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

Groups > sci.math > #436186 > unrolled thread

I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT 1.2-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT 1.2-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-03 20:17 -0800
    yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-03 20:22 -0800
      Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT eastside.erik@gmail.com - 2019-03-03 20:41 -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 07:41 +0000
      yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-04 07:44 -0800
        Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT eastside.erik@gmail.com - 2019-03-04 08:10 -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 16:38 +0000
        proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-04 13:52 -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 22:45 +0000
          Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT eastside.erik@gmail.com - 2019-03-04 14:50 -0800
          Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-04 18:33 -0800
            Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-03-05 02:41 +0000
            Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-04 21:17 -0800
              Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-04 21:39 -0800
                Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-05 00:20 -0800
                  Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-05 00:40 -0800
                    Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-03-05 12:02 +0000
                    Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-05 08:57 -0800
                      Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-05 09:27 -0800
                        looking for this special one axiom Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-05 13:09 -0800
                          Re: looking for this special one axiom Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT eastside.erik@gmail.com - 2019-03-05 13:20 -0800
                          Re: looking for this special one axiom Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT konyberg <konyberg@online.no> - 2019-03-05 13:23 -0800
                          Re: looking for this special one axiom Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT konyberg <konyberg@online.no> - 2019-03-05 13:41 -0800
                          k*6*k*6 + k*8*k*8 = k*10*k*10 but not k*2*k*2*k*2 + k*2*k*2*k*2 =/= k*2*k*2*k*2*k*2 Re: looking for this special one axiom or theorem derived from axioms Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-05 14:24 -0800
                            Re: k*6*k*6 + k*8*k*8 = k*10*k*10 but not k*2*k*2*k*2 + k*2*k*2*k*2 =/= k*2*k*2*k*2*k*2 Re: looking for this special one axiom or theorem derived from axioms eastside.erik@gmail.com - 2019-03-05 14:36 -0800
                      Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT eastside.erik@gmail.com - 2019-03-05 09:54 -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) - 2019-03-05 17:13 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#436186 — I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT 1.2-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

1.2-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT 

Newsgroups: sci.math 
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 00:07:28 -0800 (PST) 

Subject: AP’s proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2019 08:07:29 +0000 

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

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 

Newsgroups: sci.math 
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 09:39:18 -0800 (PST) 

Subject: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2019 17:39:18 +0000 

One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 

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 

Newsgroups: sci.math 
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 15:45:06 -0800 (PST) 

Subject: Re: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2019 23:45:06 +0000 

Re: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 

On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 5:12:48 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> Yes, below is a nice one paragraph proof that the Regular FLT cannot exist with a solution because it would tear up the fabric of Algebra axioms. Nothing more needs to be done or said than the paragraph proof, showing that you cannot have Algebra and have a solution in Regular FLT 
> 

It is nice not only for its brevity-- one paragraph, but very very nice in that you need never even have to show samples or examples. All you need to say is merely 

Generalized FLT  is A^x + B^y = C^z where A,B,C are counting numbers and x,y,z are counting numbers larger than 2 

Regular FLT is A^k + B^k = C^k where A,B,C,k are counting numbers and the constant k is larger than 2 

Axiom of Equality-- to keep the equality, multiply every term by a constant k 
Axiom of Exponents-- only time you can factor out A^x + B^y = C^z and retain equality is when x,y,z = a constant k 

If Generalized FLT has a solution, then Regular FLT cannot have a solution. If Regular FLT had a solution, then Generalized FLT cannot have a solution. Both cannot exist with a solution set, only one can have a solution set. 

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#436187 — yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

I am going to have to sleep on the below, with the idea that the proof of Regular FLT is simply a paragraph long that contests, or challenges two different axioms of algebra, one pitted against the other, and realizes that either a solution set exists in Generalized but not Regular FLT , or, a solution set exists in Regular FLT but not Generalized. Since we know a solution set exists in Generalized, we cannot ever have a solution in Regular FLT.

You see, the proof below does not even care whether Generalized FLT has a prime factor. It just needs the algebra form.


On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 10:17:38 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 1.2-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.math 
> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 00:07:28 -0800 (PST) 
> 
> Subject: AP’s proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
> Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2019 08:07:29 +0000 
> 
> AP’s proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 
> 
> 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 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.math 
> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 09:39:18 -0800 (PST) 
> 
> Subject: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
> Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2019 17:39:18 +0000 
> 
> One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 
> 
> 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 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.math 
> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 15:45:06 -0800 (PST) 
> 
> Subject: Re: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
> Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2019 23:45:06 +0000 
> 
> Re: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 
> 
> On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 5:12:48 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > Yes, below is a nice one paragraph proof that the Regular FLT cannot exist with a solution because it would tear up the fabric of Algebra axioms. Nothing more needs to be done or said than the paragraph proof, showing that you cannot have Algebra and have a solution in Regular FLT 
> > 
> 
> It is nice not only for its brevity-- one paragraph, but very very nice in that you need never even have to show samples or examples. All you need to say is merely 
> 
> Generalized FLT  is A^x + B^y = C^z where A,B,C are counting numbers and x,y,z are counting numbers larger than 2 
> 
> Regular FLT is A^k + B^k = C^k where A,B,C,k are counting numbers and the constant k is larger than 2 
> 
> Axiom of Equality-- to keep the equality, multiply every term by a constant k 
> Axiom of Exponents-- only time you can factor out A^x + B^y = C^z and retain equality is when x,y,z = a constant k 
> 
> If Generalized FLT has a solution, then Regular FLT cannot have a solution. If Regular FLT had a solution, then Generalized FLT cannot have a solution. Both cannot exist with a solution set, only one can have a solution set. 
> 
> AP

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

#436190 — Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 8:22:42 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> I am going to have to sleep on the below, with the idea that the proof of Regular FLT is simply a paragraph long that contests, or challenges two different axioms of algebra, one pitted against the other, and realizes that either a solution set exists in Generalized but not Regular FLT , or, a solution set exists in Regular FLT but not Generalized. Since we know a solution set exists in Generalized, we cannot ever have a solution in Regular FLT.
> 
> You see, the proof below does not even care whether Generalized FLT has a prime factor. It just needs the algebra form.
> 
> 
> On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 10:17:38 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > 1.2-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT 
> > 
> > Newsgroups: sci.math 
> > Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 00:07:28 -0800 (PST) 
> > 
> > Subject: AP’s proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 
> > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
> > Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2019 08:07:29 +0000 
> > 
> > AP’s proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > Newsgroups: sci.math 
> > Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 09:39:18 -0800 (PST) 
> > 
> > Subject: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 
> > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
> > Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2019 17:39:18 +0000 
> > 
> > One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > Newsgroups: sci.math 
> > Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 15:45:06 -0800 (PST) 
> > 
> > Subject: Re: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 
> > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
> > Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2019 23:45:06 +0000 
> > 
> > Re: One paragraph proof of FLT//Euler’s fake proof of FLT exponent 3 and Wiles fake proof of FLT 
> > 
> > On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 5:12:48 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > > Yes, below is a nice one paragraph proof that the Regular FLT cannot exist with a solution because it would tear up the fabric of Algebra axioms. Nothing more needs to be done or said than the paragraph proof, showing that you cannot have Algebra and have a solution in Regular FLT 
> > > 
> > 
> > It is nice not only for its brevity-- one paragraph, but very very nice in that you need never even have to show samples or examples. All you need to say is merely 
> > 
> > Generalized FLT  is A^x + B^y = C^z where A,B,C are counting numbers and x,y,z are counting numbers larger than 2 
> > 
> > Regular FLT is A^k + B^k = C^k where A,B,C,k are counting numbers and the constant k is larger than 2 
> > 
> > Axiom of Equality-- to keep the equality, multiply every term by a constant k 
> > Axiom of Exponents-- only time you can factor out A^x + B^y = C^z and retain equality is when x,y,z = a constant k 
> > 
> > If Generalized FLT has a solution, then Regular FLT cannot have a solution. If Regular FLT had a solution, then Generalized FLT cannot have a solution. Both cannot exist with a solution set, only one can have a solution set. 
> > 
> > AP

At least you seem to recognize that repeating the same mistake over and over
makes you sound stupid.  You seem to still have difficulty with division.

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

#436204 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

AlzheimerPlutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

WARNING TO PARENTS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to teach your children
his broken math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the minds of your children! He
teaches there are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, he teaches a
sine wave isn't a sine wave plus many, many other instances of bad math.
In addition, he loves to teach false Boolean logic such as 3 AND 2 = 5.
His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a false
statement that nobody believes, such as 3 OR 2 = 5, say that it is false,
but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false statement such
as 3 AND 2 = 5, in order to really confuse future computer scientists.

Also, Plutonium is known to attempt to Brainwash young children by including
several pages of nothing except one of his lies repeated over and over.

Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of children like this.
Perhaps he wants everyone to be a failure at math, just like he is.
Perhaps he is an agent of Putin and Russia, or maybe of China, in order
to make sure they will continue to dominate the trade economy. But the
point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous book!

In addition, Plutonium wants to usurp good Christians by trying to convince
students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god. You can recognize
the symbol of this evil pagan cult, which is an ascii-art cosmic butthole.

Students also need to be warned about Plutonium's attempt to sabotage
science (with such stupidities as the universe being a single atom and
atoms containing unstable muons) and even corruption of poetry and music,
with corrupted hymns to the evil atom god and poems intended to harass
anyone who attempts to warn you of Plutonium's evil intentions of sabotage
of the minds of students as young as 5 years old.


x-no-archive: yes

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

#436232 — yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

I am pretty sure i neednot even have to prove all solutions of Generalized FLT have a common prime factor— all i need os the algebra format A^x + B^y = C^z and let the two axioms— one axiom destroy the other and is the proof of Regular FLT.

The fact that Generalized FLT has a common prime factor is just added superficial information.

AP

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

#436234 — Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 7:44:42 AM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> I am pretty sure i neednot even have to prove all solutions of Generalized FLT have a common prime factor— all i need os the algebra format A^x + B^y = C^z and let the two axioms— one axiom destroy the other and is the proof of Regular FLT.
> 
> The fact that Generalized FLT has a common prime factor is just added superficial information.
> 
> AP

Your usual "proofs" involve finding one example and proclaiming a general result
(almost always wrong).  In this case, you have NOTHING.  No argument, no eamples.

Your second "axiom" is nonsense, as a counter-example is easy to find (you found
it yourself).

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

#436235 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

AlzheimerPlutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>I am pretty sure i neednot even have to prove all solutions of Generalized 

WARNING TO PARENTS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to teach your children
his broken math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the minds of your children! He
teaches there are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, he teaches a
sine wave isn't a sine wave plus many, many other instances of bad math.
In addition, he loves to teach false Boolean logic such as 3 AND 2 = 5.
His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a false
statement that nobody believes, such as 3 OR 2 = 5, say that it is false,
but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false statement such
as 3 AND 2 = 5, in order to really confuse future computer scientists.

Also, Plutonium is known to attempt to Brainwash young children by including
several pages of nothing except one of his lies repeated over and over.

Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of children like this.
Perhaps he wants everyone to be a failure at math, just like he is.
Perhaps he is an agent of Putin and Russia, or maybe of China, in order
to make sure they will continue to dominate the trade economy. But the
point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous book!

In addition, Plutonium wants to usurp good Christians by trying to convince
students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god. You can recognize
the symbol of this evil pagan cult, which is an ascii-art cosmic butthole.




x-no-archive: yes

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

#436297 — proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 9:44:42 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> I am pretty sure i neednot even have to prove all solutions of Generalized FLT have a common prime factor— all i need os the algebra format A^x + B^y = C^z and let the two axioms— one axiom destroy the other and is the proof of Regular FLT.
> 
> The fact that Generalized FLT has a common prime factor is just added superficial information.
> 

Yes, let me try this out for size.

So I have 2^4 = 4^2

Or I could have 2^6 = 4^3

Now easily I could try factoring out the 2 in either one

1^4 =/= 2^2
1^6 =/= 2^3

So this is the argument I am making in the proof of Regular FLT

It is governed by two relevant axioms:

Definition-- call A in A^k or A^x call A the base and k, x the power

1) axiom that you have a equation where all the powers are the same then you can multiply every base in the equation by a factor and retain equality
2) axiom of exponents-- you cannot multiply the bases in a equation by a factor that does not have the same powers for all its terms and retain equality

Regular FLT proof: If there exists a solution set for A^k + B^k = C^k then it exists in A^x + B^y = C^z. There are solution sets for A^x + B^y = C^z. Since we apply axiom (1) we cannot have a solution set in A^k + B^k = C^k for that violates axiom (2). QED

AP

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

#436299 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

AlzheimerPlutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>So I had to look up the date of Jarrett's mapping, and it appears to be

WARNING TO PARENTS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to teach your children
his broken math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the minds of your children! He
teaches there are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, he teaches a
sine wave isn't a sine wave plus many, many other instances of bad math.
In addition, he loves to teach false Boolean logic such as 3 AND 2 = 5.
His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a false
statement that nobody believes, such as 3 OR 2 = 5, say that it is false,
but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false statement such
as 3 AND 2 = 5, in order to really confuse future computer scientists.

Also, Plutonium is known to attempt to Brainwash young children by including
several pages of nothing except one of his lies repeated over and over.

Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of children like this.
Perhaps he wants everyone to be a failure at math, just like he is.
Perhaps he is an agent of Putin and Russia, or maybe of China, in order
to make sure they will continue to dominate the trade economy. But the
point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous book!

In addition, Plutonium wants to usurp good Christians by trying to convince
students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god. You can recognize
the symbol of this evil pagan cult, which is an ascii-art cosmic butthole.

x-no-archive: yes 

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

#436300 — Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 1:52:43 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 9:44:42 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > I am pretty sure i neednot even have to prove all solutions of Generalized FLT have a common prime factor— all i need os the algebra format A^x + B^y = C^z and let the two axioms— one axiom destroy the other and is the proof of Regular FLT.
> > 
> > The fact that Generalized FLT has a common prime factor is just added superficial information.
> > 
> 
> Yes, let me try this out for size.
> 
> So I have 2^4 = 4^2
> 
> Or I could have 2^6 = 4^3
> 
> Now easily I could try factoring out the 2 in either one
> 
> 1^4 =/= 2^2
> 1^6 =/= 2^3
> 
> So this is the argument I am making in the proof of Regular FLT
> 
> It is governed by two relevant axioms:
> 
> Definition-- call A in A^k or A^x call A the base and k, x the power
> 
> 1) axiom that you have a equation where all the powers are the same then you can multiply every base in the equation by a factor and retain equality
> 2) axiom of exponents-- you cannot multiply the bases in a equation by a factor that does not have the same powers for all its terms and retain equality
> 
> Regular FLT proof: If there exists a solution set for A^k + B^k = C^k then it exists in A^x + B^y = C^z. There are solution sets for A^x + B^y = C^z. Since we apply axiom (1) we cannot have a solution set in A^k + B^k = C^k for that violates axiom (2). QED
> 
> AP

You're doing it again, Archie.  You don't know how to "factor out the 2" in
and exponential expression.

2^4 / 2 IS NOT 1^4.  2^4 / 2 = 2^3
2^6 / 2 IS NOT 1^6.  2^6 / 2 = 2^5

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

#436307 — Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 3:52:43 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 9:44:42 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > I am pretty sure i neednot even have to prove all solutions of Generalized FLT have a common prime factor— all i need os the algebra format A^x + B^y = C^z and let the two axioms— one axiom destroy the other and is the proof of Regular FLT.
> > 
> > The fact that Generalized FLT has a common prime factor is just added superficial information.
> > 

Of course the argument I used in my proof of Regular FLT was use the fact of a common factor in Generalized FLT, so that Generalized is saying no coprimes whereas Regular FLT is saying there must be coprimes.

In my proof I get to a step where I say all solutions of Generalized are no coprime solutions, and since Regular FLT requires coprime, no solution exists there.

But here, I am bypassing the coprime argument by drilling into some axioms


> 
> Yes, let me try this out for size.
> 
> So I have 2^4 = 4^2
> 
> Or I could have 2^6 = 4^3
> 
> Now easily I could try factoring out the 2 in either one
> 
> 1^4 =/= 2^2
> 1^6 =/= 2^3
> 
> So this is the argument I am making in the proof of Regular FLT
> 
> It is governed by two relevant axioms:
> 
> Definition-- call A in A^k or A^x call A the base and k, x the power
> 
> 1) axiom that you have a equation where all the powers are the same then you can multiply every base in the equation by a factor and retain equality
> 2) axiom of exponents-- you cannot multiply the bases in a equation by a factor that does not have the same powers for all its terms and retain equality
> 

Can those axioms alone bypass the coprime tool.

> Regular FLT proof: If there exists a solution set for A^k + B^k = C^k then it exists in A^x + B^y = C^z. There are solution sets for A^x + B^y = C^z. Since we apply axiom (1) we cannot have a solution set in A^k + B^k = C^k for that violates axiom (2). QED
> 

I need more than just those two axioms.

AP

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

#436308 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>Of course the argument I used in my proof of Regular FLT was use the fact 

WARNING TO PARENTS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to teach your children
his broken math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the minds of your children! He
teaches there are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, he teaches a
sine wave isn't a sine wave plus many, many other instances of bad math.
In addition, he loves to teach false Boolean logic such as 3 AND 2 = 5.
His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a false
statement that nobody believes, such as 3 OR 2 = 5, say that it is false,
but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false statement such
as 3 AND 2 = 5, in order to really confuse future computer scientists.

Also, Plutonium is known to attempt to Brainwash young children by including
several pages of nothing except one of his lies repeated over and over.

Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of children like this.
Perhaps he wants everyone to be a failure at math, just like he is.
Perhaps he is an agent of Putin and Russia, or maybe of China, in order
to make sure they will continue to dominate the trade economy. But the
point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous book!

In addition, Plutonium wants to usurp good Christians by trying to convince
students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god. You can recognize
the symbol of this evil pagan cult, which is an ascii-art cosmic butthole.


x-no-archive: yes 

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

#436310 — Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

Now i do not want to devolve into a geometry proof or hybrid geometry like years past. Where Generalized is condensed rectangles and easily see no coprimes. Whereas Regular FLT and Pythagorean theorem are figures off a right triangle or 3D wedge. This raises the interesting idea the coprime is right angle perpendicular, whereas factorable is slices of a rectangle.

Here i am trying for pure algebra, no geometry help.

By asking if the impossibility of regular FLT is baked already in the axioms of algebra coupled with exponent axioms. Is FLT just an expression of coupling together two algebra axioms? That is the prize here.

Now a question tha arises, i do not recall any solution of Generalized where all three exponents are different.

Another question just occurred are the solution exponents always two odd one even? Or can a solution set exponents have three evens?

Of course if nothing works here, i still proved Generalized and Regular FLT in 2014.

AP

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

#436311 — Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

Found an example that answers two of the questions

27^4 + 162^3 = 9^7

Common prime factor of bases is 3

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

#436331 — Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

Alright this proof is back again-one paragraph proof of FLT. After a momentary sputter. It uses Generalized FLT only in the fact it has solutions, not the fact of a prime factor.

It pitts two axioms against one another so that if a solution exists in FLT, no solution can exist in Generalized.

More tomorrow.

AP

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

#436333 — Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

One  of the axioms is to retain equality every tern must be multiplied by the constant factor k.

Another axiom is that mixed exponents does not retain equality once multiplied by constant factor k.

A important definition is in 6^2 the 6 is called the base while 2 is exponent or power.

I will use these two equations to guide.

6^2 + 8^2 = 10^2
And
2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4

If FLT is having a solution it must come from Generalized FLT.

If FLT has a solution it has an infinite number of solutions since we can have k times the Bases by axiom of equality.

AP

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

#436349 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>Subject: Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

>>One  of the axioms is to retain equality every tern must be multiplied by 
>the constant factor k.

>Another axiom is that mixed exponents does not retain equality once multiplied by constant factor k.

>A important definition is in 6^2 the 6 is called the base while 2 is exponent or power.

>I will use these two equations to guide.

>6^2 + 8^2 = 10^2
>And
>2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4

>If FLT is having a solution it must come from Generalized FLT.

>If FLT has a solution it has an infinite number of solutions since we can have k times the Bases by axiom of equality.

Thank you for requesting another Babble-o-meter Calculation!

☑ Archie reposts the same old, same old, yet again...
☑ ...and again and again...
☑ ...and again and again...
☑ ...posted enough times to be classified as spam...
☑ ...Post has no new content, in fact...
☐ ...Archie's spam complains about other spammers or babblers...
☑ ...Purpose of post is to remain #1 Front Page Hog...
☐ .....meanwhile, Archie complains of some other "Front Page Hog"...
☐ ...Post posted in the wrong topic...
☐ .....and to the wrong newsgroup...
☐ ...Author awards self Nobel Prize/claims he should be so awarded...
☐ .....Author rejects self-awarded Nobel, real awardees don't deserve it...
☐ ...Author sour grapes Nobel or other science/math prize...
☑ ...Post has science or math 100% made up from whole cloth...
☑ ...Post's science/math based on earlier whole cloth science/math...
☑ .....which was based on even earlier whole cloth science/math...
☑ .....which was, oh never mind...
☑ ...Post contains The Truth because Archie said it is true...
☐ ...Phrases such as "Old Science" (actual science) and "New Science (babbling of author)...
☑ ...One word: Logorrhea...
☑ ...Another word: Graphomania...
☐ ...Author thinks cutting up magazines disproves actual math proofs...
☑ ...Author thinks a bad dream is an excellent basis for physics...
☑ ...Archie doesn't understand Usenet, not even after 26+ years...
☐ ...Archie asks Google Groups to do something they can't do... 
☑ ...Archie even thinks Google runs Usenet...
☑ .....even though Archie used Usenet even before there even was a Google...
☑ ...Archie won't engage in discussion in a discussion group...
☐ ...Writes "Keep out of my threads!"...
☐ ...Archie demands professors resign for not teaching his broken math...
☐ ...Post includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors...
☐ ...Archie outwitted by someone too stoopid to come out of the rain AGAIN...
☑ ...Archie can't get over the shame of messing up percentages...
☑ ....he even still thinks 8.88 is "exactly" 9...
☐ ....and he thinks 16.81 is "spot on" 17...
☐ ...Archie is envious that I weighed the electron and he didn't...
☐ ...Post includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...
☐ ...Post contains ascii art of Archie's butthole...
☐ ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s...
☐ ...Archie tries to involve totally uninvolved people...
☐ .....with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test no one ever took...
☐ .....but has no clue they will never see his post...
☐ .....and has no clue they probably don't know what Usenet is...
☐ .....he expects them to have power/authority they simply don't...
☑ ...Too stoopid to realize attack posts just produce more posts like this...
☑ ...Google Groups poster. 'Nuf said.

Archie's Babbling Nonsense score:  22 plutoniums!

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

#436372 — Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 2:40:41 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> One  of the axioms is to retain equality every term must be multiplied by the constant factor k.
> 
> Another axiom is that mixed exponents does not retain equality once multiplied by constant factor k.
> 
> A important definition is in 6^2 the 6 is called the base while 2 is exponent or power.
> 
> I will use these two equations to guide.
> 
> 6^2 + 8^2 = 10^2

This becomes 6*6 + 8*8 = 10*10

Where we view the exponents as not even mathematical but a lazy shorthand deterrant

> And
> 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4
> 
> If FLT is having a solution it must come from Generalized FLT.
> 
> If FLT has a solution it has an infinite number of solutions since we can have k times the Bases by axiom of equality.
> 
> AP

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

#436375 — Re: proof Re: yes, I believe this proof does not even worry about a proof of Generalized FLT Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 10:57:28 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 2:40:41 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > One  of the axioms is to retain equality every term must be multiplied by the constant factor k.
> > 
> > Another axiom is that mixed exponents does not retain equality once multiplied by constant factor k.
> > 
> > A important definition is in 6^2 the 6 is called the base while 2 is exponent or power.
> > 
> > I will use these two equations to guide.
> > 
> > 6^2 + 8^2 = 10^2
> 
> This becomes 6*6 + 8*8 = 10*10
> 
> Where we view the exponents as not even mathematical but a lazy shorthand deterrant
> 
> > And
> > 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4


This becomes 2*2*2 + 2*2*2 = 2*2*2*2

With the idea that powers and exponents just clouded our understanding of FLT and the only reason blocking us of a simple pure algebra proof of FLT

> > 
> > If FLT is having a solution it must come from Generalized FLT.
> > 
> > If FLT has a solution it has an infinite number of solutions since we can have k times the Bases by axiom of equality.
> > 
> > AP

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

#436388 — looking for this special one axiom Re:-AP's one paragraph proof of Regular FLT, using Generalized FLT

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 11:27:16 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 10:57:28 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 2:40:41 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > One  of the axioms is to retain equality every term must be multiplied by the constant factor k.
> > > 
> > > Another axiom is that mixed exponents does not retain equality once multiplied by constant factor k.
> > > 
> > > A important definition is in 6^2 the 6 is called the base while 2 is exponent or power.
> > > 
> > > I will use these two equations to guide.
> > > 
> > > 6^2 + 8^2 = 10^2
> > 
> > This becomes 6*6 + 8*8 = 10*10
> > 
> > Where we view the exponents as not even mathematical but a lazy shorthand deterrant
> > 
> > > And
> > > 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4
> 
> 
> This becomes 2*2*2 + 2*2*2 = 2*2*2*2
> 
> With the idea that powers and exponents just clouded our understanding of FLT and the only reason blocking us of a simple pure algebra proof of FLT
> 
> > > 
> > > If FLT is having a solution it must come from Generalized FLT.
> > > 
> > > If FLT has a solution it has an infinite number of solutions since we can have k times the Bases by axiom of equality.
> > > 
> > > 

Alright the difference between these two equations in terms of Algebra Axioms, where we do not let any exponent or power cloud our minds, we want just pure algebra without exponents to think about

6*6 + 8*8 = 10*10

2*2*2 + 2*2*2 = 2*2*2*2

We can notice that if I multiply the first equation by constant k , I retain equality as such

k*6*6 + k*8*8 = k*10*10
and
k*6*k*6 + k*8*k*8 = k*10*k*10

Trying that out on the second equation

k*2*2*2 + k*2*2*2 =  k*2*2*2*2

However

k*2*k*2*k*2 + k*2*k*2*k*2 =/= k*2*k*2*k*2*k*2

So, what I need to do is find the Axiom or Axioms that controls that feature where you have a mixed bag of exponent powers such as 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 as opposed to where you have a symmetry of exponents such as A^2 + B^2 = C^2.

If it is just one axiom in question here, then the reasoning is -- if a solution set exists in A^x + B^y = C^z of mixed powers, then, by the axiom alone, you cannot have A^k + B^k = C^k due to that axiom. 

This would be a one paragraph proof of FLT, and I was looking last night and saw several other math proofs that resembles as a conjecture-- Catalan conjecture, and ABC conjecture, all would be swept away by such an axiom, in simple simple simple proofs.

AP

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web