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

Groups > sci.math > #434817 > unrolled thread

Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#435214 — 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

Yes, this is the iron clad argument: You cannot escape proving Generalized FLT has to prove two independent cases-- that translates into -- no escape that FLT is required mandatory to prove two independent cases. We can forgive Euler for making the logic mistake, but no excuse can be for 20th and 21st century mathematicians in not seeing that error of logic.

On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 11:57:46 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 7:48:52 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > So there is no avoiding the proof of Generalized FLT as two independent cases 1) two odds, one even 2) all three evens. Implies the proof of FLT is two independent cases.
> > 
> 
> So, if Generalized FLT needs the two cases proven true 1) two odd, one even 2) three evens.
> 
> Only a logic deranged fool would think that Regular FLT needs to prove just case 1). And believe you me, every math professor since Euler, especially Wiles has a microgram brain of logic with knowing that he has to prove case 2) three evens.
> 
> But then again, Wiles being blind to the fact that the ellipse was never a conic, such blindness is probably why Wiles could never understand it is mandatory to prove three evens are not a solution in Regular FLT. 
> 
> AP

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

#435220 — 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

lørdag 23. februar 2019 21.49.57 UTC+1 skrev Archimedes Plutonium følgende:
> Yes, this is the iron clad argument: You cannot escape proving Generalized FLT has to prove two independent cases-- that translates into -- no escape that FLT is required mandatory to prove two independent cases. We can forgive Euler for making the logic mistake, but no excuse can be for 20th and 21st century mathematicians in not seeing that error of logic.
> 
> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 11:57:46 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 7:48:52 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > So there is no avoiding the proof of Generalized FLT as two independent cases 1) two odds, one even 2) all three evens. Implies the proof of FLT is two independent cases.
> > > 
> > 
> > So, if Generalized FLT needs the two cases proven true 1) two odd, one even 2) three evens.
> > 
> > Only a logic deranged fool would think that Regular FLT needs to prove just case 1). And believe you me, every math professor since Euler, especially Wiles has a microgram brain of logic with knowing that he has to prove case 2) three evens.
> > 
> > But then again, Wiles being blind to the fact that the ellipse was never a conic, such blindness is probably why Wiles could never understand it is mandatory to prove three evens are not a solution in Regular FLT. 
> > 
> > AP

There is a movie: "Behind the curve"
Watch it and then look in the mirror.
You might wake up!

KON

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

#435222 — 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

You cannot prove Generalized FLT has solutions of three evens by simply saying multiply two odds, one even by 2.

On Saturday, February 23, 2019 at 2:49:57 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Yes, this is the iron clad argument: You cannot escape proving Generalized FLT has to prove two independent cases-- that translates into -- no escape that FLT is required mandatory to prove two independent cases. We can forgive Euler for making the logic mistake, but no excuse can be for 20th and 21st century mathematicians in not seeing that error of logic.
> 
> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 11:57:46 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 7:48:52 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > So there is no avoiding the proof of Generalized FLT as two independent cases 1) two odds, one even 2) all three evens. Implies the proof of FLT is two independent cases.
> > > 
> > 
> > So, if Generalized FLT needs the two cases proven true 1) two odd, one even 2) three evens.
> > 
> > Only a logic deranged fool would think that Regular FLT needs to prove just case 1). And believe you me, every math professor since Euler, especially Wiles has a microgram brain of logic with knowing that he has to prove case 2) three evens.
> > 
> > But then again, Wiles being blind to the fact that the ellipse was never a conic, such blindness is probably why Wiles could never understand it is mandatory to prove three evens are not a solution in Regular FLT. 
> > 
> > AP

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

#435231 — 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

Flaw of both Euler’s FLT exp3 and Wiles FLT, neither proved the case where all three are even numbers.

AP

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

#435236 — case study proofs are often junky proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT

On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 12:03:55 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Flaw of both Euler’s FLT exp3 and Wiles FLT, neither proved the case where all three are even numbers.
> 

Is there any other mathematical proof with a fatal flaw of missing a relevant case, just ignoring the case that cannot be ignored? I mean, virtually every math professor with a microgram brain of logic would have skipped over the case of A,B,C as three evens, arguing that two odds and one even are reduced. But they reduce to two odds and one even once you prove the equation has a solution. So you see the Logical Mistake by Euler and Wiles and all the other mathematicians. They assume two odds one even has a solution and find out it cannot have a solution but then they inject that "there is a solution for three evens" and then falsely deduce it must reduce to two odds and one even.

Generalized FLT shows us why three evens can be a solution, but not reduce to two odds, one even

2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4

That reduces to nothing of equality.

Since in Generalized you had to prove both independent cases-- two odds, one even, and then separately, three evens.

You must do the same for Regular FLT

You see, the huge huge problem of proofs with many Cases, far more than two cases, is that these proofs are trashy proofs, because in the end, a long listed case studies, gets to the point where you have to have a proof inside the proof that you covered all cases. The Appel&Haken is such a fake and junky case study of 4 Color Mapping. As well as the Hales fakery on Kepler Packing.

AP

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

#435238 — Re: case study proofs are often junky proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT

søndag 24. februar 2019 09.07.14 UTC+1 skrev Archimedes Plutonium følgende:
> On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 12:03:55 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Flaw of both Euler’s FLT exp3 and Wiles FLT, neither proved the case where all three are even numbers.
> > 
> 
> Is there any other mathematical proof with a fatal flaw of missing a relevant case, just ignoring the case that cannot be ignored? I mean, virtually every math professor with a microgram brain of logic would have skipped over the case of A,B,C as three evens, arguing that two odds and one even are reduced. But they reduce to two odds and one even once you prove the equation has a solution. So you see the Logical Mistake by Euler and Wiles and all the other mathematicians. They assume two odds one even has a solution and find out it cannot have a solution but then they inject that "there is a solution for three evens" and then falsely deduce it must reduce to two odds and one even.
> 
> Generalized FLT shows us why three evens can be a solution, but not reduce to two odds, one even
> 
> 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4
> 
> That reduces to nothing of equality.
> 
> Since in Generalized you had to prove both independent cases-- two odds, one even, and then separately, three evens.
> 
> You must do the same for Regular FLT
> 
> You see, the huge huge problem of proofs with many Cases, far more than two cases, is that these proofs are trashy proofs, because in the end, a long listed case studies, gets to the point where you have to have a proof inside the proof that you covered all cases. The Appel&Haken is such a fake and junky case study of 4 Color Mapping. As well as the Hales fakery on Kepler Packing.
> 
> AP

1 + 1 = 2, isn't it?

KON

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

#435284 — case study proofs are often junky proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT

Well i do not have the time but i rather guess that all the FLT alleged proof of exp 4 then exp5 etc suffer the same flaw as Euler — deaf, dumb, silent on case when A,B,C are all three evens.

I do not have the time to see for myself

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

#435290 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

>Subject: Re: Porat stealing machine in action Re: Drs.Assa Auerbach,Itai Arad look into Porat Re: new wave of Jew stealing in science (because of technology of Internet) -- Technion Univ-- Porat the vanguard

Alzheimer Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>AP writes: never any physics, never any math out of Porat-- Only thing out
>of Porat is baby talk and accusations of stealing

MM writes: never any physics, never any math out of Plutonium-- Only thing
out of Plutonium is baby talk, pretend physics and math, professor
stalking and personal attacks.

>sci.physics 

<snip many lines of Plutonium's steaming failure>

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

#435298 — case study proofs are often junky proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT

I suspect all the proofs of case exp FLT are flawed because of three evens. I do recollect looking at Fermat’s alleged proof of exp4 and saying he passed the three evens test. But at this moment not so sure Fermat genuinely passed.

AP

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

#435299 — Re: case study proofs are often junky proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT

Den måndag 25 februari 2019 kl. 07:12:41 UTC+1 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> I suspect all the proofs of case exp FLT are flawed because of three evens. I do recollect looking at Fermat’s alleged proof of exp4 and saying he passed the three evens test. But at this moment not so sure Fermat genuinely passed.
> 
> AP

You are wrong, Wiles proof of FLT is correct.

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

#435414 — case study proofs are often junky proofs Re: Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT

Alright, okay, takes but a few minutes to spot the same mistake in Fermat’s alleged proof of FLT in exp4. Fermat dismissed the case of all three evens solution just as Euler. So apparently, no-one had a proof of FLT until AP in 2014 ( Wiles was a junk fakery missing three evens)

Quoting Wikipedia on Fermat’s exp4:

nent = 4	
Edit
Only one relevant proof by Fermat has survived, in which he uses the technique of infinite descent to show that the area of a right triangle with integer sides can never equal the square of an integer.[32][33] His proof is equivalent to demonstrating that the equation

x
4
+
y
4
=
z
2
x^{4}+y^{4}=z^{2}
has no primitive solutions in integers (no pairwise coprime solutions). In turn, this proves Fermat's Last Theorem for the case n = 4, since the equation a4 + b4 = c4 can be written as a4 + b4 = (c2)2.

—- end quote

AP writes: you see Fermat’s pairwise coprime demand ignores three evens as a solution possibility, a case that Fermat neglected to prove.

AP

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

#435427 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>AP writes: you see Fermat's pairwise coprime demand ignores 
>three evens as a solution possibility, a case that Fermat neglected to 
>prove.

No, it does not. As stated earlier, if A, B, C are all even,
A^4+B^4=C^2 can be rewritten as (2D)^4+(2E)^4=(2F)^2 or
(2D)^4+(2E)^4=((2G)^2)^2. Divide both sides by 2^4 and you have
D^4+E^4=G^4,  and either D, E, and G are not all even or they are.
If they are, repeat this step until the final D, E and G are not all even.
If they aren't, any proof that eliminates D, E and G not all even also
eliminates D, E and G all even because of this simple algebra logic.

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

#435493 — 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

On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 12:24:22 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, okay, takes but a few minutes to spot the same mistake in Fermat’s alleged proof of FLT in exp4. Fermat dismissed the case of all three evens solution just as Euler. So apparently, no-one had a proof of FLT until AP in 2014 ( Wiles was a junk fakery missing three evens)
> 
> Quoting Wikipedia on Fermat’s exp4:
> 
> Only one relevant proof by Fermat has survived, in which he uses the technique of infinite descent to show that the area of a right triangle with integer sides can never equal the square of an integer.[32][33] His proof is equivalent to demonstrating that the equation
> 
> x
> 4
> +
> y
> 4
> =
> z
> 2
> x^{4}+y^{4}=z^{2}
> has no primitive solutions in integers (no pairwise coprime solutions). In turn, this proves Fermat's Last Theorem for the case n = 4, since the equation a4 + b4 = c4 can be written as a4 + b4 = (c2)2.
> 
> —- end quote
> 
> AP writes: you see Fermat’s pairwise coprime demand ignores three evens as a solution possibility, a case that Fermat neglected to prove.
> 

Alright, every FLT whether Generalized FLT or Regular FLT are all governed at the outset by two cases. Two cases which each case requires a proof in itself, and cannot be ignored or reduced to one case. You have to prove each of these two cases separate and independent of one another. This is logic in action, and math professors for the most part have a microgram or milligram brain of logic never able to understand that.

For Euler's exp3, he had to prove for Generalized FLT that both cases independently had solutions

2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4  for the case of three evens

3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 for the case of two odds, one even

Now for Regular FLT exp 3

prove A^3 + B^3 = C^3 for when A,C are odd and B is even
prove A^3 + B^3 = C^3 for when A,B,C are three evens

For Fermat's exp4, he had to prove for Generalized FLT that both cases independently had solutions

4^4 + 4^4 = 8^3 for the case of three evens

15^4 + 15^5 = 30^4 for the case of two odds, one even (although I prefer a sample solution that has both the A and B as exp4)

Now for Regular FLT exp4

prove A^4 + B^4 = C^4 for when A,C are odd and B is even
prove A^4 + B^4 = C^4 for when A,B,C are three evens

Sloppy sloppy math professors with a milligram or microgram brain of logic think that they never had to prove the case of three evens, when if they ever took a coarse in College in Logic would likely teach them "how to think properly and correctly" and not be sloppy idiots of logic like Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, John Conway, Thomas Hales, Ken Ribet, Simon Singh, Richard Taylor, John Stillwell.

AP

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

#435497 — 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> writes:

>For Euler's exp3, he had to prove for Generalized FLT that both cases independently had solutions

>2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4  for the case of three evens

Divide both sides by 8 (2^3) and you get 1+1=2. Amazing discovery!!

>3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 for the case of two odds, one even

Divide both sides by 27 (3^3) and you get 1+8=9. (1^3 +2^3 = 3^2)

>Now for Regular FLT exp 3

>prove A^3 + B^3 = C^3 for when A,C are odd and B is even
>prove A^3 + B^3 = C^3 for when A,B,C are three evens

Divide both sides by 8 (2^3) and you have a new expression, either the
first or the second. If the second, just repeat.

>For Fermat's exp4, he had to prove for Generalized FLT that both cases 
>independently had solutions

>4^4 + 4^4 = 8^3 for the case of three evens

Divide both sides by 256 (4^4) and you get 1+1=2 again!


>15^4 + 15^5 = 30^4 for the case of two odds, one even (although I prefer

Divide both sides by 15^4 and you get 1+15=16.

>a sample solution that has both the A and B as exp4)

>Now for Regular FLT exp4

>prove A^4 + B^4 = C^4 for when A,C are odd and B is even
>prove A^4 + B^4 = C^4 for when A,B,C are three evens

Divide both sides by 16 (2^4) and you have a new expression, either the
first or the second. If the second, just repeat.

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

#435504 — 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

Very simple, but when math professors have no logical brains, they get hung up

Generalized FLT
Regular FLT

both start with two cases, two cases that need independent proofs

1) case of three evens
2) case of two odds, one even

You cannot dismiss case 1 by saying case 2 removes it



> On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 12:24:22 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Alright, okay, takes but a few minutes to spot the same mistake in Fermat’s alleged proof of FLT in exp4. Fermat dismissed the case of all three evens solution just as Euler. So apparently, no-one had a proof of FLT until AP in 2014 ( Wiles was a junk fakery missing three evens)
> > 
> > Quoting Wikipedia on Fermat’s exp4:
> > 
> > Only one relevant proof by Fermat has survived, in which he uses the technique of infinite descent to show that the area of a right triangle with integer sides can never equal the square of an integer.[32][33] His proof is equivalent to demonstrating that the equation
> > 
> > x
> > 4
> > +
> > y
> > 4
> > =
> > z
> > 2
> > x^{4}+y^{4}=z^{2}
> > has no primitive solutions in integers (no pairwise coprime solutions). In turn, this proves Fermat's Last Theorem for the case n = 4, since the equation a4 + b4 = c4 can be written as a4 + b4 = (c2)2.
> > 
> > —- end quote
> > 
> > AP writes: you see Fermat’s pairwise coprime demand ignores three evens as a solution possibility, a case that Fermat neglected to prove.
> > 
> 
> Alright, every FLT whether Generalized FLT or Regular FLT are all governed at the outset by two cases. Two cases which each case requires a proof in itself, and cannot be ignored or reduced to one case. You have to prove each of these two cases separate and independent of one another. This is logic in action, and math professors for the most part have a microgram or milligram brain of logic never able to understand that.
> 
> For Euler's exp3, he had to prove for Generalized FLT that both cases independently had solutions
> 
> 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4  for the case of three evens
> 
> 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 for the case of two odds, one even
> 
> Now for Regular FLT exp 3
> 
> prove A^3 + B^3 = C^3 for when A,C are odd and B is even
> prove A^3 + B^3 = C^3 for when A,B,C are three evens
> 
> For Fermat's exp4, he had to prove for Generalized FLT that both cases independently had solutions
> 
> 4^4 + 4^4 = 8^3 for the case of three evens
> 
> 15^4 + 15^5 = 30^4 for the case of two odds, one even (although I prefer a sample solution that has both the A and B as exp4)
> 
> Now for Regular FLT exp4
> 
> prove A^4 + B^4 = C^4 for when A,C are odd and B is even
> prove A^4 + B^4 = C^4 for when A,B,C are three evens
> 
> Sloppy sloppy math professors with a milligram or microgram brain of logic think that they never had to prove the case of three evens, when if they ever took a coarse in College in Logic would likely teach them "how to think properly and correctly" and not be sloppy idiots of logic like Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, John Conway, Thomas Hales, Ken Ribet, Simon Singh, Richard Taylor, John Stillwell.
> 
> AP

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

#435525 — 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

All the so called proofs of FLT to specific exponents were all fakes— missing the proof of three evens. This also tears down Wiles FLT as a fakery.

AP

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

#435576 — 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

There never existed a single proof of FLT until 2014 by AP. All the alleged proofs including Wiles fake FLT missed proving the case of three evens.

AP

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

#435591 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>There never existed a single proof of FLT until 2014 by AP. All the 
>alleged proofs including Wiles fake FLT missed proving the case of three 
>evens.

Why is StoopidPlutonium too stoopid and illogical to divide by 2?

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

#435596 — 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

On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 2:36:29 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> There never existed a single proof of FLT until 2014 by AP. All the alleged proofs including Wiles fake FLT missed proving the case of three evens.
> 

Wiles and Stillwell and Conway are too stupid in geometry to understand that the ellipse is never a conic. Is this same stupidity keeping them backwards and not seeing that FLT requires a proof of three evens, not just two odds, one even?

AP

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

#435629 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>AP gets to rename the Subatomic Particles because AP discovered Dirac's

You stupid failure! To get to name something, you have to discover that
something first! The only thing you discovered is how to fail, and you
already have the SI unit of failure (the plutonium) named for you.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web