then? Archimedes Plutonium schrieb: > Euler’s fake proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem is easy to spot provided you have a logical mind. > > FLT is A^3 + B^3 = C^3 > > Now let us plug in A=8, B=8 and we have 512+512=1024 and we see that 10^3 misses it by just 24. > > Now Wikipedia gives details of Euler’s error filled fake proof and i ask the reader to see if they can spot the grave error of Euler and why he has no proof at all. Let me provide two hints for Euler’s error is in the first paragraph of Wikipedia’s below, and the second hint is my example of 8^3 + 8^3 almost = 10^3. Reader, see if you are smarter logic wise than Euler. > > Quoting Wikipedia’s fake Euler proof: > > As Fermat did for the case n = 4, Euler used the technique of infinite descent.[50] The proof assumes a solution (x, y, z) to the equation x3 + y3 + z3 = 0, where the three non-zero integers x, y, and z are pairwise coprime and not all positive. One of the three must be even, whereas the other two are odd. Without loss of generality, z may be assumed to be even. > > Since x and y are both odd, they cannot be equal. If x = y, then 2x3 = −z3, which implies that x is even, a contradiction. > > Since x and y are both odd, their sum and difference are both even numbers > > 2u = x + y > 2v = x − y > where the non-zero integers u and v are coprime and have different parity (one is even, the other odd). Since x = u + v and y = u − v, it follows that > > −z3 = (u + v)3 + (u − v)3 = 2u(u2 + 3v2) > Since u and v have opposite parity, u2 + 3v2 is always an odd number. Therefore, since z is even, u is even and v is odd. Since u and v are coprime, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u2 + 3v2 is either 1 (case A) or 3 (case B). > > Proof for Case A > Edit > In this case, the two factors of −z3 are coprime. This implies that three does not divide u and that the two factors are cubes of two smaller numbers, r and s > > 2u = r3 > u2 + 3v2 = s3 > Since u2 + 3v2 is odd, so is s. A crucial lemma shows that if s is odd and if it satisfies an equation s3 = u2 + 3v2, then it can be written in terms of two coprime integers e and f > > s = e2 + 3f2 > so that > > u = e ( e2 − 9f2) > v = 3f ( e2 − f2) > Since u is even and v odd, then e is even and f is odd. Since > > r3 = 2u = 2e (e − 3f)(e + 3f) > The factors 2e, (e–3f ), and (e+3f ) are coprime since 3 cannot divide e: If e were divisible by 3, then 3 would divide u, violating the designation of u and v as coprime. Since the three factors on the right-hand side are coprime, they must individually equal cubes of smaller integers > > −2e = k3 > e − 3f = l3 > e + 3f = m3 > which yields a smaller solution k3 + l3 + m3= 0. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution (x, y, z) was impossible. > > Proof for Case B > Edit > In this case, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u2 + 3v2 is 3. That implies that 3 divides u, and one may express u = 3w in terms of a smaller integer, w. Since u is divisible by 4, so is w; hence, w is also even. Since u and v are coprime, so are v and w. Therefore, neither 3 nor 4 divide v. > > Substituting u by w in the equation for z3 yields > > −z3 = 6w(9w2 + 3v2) = 18w(3w2 + v2) > Because v and w are coprime, and because 3 does not divide v, then 18w and 3w2 + v2 are also coprime. Therefore, since their product is a cube, they are each the cube of smaller integers, r and s > > 18w = r3 > 3w2 + v2 = s3 > By the lemma above, since s is odd and its cube is equal to a number of the form 3w2 + v2, it too can be expressed in terms of smaller coprime numbers, e and f. > > s = e2 + 3f2 > A short calculation shows that > > v = e (e2 − 9f2) > w = 3f (e2 − f2) > Thus, e is odd and f is even, because v is odd. The expression for 18w then becomes > > r3 = 18w = 54f (e2 − f2) = 54f (e + f) (e − f) = 33×2f (e + f) (e − f). > Since 33 divides r3 we have that 3 divides r, so (r /3)3 is an integer that equals 2f (e + f) (e − f). Since e and f are coprime, so are the three factors 2e, e+f, and e−f; therefore, they are each the cube of smaller integers, k, l, and m. > > −2e = k3 > e + f = l3 > e − f = m3 > which yields a smaller solution k3 + l3 + m3= 0. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution (x, y, z) was impossible. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-01 06:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <q5ajk5$g2g$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #434817 |
AlzheimerPlutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science: >In the case of Generalized FLT, you have to prove two cases, that are >independent of one another, the case of A,B,C are three evens, and the >case where A,C are odd, B is even, two odds, one even. Why is AlzheimerPlutonium such a cripple of logic that he can't even understand that you just have to divide by two to get a new pronlem? How did he ever catch verbal cholera so that he spews so much failure here? I'll help him out a little. Here is a wheelchair for his logic crippled brain. 🧠 ♿ x-no-archive: yes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-02 13:17 -0800 |
| Subject | AP’s proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT |
| Message-ID | <ec295418-4b4a-47db-b15e-f1f9a0f7e17a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #434817 |
AP PROOF OF BOTH GENERALIZED FLT AND REGULAR FLT
My history of this proof below began 2014
Generalized FLT date of discovery 2014
by Archimedes Plutonium
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 02:32:14 -0800 (PST)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=166.137.110.8;
posting-account=fsC03QkAAAAwkSNcSEKmlcR-W_HNitEd
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.137.110.8
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0930d831-785f-4440-bf56-132cc17c5707@googlegroups.com>
Subject: taking on both FLT and (sic) Generalized FLT in one proof; using Condensed Rectangles
#1388 Correcting Math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 10:32:14 +0000
My proof of FLT turned out not to be easy for High School. Easy for College mid level, not High School.
For the umpteenth time below is my FLT
Well the sci.math has a complete history of my adventures with Fermat's Last Theorem starting with August 1993, and developing many twists and turns. Several times I had to throw out my prior attempts.
What emerged was decades later, a final true proof of FLT. It has one huge starting surprise to it. Hugely Startling Surprise. The surprise is that a class of math proofs cannot be proven until a "more general theorem that overlays the "lesser theorem tucked away inside" the more general theorem is proven FIRST"
So that-- there never exists a proof of FLT until you first prove true the Generalized FLT
What is Generalized FLT? Glad you asked, for it is:
A^x + B^y = C^z where A,B,C,x,y,z are positive integers with x,y,z greater than 2
FLT is of course
A^n + B^n = C^n where A,B,C, n are positive integers and n is greater than 2
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Proof of Generalized FLT & Fermat's Last Theorem #178 Correcting Math 4th ed
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 20:38:49 +0000
Proof of Generalized FLT & Fermat's Last Theorem #178 Correcting Math 4th ed
PROOFS of Generalized FLT & FERMAT's LAST THEOREM as corollary
Editing and commentary corner: Once Generalized FLT and FLT are turned into a geometrical perspective-- condensed rectangles, then the proof is as easy as making homemade cherry pie. And the importance of proving Generalized FLT first is that FLT never has a proof until Generalized FLT is proven first.
Summary of text: Both proofs of Generalized FLT and FLT are based on a fact of geometry, that you can represent a number with its cofactors as the sides of a rectangle. And to prove either Generalized FLT or FLT is a simple matter of stacking two rectangles that have equal sides, A and B to produce a third rectangle C which has a side equalling the _shared side_ of A and B.
TEXT:
I decided I needed to stiffen up the proof of Generalized FLT below. To a logical person, they often streamline their proofs and do not bother with adding some information which people not used to logic have a difficult time in seeing. For me, it is redundant to include the distributive law into the proof of Generalized FLT, but to those who do not do math but only on occasion, they would not see the logic unless I explain those very details. So below is a more stiffened up proof of Generalized FLT.
Proof of the Generalized FLT conjecture that proves Fermat's Last Theorem
What is Generalized FLT? Glad you asked, for it is:
A^x + B^y = C^z where A,B,C,x,y,z are positive integers with x,y,z greater than 2
FLT is of course
A^n + B^n = C^n where A,B,C, n are positive integers and n is greater than 2
I proved Generalized FLT and FLT (Fermat's Last Theorem) before I discovered that Logical Material Implication Table of T,F,T,T is incorrect and should be that of T,F,undefined, undefined. What this does is remove reductio ad absurdum as a mathematics proof technique as only a probability technique and no longer a deduction. It means the only valid proof method for mathematics, is construction proofs. My Generalized FLT and FLT are construction proofs. Another feature of the true Logic Implication operator, is that corollaries of mathematics cannot be proven as "stand alone conjectures". And that a corollary requires the over-arching- theorem attending the corollary be proven beforehand. This implies that Wiles's FLT is not true for in order to truly prove FLT, a proof of Generalized FLT had to come first.
We see the relationship between a Theorem and its Corollary very easily from Generalized FLT and FLT, in that we have all these cases to worry about. The history of FLT was a case study, prove it in the case of exponent this and that, but never a proof of all of FLT, and that is because corollaries are never proven as stand alone theorems and must have their theorem (Generalized FLT) proven first. This is because Logic Implication is not T,F,T,T where false proofs hide behind those last two T, T when they should be undefined, undefined. The reason Implication must be T,F,undefined, undefined is because mathematics has 2/0 and 0/0 where division by 0 is undefined, and that Old Logic with its T,F,T,T does not allow for division by zero.
Detailed Proofs Generalized FLT conjecture with its FLT corollary
Both proofs of Generalized FLT and FLT are based on a fact of geometry, that you can represent a number with its cofactors as the sides of a rectangle. And to prove either Generalized FLT or FLT is a simple matter of stacking two rectangles that have equal sides, A and B to produce a third rectangle C which has a side equalling the _shared side_ of A and B.
________________________
DETAILED PROOF OF Generalized FLT
________________________
It is a constructive proof.
We make the table of all the numbers possible in the Generalized FLT Conjecture as the conglomeration of exponents of 3 or larger as this set:
{1, 8, 16, 27, 32, 64, 81, 125, 128, 216, 243, 256, . .}
Here we have conglomerated exp3 and exp4 and exp5 etc etc into one set.
We know Generalized FLT has solutions of A+B=C in that set for here are three examples:
2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2
3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3
7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7
What we need to prove is that all solutions have a prime divisor in common, ie all three rectangles of A, B, C so that A+B=C, have one shared side equal to one another.
Definition of Condensed-Rectangle: given any number in the set of conglomerated exponents, we construct rectangles of that number from its unit squares whose sides are cofactors of the number. For instance, rectangle of 216 units as either 12x18 units, or 9x24 units, or 6x36 units or 3x72 units, or 2x108, but never a 1x216 units. We exclude 1 times the number as a condensed rectangle. So a condensed-rectangle is one in which it is composed of cofactors of the number in question, except for 1, and the number itself for 1x216 units is not a condensed-rectangle.
Now for the constructive proof that Generalized FLT solutions must have a common prime divisor.
We stack Condensed-Rectangles of the number-space that Generalized FLT conjecture applies:
Solution Number Space for Generalized FLT now becomes these condensed-rectangles:
{ 2*4, 2*8, 4*4, 3*9, 2*16, 4*8, 2*32, 4*16, 8*8,. . . }
We convert each of those numbers into Condensed-Rectangle, except 1 of course, and where many numbers have several condensed rectangles so the Solution Space of Numbers increases by a large amount. If an A and B as condensed-rectangles have the same side such as 3x9 units and 9x24units
wherein you stack them on their shared side of 9 and which matches another number of its condensed-rectangle such as 9x27 units, then you have a Generalized FLT solution of A+B=C. For if we were to take the 9 by 27 condensed rectangle it decomposes into 3x9 and 9x24.
Now, the question is, are all A+B equal to a C, form stacked condensed rectangles that share a common side?
All stackable condensed-rectangles must have one side the same for the two rectangles to stack, in the case above it is the side 9 with its common divisor of the prime 3.
If any other solution to Generalized FLT had A stacked upon B without a common side between them, then the figure formed cannot be a overall new rectangle but something that looks like this:
HHHHHH
HHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHH
That is not a condensed rectangle and all the numbers of the Solution Space, except the number 1, are condensed rectangles. That above figure is 6-sided figure. That is a 6-sided figure, yet a rectangle is only a 4 sided figure. That is not a Condensed Rectangle, represented by its cofactors. So that equality can not be achieved by any other stacking than condensed rectangles equalling condensed rectangles.
Then the question is, can we have an A and B with a shared common side equal to a C that is a condensed rectangle with no common side shared with A and B?
The question is, how can I be sure that all the A, B, C such that A + B = C have a common prime divisor?
As if the question is asking whether the Condensed Rectangles covered the question by forbidding any equality unless there is a common shared side in A in B and in C.
Well, the answer is easily enough covered for the Condensed Rectangles eliminates any possibility of A,B,C where A+B = C and not have a shared side by all three of A, B, C. It does this by the Distributive law of integers.
All the numbers in the solution space of Generalized FLT have condensed rectangles, except the number 1.
All the A, B, C are written as condensed rectangles of (s*t) + (r*p) = (u*v).
For example (9*3) + (9*24) = (9*27) which is 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 which is 27 + 216 = 243.
In order for (s*t) + (r*p) = (u*v) then the s, r, u have to be equal sides. Have to be (9*t) + (9*p) = (9*v) in the example of 27 + 216 = 243.
Distributive Law (9*3)/9 + (9*24)/9 = (9*27)/9 where 3 + 24 = 27
So, give me three numbers A, B, C, chosen arbitrarily from the Solution Space of Generalized FLT {1, 8, 16, 27, 32, 64, 81, 125, 128, 216, 243, 256, . .} except of course 1, and can those three chosen arbitrarily A, B, C obey A + B = C? Only if they obey the Distributive Law can the A + B equal to the C when we write the A, B, C as condensed rectangles.
QED
_________________________________________
Detailed Proof of FLT using condensed-rectangles
_________________________________________
It is a construction proof method for we show that it is impossible to construct A+B = C inside of a specific exponent.
Fermat's Last Theorem FLT conjecture says there are no solutions to the equation a^y + b^y = c^y where a,b,c,y are positive integers and y is greater than 2.
The number Space that governs FLT is this:
exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .}
exp4 {1, 16, 81, 256, 625, 1296, 2401, 4096, 6561, 10000, . .}
exp5 {1, 32, 243, 1024, 3125, 7776, 16807, 32,768, 59,049, 100,000, 161,051, 248,832, 371,293, . .}
exp6 .....
.
.
.
.
So in FLT we ask whether there are any triples, A,B,C in any one of those _specific exponents_ such that A+B=C. In FLT, our solution space is only one particular exponent such as 3 or 4, or 5 to hunt down and find a A,B,C to satisfy A+B=C.
In the proof we use Condensed-Rectangles which is defined as a rectangle composed of unit squares of the cofactors of a number, except for 1 x number itself. So the number 27 in exp3 has Condensed Rectangles of 3x9 only. The number 125 in exp3 has condensed rectangles of 5x25 only, and the number 81 in exp4 has condensed rectangles of 3x27 and 9x9.
Now in the proof of Generalized FLT solutions of A + B = C require a common divisor.
2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2
3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3
7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7
Here in FLT, we need not even worry about exponents because all solutions to Generalized FLT encompass exponents so that if these were FLT solutions:
2^? + 2^? = 2^? with prime divisor 2
3^? + 6^? = 3^? with prime divisor 3
7^? + 7^? = 14^? with prime divisor 7
So in that construction of a solution to FLT there is a common divisor and so now we divide the equation by the common divisor, and we get this:
1^y + 1^y = 1^y
1^z + 2^z = 1^z
1^w + 1^w = 2^w
And those are impossible constructions. So the proof of FLT requires Generalized FLT be proven first in order to display that a Generalized FLT proof cannot co-exist unless FLT has no solutions.
QED
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | j4n bur53 <bursejan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-02 14:08 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: AP’s proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT |
| Message-ID | <78a0293f-9037-4e66-a2cc-dfa36ff1fc8b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #436034 |
Hi AP brain farto. Can you make a test?
Do you hear something when you see this GIF:
Happy Toast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ5T-WGOaYo
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 10:17:32 PM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> AP PROOF OF BOTH GENERALIZED FLT AND REGULAR FLT
>
> My history of this proof below began 2014
> Generalized FLT date of discovery 2014
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 02:32:14 -0800 (PST)
> Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=166.137.110.8;
> posting-account=fsC03QkAAAAwkSNcSEKmlcR-W_HNitEd
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.137.110.8
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <0930d831-785f-4440-bf56-132cc17c5707@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: taking on both FLT and (sic) Generalized FLT in one proof; using Condensed Rectangles
> #1388 Correcting Math
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 10:32:14 +0000
>
> My proof of FLT turned out not to be easy for High School. Easy for College mid level, not High School.
>
> For the umpteenth time below is my FLT
>
> Well the sci.math has a complete history of my adventures with Fermat's Last Theorem starting with August 1993, and developing many twists and turns. Several times I had to throw out my prior attempts.
>
> What emerged was decades later, a final true proof of FLT. It has one huge starting surprise to it. Hugely Startling Surprise. The surprise is that a class of math proofs cannot be proven until a "more general theorem that overlays the "lesser theorem tucked away inside" the more general theorem is proven FIRST"
>
> So that-- there never exists a proof of FLT until you first prove true the Generalized FLT
>
> What is Generalized FLT? Glad you asked, for it is:
>
> A^x + B^y = C^z where A,B,C,x,y,z are positive integers with x,y,z greater than 2
>
> FLT is of course
>
> A^n + B^n = C^n where A,B,C, n are positive integers and n is greater than 2
>
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Subject: Proof of Generalized FLT & Fermat's Last Theorem #178 Correcting Math 4th ed
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 20:38:49 +0000
>
>
> Proof of Generalized FLT & Fermat's Last Theorem #178 Correcting Math 4th ed
>
>
> PROOFS of Generalized FLT & FERMAT's LAST THEOREM as corollary
>
> Editing and commentary corner: Once Generalized FLT and FLT are turned into a geometrical perspective-- condensed rectangles, then the proof is as easy as making homemade cherry pie. And the importance of proving Generalized FLT first is that FLT never has a proof until Generalized FLT is proven first.
>
> Summary of text: Both proofs of Generalized FLT and FLT are based on a fact of geometry, that you can represent a number with its cofactors as the sides of a rectangle. And to prove either Generalized FLT or FLT is a simple matter of stacking two rectangles that have equal sides, A and B to produce a third rectangle C which has a side equalling the _shared side_ of A and B.
>
> TEXT:
>
> I decided I needed to stiffen up the proof of Generalized FLT below. To a logical person, they often streamline their proofs and do not bother with adding some information which people not used to logic have a difficult time in seeing. For me, it is redundant to include the distributive law into the proof of Generalized FLT, but to those who do not do math but only on occasion, they would not see the logic unless I explain those very details. So below is a more stiffened up proof of Generalized FLT.
>
> Proof of the Generalized FLT conjecture that proves Fermat's Last Theorem
>
> What is Generalized FLT? Glad you asked, for it is:
>
> A^x + B^y = C^z where A,B,C,x,y,z are positive integers with x,y,z greater than 2
>
> FLT is of course
>
> A^n + B^n = C^n where A,B,C, n are positive integers and n is greater than 2
>
> I proved Generalized FLT and FLT (Fermat's Last Theorem) before I discovered that Logical Material Implication Table of T,F,T,T is incorrect and should be that of T,F,undefined, undefined. What this does is remove reductio ad absurdum as a mathematics proof technique as only a probability technique and no longer a deduction. It means the only valid proof method for mathematics, is construction proofs. My Generalized FLT and FLT are construction proofs. Another feature of the true Logic Implication operator, is that corollaries of mathematics cannot be proven as "stand alone conjectures". And that a corollary requires the over-arching- theorem attending the corollary be proven beforehand. This implies that Wiles's FLT is not true for in order to truly prove FLT, a proof of Generalized FLT had to come first.
>
> We see the relationship between a Theorem and its Corollary very easily from Generalized FLT and FLT, in that we have all these cases to worry about. The history of FLT was a case study, prove it in the case of exponent this and that, but never a proof of all of FLT, and that is because corollaries are never proven as stand alone theorems and must have their theorem (Generalized FLT) proven first. This is because Logic Implication is not T,F,T,T where false proofs hide behind those last two T, T when they should be undefined, undefined. The reason Implication must be T,F,undefined, undefined is because mathematics has 2/0 and 0/0 where division by 0 is undefined, and that Old Logic with its T,F,T,T does not allow for division by zero.
>
> Detailed Proofs Generalized FLT conjecture with its FLT corollary
>
>
> Both proofs of Generalized FLT and FLT are based on a fact of geometry, that you can represent a number with its cofactors as the sides of a rectangle. And to prove either Generalized FLT or FLT is a simple matter of stacking two rectangles that have equal sides, A and B to produce a third rectangle C which has a side equalling the _shared side_ of A and B.
> ________________________
> DETAILED PROOF OF Generalized FLT
> ________________________
>
> It is a constructive proof.
>
> We make the table of all the numbers possible in the Generalized FLT Conjecture as the conglomeration of exponents of 3 or larger as this set:
>
> {1, 8, 16, 27, 32, 64, 81, 125, 128, 216, 243, 256, . .}
>
> Here we have conglomerated exp3 and exp4 and exp5 etc etc into one set.
>
> We know Generalized FLT has solutions of A+B=C in that set for here are three examples:
>
> 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2
> 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3
> 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7
>
> What we need to prove is that all solutions have a prime divisor in common, ie all three rectangles of A, B, C so that A+B=C, have one shared side equal to one another.
>
> Definition of Condensed-Rectangle: given any number in the set of conglomerated exponents, we construct rectangles of that number from its unit squares whose sides are cofactors of the number. For instance, rectangle of 216 units as either 12x18 units, or 9x24 units, or 6x36 units or 3x72 units, or 2x108, but never a 1x216 units. We exclude 1 times the number as a condensed rectangle. So a condensed-rectangle is one in which it is composed of cofactors of the number in question, except for 1, and the number itself for 1x216 units is not a condensed-rectangle.
>
> Now for the constructive proof that Generalized FLT solutions must have a common prime divisor.
>
> We stack Condensed-Rectangles of the number-space that Generalized FLT conjecture applies:
>
> Solution Number Space for Generalized FLT now becomes these condensed-rectangles:
>
> { 2*4, 2*8, 4*4, 3*9, 2*16, 4*8, 2*32, 4*16, 8*8,. . . }
>
> We convert each of those numbers into Condensed-Rectangle, except 1 of course, and where many numbers have several condensed rectangles so the Solution Space of Numbers increases by a large amount. If an A and B as condensed-rectangles have the same side such as 3x9 units and 9x24units
> wherein you stack them on their shared side of 9 and which matches another number of its condensed-rectangle such as 9x27 units, then you have a Generalized FLT solution of A+B=C. For if we were to take the 9 by 27 condensed rectangle it decomposes into 3x9 and 9x24.
>
> Now, the question is, are all A+B equal to a C, form stacked condensed rectangles that share a common side?
>
> All stackable condensed-rectangles must have one side the same for the two rectangles to stack, in the case above it is the side 9 with its common divisor of the prime 3.
>
> If any other solution to Generalized FLT had A stacked upon B without a common side between them, then the figure formed cannot be a overall new rectangle but something that looks like this:
>
> HHHHHH
> HHHHHH
> HHHHHHHHHH
> HHHHHHHHHH
>
> That is not a condensed rectangle and all the numbers of the Solution Space, except the number 1, are condensed rectangles. That above figure is 6-sided figure. That is a 6-sided figure, yet a rectangle is only a 4 sided figure. That is not a Condensed Rectangle, represented by its cofactors. So that equality can not be achieved by any other stacking than condensed rectangles equalling condensed rectangles.
>
> Then the question is, can we have an A and B with a shared common side equal to a C that is a condensed rectangle with no common side shared with A and B?
>
> The question is, how can I be sure that all the A, B, C such that A + B = C have a common prime divisor?
>
> As if the question is asking whether the Condensed Rectangles covered the question by forbidding any equality unless there is a common shared side in A in B and in C.
>
> Well, the answer is easily enough covered for the Condensed Rectangles eliminates any possibility of A,B,C where A+B = C and not have a shared side by all three of A, B, C. It does this by the Distributive law of integers.
>
> All the numbers in the solution space of Generalized FLT have condensed rectangles, except the number 1.
>
> All the A, B, C are written as condensed rectangles of (s*t) + (r*p) = (u*v).
>
> For example (9*3) + (9*24) = (9*27) which is 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 which is 27 + 216 = 243.
>
> In order for (s*t) + (r*p) = (u*v) then the s, r, u have to be equal sides. Have to be (9*t) + (9*p) = (9*v) in the example of 27 + 216 = 243.
>
> Distributive Law (9*3)/9 + (9*24)/9 = (9*27)/9 where 3 + 24 = 27
>
> So, give me three numbers A, B, C, chosen arbitrarily from the Solution Space of Generalized FLT {1, 8, 16, 27, 32, 64, 81, 125, 128, 216, 243, 256, . .} except of course 1, and can those three chosen arbitrarily A, B, C obey A + B = C? Only if they obey the Distributive Law can the A + B equal to the C when we write the A, B, C as condensed rectangles.
>
> QED
>
>
> _________________________________________
> Detailed Proof of FLT using condensed-rectangles
> _________________________________________
>
> It is a construction proof method for we show that it is impossible to construct A+B = C inside of a specific exponent.
>
> Fermat's Last Theorem FLT conjecture says there are no solutions to the equation a^y + b^y = c^y where a,b,c,y are positive integers and y is greater than 2.
>
> The number Space that governs FLT is this:
>
> exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .}
>
> exp4 {1, 16, 81, 256, 625, 1296, 2401, 4096, 6561, 10000, . .}
>
> exp5 {1, 32, 243, 1024, 3125, 7776, 16807, 32,768, 59,049, 100,000, 161,051, 248,832, 371,293, . .}
>
> exp6 .....
> .
> .
> .
> .
>
> So in FLT we ask whether there are any triples, A,B,C in any one of those _specific exponents_ such that A+B=C. In FLT, our solution space is only one particular exponent such as 3 or 4, or 5 to hunt down and find a A,B,C to satisfy A+B=C.
>
> In the proof we use Condensed-Rectangles which is defined as a rectangle composed of unit squares of the cofactors of a number, except for 1 x number itself. So the number 27 in exp3 has Condensed Rectangles of 3x9 only. The number 125 in exp3 has condensed rectangles of 5x25 only, and the number 81 in exp4 has condensed rectangles of 3x27 and 9x9.
>
> Now in the proof of Generalized FLT solutions of A + B = C require a common divisor.
>
> 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2
> 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3
> 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7
>
> Here in FLT, we need not even worry about exponents because all solutions to Generalized FLT encompass exponents so that if these were FLT solutions:
>
> 2^? + 2^? = 2^? with prime divisor 2
> 3^? + 6^? = 3^? with prime divisor 3
> 7^? + 7^? = 14^? with prime divisor 7
>
> So in that construction of a solution to FLT there is a common divisor and so now we divide the equation by the common divisor, and we get this:
>
> 1^y + 1^y = 1^y
> 1^z + 2^z = 1^z
> 1^w + 1^w = 2^w
>
> And those are impossible constructions. So the proof of FLT requires Generalized FLT be proven first in order to display that a Generalized FLT proof cannot co-exist unless FLT has no solutions.
>
> QED
>
>
> Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
> ELECTRON DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
>
>
> ::\ ::|:: /::
> ::\::|::/::
> _ _
> (:Y:)
> - -
> ::/::|::\::
> ::/ ::|:: \::
>
> One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And
> each dot represents another galaxy.
>
>
> . \ . . | . /.
> . . \. . .|. . /. .
> ..\....|.../...
> ::\:::|::/::
> --------------- -------------
> --------------- (Y) -------------
> --------------- --------------
> ::/:::|::\::
> ../....|...\...
> . . /. . .|. . \. .
> . / . . | . \ .
>
>
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
>
> I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-02 22:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <q5eva1$285$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #436034 |
Village Idiot AlzheimerPlutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science: >Moroney, shein, kibo, std, suggest a new name for Harvard with their >Either..Or..Or..Both and their 10 OR 4 = 14 >Harvard Village Idiot AlzheimerPlutonium is the village idiot of Harvard as well? I didn't know you ever hung around there, Archie. Let's apply Plutonium "logic" to state lotteries. Many states participate in two jackpot lotteries, Powerball and Mega Millions. So let's use Plutonium logic on them. If I win the Powerball jackpot OR I win the Megamillions jackpot, I can buy a mansion and a yacht! If I win neither, of course no mansion and a yacht for me. If I win only Powerball I can get them. If I win only Megamillions I can also get the mansion and yacht. So far real logic and Pluto's failed logic agree. But what happens if I win both? Real logic says that yes I can buy a mansion and yacht (BIG ones!), but Plutonium's failed logic has "False" for winning both lotteries being true. How can that be? I get TWO jackpots but being able to buy a mansion and yacht is FALSE in Plutonium's failed logic? No wonder George Boole continues to kick Plutonium ass at logic! x-no-archive: yes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-03 00:07 -0800 |
| Subject | AP’s proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT |
| Message-ID | <22a0f7cf-b7be-4c19-afa6-e3c1075c3e80@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #436034 |
Now i can improve on my proof of FLT as given above with more clarity and elucidation. For i can discuss a essential axiom of equality that allows the transition from proof of Generalized FLT to Regular FLT. We all know the axiom that you have an equation you can multiply or divide that equation so long as you do the multiply or divide by k to each term of the equation. Suppose we had equation 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 Now if i multiply by 2 every tern i still have equality 6^2 + 8^2 = 10^2 Or i divide by 5, every term retains equality (3/5)^2 + (4/5)^2 = 1^2 So in Generalized FLT i have some equations 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7 And as we can see dividing by 2 or multiply by 1/2 in the first, every term does notleav equality 1^3 + 1^3 does not equal 1^4 But if i got rid of the exponents 2*2*2 + 2*2*2 = 2*2*2*2 Now if i divide by 2 2*2 + 2*2 = 2*2*2 i keep equality Again if i divide by 2 2 + 2 = 2*2 So, why when we get rid of exponents the axiom works but not work when we keep exponents? When we keep the exponents one is different from the others. In Regular FLT all three exponents are the same. This is why the truth of Generalized FLT forbids there to be a solution of Regular FLT. If you had a solution in both— you violate the axiom. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-03 09:39 -0800 |
| Subject | One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT |
| Message-ID | <849e1350-d327-4722-aeab-e380ef7a0f74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #436065 |
Alright, perhaps there is a one paragraph pure algebra proof of FLT. Using two axioms: 1) axiom of equality — multiply equation by factor k, to retain equality, every term must be multiplied by k. 2) axiom of exponents— given equations A^x + B^y = C^z and D^n + E^n = F^n in counting numbers only the second equation retains equality with a common factor reduction. Example of axiom of exponents— 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 common factor 2 yields inequality 1^3 + 1^3 =/= 1^4 whereas 6^2 + 8^2 = 10^2 , common factor reduces to 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2. Proof of FLT: if there exists a solution to D^n + E^n = F^n then it is a solution to A^x + B^y = C^z. Impossible for that violates the two axioms listed. Hence a solution to Regular FLT is impossible. QED Comments: here i simply point out two axiom laws of algebra. And if the world has a solution to Regular FLT, the world cannot have those two axioms. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | eastside.erik@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-03 14:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT |
| Message-ID | <ad9aa93c-cf9b-442b-8409-3990fbf31fb3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #436110 |
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 9:39:28 AM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Alright, perhaps there is a one paragraph pure algebra proof of FLT. > > Using two axioms: > 1) axiom of equality — multiply equation by factor k, to retain equality, every term must be multiplied by k. > > 2) axiom of exponents— given equations A^x + B^y = C^z and D^n + E^n = F^n in counting numbers only the second equation retains equality with a common factor reduction. > > Example of axiom of exponents— > 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 common factor 2 yields inequality 1^3 + 1^3 =/= 1^4 whereas 6^2 + 8^2 = 10^2 , common factor reduces to 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2. > > Proof of FLT: if there exists a solution to D^n + E^n = F^n then it is a solution to A^x + B^y = C^z. Impossible for that violates the two axioms listed. Hence a solution to Regular FLT is impossible. > > QED > > Comments: here i simply point out two axiom laws of algebra. And if the world has a solution to Regular FLT, the world cannot have those two axioms. > > AP You've forgotten how to do arithmatic, Archie. 2^3 + 2^3 = 8 + 8 = 2^4 = 16 Remeber how to do division? Apparently not. 2^3 / 2 != 1^3 Who told you that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-03 14:58 -0800 |
| Subject | stalker Eastside POEM, poem corner |
| Message-ID | <5f3d8a44-2e09-407e-a269-d5703b384a75@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #436144 |
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 4:20:46 PM UTC-6, eastsi...@gmail.com wrote: > > You've forgotten how to do arithmatic, Archie. > > 2^3 + 2^3 = 8 + 8 = 2^4 = 16 > > Remeber how to do division? Apparently not. 2^3 / 2 != 1^3 > Who told you that? AP writes: The Eastside Stalker Poem Stalk, stalk stalk Eastside, crock, crock, crock Why you stalk, stalk stalk, you worthless crock crock crock Not even an ellipse, can you do The oval is the conic cut but you are so dumb and stupid Your entire head is up your crock Eastside, so dumb in physics are you the loon thinks electron is .5MeV, mass the goon thinks proton is 938MeV, mass why does he keep his head up his ass For the real proton is 840MeV the real electron is the muon And it is 105 MeV rest mass Eastside, still with his head up his ass The .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic Monopole yes, at .5MeV rest mass But there is Eastside, still, with head up his ass AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | eastside.erik@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-03 15:10 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: stalker Eastside POEM, poem corner |
| Message-ID | <92852201-5a4e-4db1-afa7-31e42e43417c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #436147 |
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 2:58:57 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 4:20:46 PM UTC-6, eastsi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > You've forgotten how to do arithmatic, Archie. > > > > 2^3 + 2^3 = 8 + 8 = 2^4 = 16 > > > > Remeber how to do division? Apparently not. 2^3 / 2 != 1^3 > > Who told you that? > > > AP writes: The Eastside Stalker Poem > > Stalk, stalk stalk Eastside, crock, crock, crock > > Why you stalk, stalk stalk, you > worthless crock crock crock > Not even an ellipse, can you do > The oval is the conic cut > but you are so dumb and stupid > Your entire head is up your crock > > Eastside, so dumb in physics are you > the loon thinks electron is .5MeV, mass > the goon thinks proton is 938MeV, mass > why does he keep his head up his ass > For the real proton is 840MeV > the real electron is the muon > And it is 105 MeV rest mass > Eastside, still with his head up his ass > The .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic > Monopole yes, at .5MeV rest mass > But there is Eastside, still, with head up his ass > > AP Wonderful poetry, but still 8 + 8 = 16. You've forgotten arithmetic. The common factor in 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 is 8, and the equality holds. In your second example, 6^2 + 8^2 = 10^2, the common factor is 4. See how it works?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web