Fermat status

[Andrew Wiles]

In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
Taniyama-Shimura conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem I will give a
brief account of the situation. During the review process a number of
problems emerged, most of which have been resolved, but one in
particular I have not yet settled. The key reduction of (most cases
of ) the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture to the calculation of the Selmer
group is correct. However the final calculation of a precise upper
bound for the Selmer group in the semistable case (of the symmetric
square representation associated to a modular form) is not yet
complete as it stands. I believe that I will be able to finish this
in the near future using the ideas explained in my Cambridge
lectures.

The fact that a lot of work remains to be done on the
manuscript makes it still unsuitable for release as a preprint . In
my course in Princeton beginning in February I will give a full
account of this work.

Andrew Wiles.

[Ludwig Plutonium]

In article <1993Dec4.0...@Princeton.EDU>
wi...@rugola.Princeton.EDU (Andrew Wiles) writes:

> In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
> Taniyama-Shimura conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem I will give a
> brief account of the situation. During the review process a number of
> problems emerged, most of which have been resolved, but one in
> particular I have not yet settled. The key reduction of (most cases
> of ) the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture to the calculation of the Selmer
> group is correct.

Roughly, how many persons are there in the world now who have a
Masters degree or higher in mathematics? Perhaps 100,000? Of those, how
many believe they will prove a famous outstanding math problem? My
guess of the above is 50%. I believe 50% of mathematicians are arrogant
and self-deluded enough to believe they were "chosen" to do a famous
outstanding math problem. This guess-estimate of 50,000 if true is in
my opinion a good thing because if all persons entering mathematics
were realistic from the start, then the number of people who end up
majoring in mathematics would diminish to perhaps a mere thousand.
There is safety in numbers.
Since I believe the universe is superdeterministic then it follows
by this line of thinking that math problems become "famous" because of
our Maker. It was our Maker who made Fermat write his margin note. It
was our Maker who forced Riemann to conjecture 1/2, the only number
which the electron spin "M sub s" can have. And it is our Maker, 231Pu,
who has superdetermined already before the person is even born what
person will prove the outstanding problem. The proof of a very famous
outstanding math problem Riemann Hypothesis, Poincare Conjecture,
Fermat's Last Theorem, and others will use "new techniques" and yield
"new mathematical knowledge." That is the reason these problems are
long outstanding. In this sense, a proof of FLT from the regular old
math is what Hardy and Dirac would have called "ugly mathematics."
Wiles's proof attempt uses the old math, nothing new. Just the length
of his alleged proof is testimony of "ugly mathematics."
The person superdetermined to prove RH,PC, and FLT will have done
so incidentally to something else--Atom Totality. In a thousand years
from now, historians will pick through these postings, not for the sake
of FLT but because of a beautiful and simple idea which can be
described in two words, ATOM TOTALITY.

[Ludwig Plutonium]

To new readers of this newsgroup. This is the true status of FLT. By
true, I mean this is what the future history books will record for this
year 0053. Old readers of sci.math can remember all of this material
was done this past summer here in sci.math.
Summary outline of sci.math Aug0053-Oct0053, regarding the world's
first proof of FLT. It was my intuitive math hunch that the proof of
FLT was tied with the fact that 2+2=2x2=4. That the smallest P-triple
for exp2 is <3,4,5>. Notice this is <(2)+1, (2+2), (2+2)+1>. I wanted
to proof FLT from the fact that 2 and 4 were the only numbers in all of
math that satisfied kN=N^k=M. The argument continues into exp3 (and
higher) by showing no smallest P-triple exists because no number N and
M exists such that 3N=N^3=M. Then Karl Heuer posted some P-adic numbers
which do indeed satisfy the equation kN=N^k=M. Hence I had to abandon
my hunch argument, because my intuition told me FLT is false. If the
2+2=2x2 trick can not work then FLT must be false and counterexamples
had to exist. Quickly Will Schneeberger posted P-adic counterexamples
to FLT, and later Dik Winter followed-up with some really nice
counterexamples for all exponents 3 or greater.
Not long thereafter I realized that the Peano axioms via the
endless adding of 1 yield not only the finite integers but also the
infinite integers. What I call the Whole numbers includes finite
integers and infinite integers. The P-adics are infinite integers. The
finite integers are P-adics with an infinite string of zeroes to the
left. In a sense, every integer is infinite. It is the word "finite"
which needs to be defined.
It was here that I offered three proofs that the Peano axioms yield
infinite integers. Those persons in math research centers know what a
revolution in math will result when you take the step into the notion--
Peano axioms yield infinite integers. A few examples: ...9999.9999...
is the largest number and is the number for infinity itself. This
largest of all numbers has dual values-- both ...999.99... and 0. The
number ...999. is the last and largest Whole number which is the number
-1 to our "old math." The number i can be written out as a P-adic. The
Whole numbers do not go out as a ray to make the coordinate system of
Euclidean geometry, but instead circle back around in a Archimedian
spiral. The Whole numbers form a Riemannian space.

PROOF OF FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM
FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM IS FALSE. Proof:
For exp3 in 10 adics these are three counterexamples

1
10
...52979382777667001

1
20
...4437336001

1
30
...4919009001

The expression a^n+b^n=c^n is true for all n given the following values

a= ...9977392256259918212890625
b=...0022607743740081787109376
c= 1
Because a,b,c are idempotents. ATOM,ATOM

[Ludwig Plutonium]

I have stated it before, but it bears repeating. All alleged proofs
of FLT purporting that no integer solutions exist for exp 3 or higher
are doomed to be a fake. Counterexample proof method is the very
strongest mathematical proof method. FLT was looked at by some of the
world's best mathematicians--Gauss,Riemann, and was outstanding because
it is false. And the "new mathematics" which results from the first
proof of FLT is that the Peano Axioms yield the infinite integers. PA
yields all of the Whole numbers. Some of these Whole numbers have
duality representation,e.g., ...9999. is both ...999. and also -1.

LTR (revised) SENT TO THE CHANCELLOR OF GERMANY
LTR (revised) SENT TO THE GERMAN EMBASSY

SUBJ: WHEN I PICK-UP MY WOLFSKEHL PRIZE

Thus when I come to Germany to pick-up my Wolfskehl prize. It is not
by coincidence that the man who proved Fermat's Last Theorem is the
same man who proved Riemann Hypothesis, Poincare Conjecture, Goldbach's
Conjecture, Kepler's Packing Problem, and 4-color-mapping problem. For
it is the same man who first saw that the observable universe is merely
the last electron, the 94th, of plutonium. The man who unified
mathematics to physics,chemistry, and biology. The man who first saw
that the number ¹ is a number approximately 22/7 because 231Pu has
approximately 22 subshells in 7 shells, and that the number e is
approximately 19/7 because 231Pu has approximately 19 occupied
subshells in 7 shells. The inverse fine-structure marker of physics is
because 231Pu has 137 neutrons in the nucleus.
Before I pick-up my Wolfskehl prize I want to have my German
citizenship restored to me that is why I have written to the Chancellor
of Germany and the German Embassy. I was born in Germany and it has
been superdetermined that a German citizen will win the Wolfskehl
prize.
When I pick up my Wolfskehl prize I want to have applied the prize
money (unless a German manufacturer wants to donate) to the making of a
shiny soft metal anvil and a stainless steel sword in the likeness of
NOTHUNG with a hilt of gold, and when the director of the Wolfskehl
prize reads off my name and all the other preliminaries. I will pull
EXCALIBUR out of the anvil and then I will make a display showing me
hammering like THOR (Siegfried) on the sword GRAM to make it into the
sword NOTHUNG and then I will act-out the scene where I divide the
anvil in half with NOTHUNG simultaneously showing the movie scene
overhead, where Arthur pulls the sword out of the anvil (stone) all of
which while continually playing the music of Wagner repeating a section
of SiegfriedÕs Funeral Music from GoetterdŠmmerung. For I, Ludwig
Plutonium, am the KING OF MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS.
signed and sent
Ludwig Plutonium

[Ludwig Plutonium]

In article <1993Dec4.0...@Princeton.EDU>
wi...@rugola.Princeton.EDU (Andrew Wiles) writes:

> However the final calculation of a precise upper
> bound for the Selmer group in the semistable case (of the symmetric
> square representation associated to a modular form) is not yet
> complete as it stands. I believe that I will be able to finish this
> in the near future using the ideas explained in my Cambridge
> lectures.

I think I can help you here Andrew. Even if this hole (and the next)
were to be plugged. A famous outstanding arithmetic problem solved
geometrically, must first and foremost be proved to be the logically
equivalent statement. For example, the Moebius function was proved to
be the logically equivalent statement to the Riemann Hypothesis.
Andrew, even if you could plug every gap in your alleged proof, no
where is it compelling or even apparent that your finished product is
FLT. A hint of FLT is not FLT. Besides, stop what you are doing for a
moment and try to produce the Pythagorean Theorem using your methods.

> The fact that a lot of work remains to be done on the
> manuscript makes it still unsuitable for release as a preprint . In
> my course in Princeton beginning in February I will give a full
> account of this work.
>
>
> Andrew Wiles.

Is this to be the standard life-cycle for fake proofs? 1) Spendid
world-wide publicity 2) a very long alleged proofs 3) gaps found 4)
fake proof to be taught at home town University 5) alleged proof never
withdrawn, just ignored.
When the lifecycle should be such. 1) Prepare for publication 2)
alleged proof published.

[Dale R. Worley]

My newsreader presented the following capsule summary of part of sci.math:

59162: [ 21:wiles@rugola.] Fermat status
59241: [ 34:Ludwig.Pluton]
59245: [ 40:Ludwig.Pluton]
59249: [ 61:Ludwig.Pluton]
59250: [ 49:Ludwig.Pluton]

For those of you who don't use the same newsreader, it meant: An
article by Andrew Wiles on the status of the FTL proof, followed up by
no less than 4 articles by "Ludwig Plutonium".

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

Dale

Dale Worley Dept. of Math., MIT d...@math.mit.edu
--
Since *nobody* is willing to endorse all of the 120 Days of Sodom, there
will always be limits to sexual freedom. The only question, then, is
whether a particular act is permitted at a particular place and time,
and if not, how to get away with it.

[Roy Ho]

Andrew Wiles (wi...@rugola.Princeton.EDU) wrote:

: In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the

[Ludwig Plutonium]

In article <DRW.93De...@schauder.mit.edu>
d...@schauder.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes: [9 lines deleted]

> I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
>
> Dale
>
> Dale Worley Dept. of Math., MIT d...@math.mit.edu

>
> Andrew Wiles.

In article <1993Dec8.2...@peavax.mlo.dec.com>
h...@fascn8.hpc.pko.dec.com (Roy Ho) writes: [16 lines deleted]

> : Andrew Wiles.

Thank you, for I can just leap-frog the Humpty Dumpties in order for
me to clarify and correct spelling.

Is this to be the standard life-cycle for fake proofs? 1) corral a
band of so called experts on your side 2) repeatedly say or imply the
proof is a foregone conclusion 3) marshal splendid world-wide publicity
and front page news coverage 4) offer an exceedingly long alleged proof
5) claim new math techniques when in fact it is Òwarmed-up leftoversÓ
6) gaps found 7) fake proof to be taught at home town University 8)
fake proof never withdrawn or retracted, but pretended as if it is a
genuine proof even though the latest gap needs to be plugged 9) initial
endorsers seen distancing themselves from all ties to the fakery, for
fear that their own reputations will also be dragged down 10) Wiles
makes a last ditch attempt by publishing his fake proof/methods with
Princeton University Press 11) the math community goes in opposite
direction to WilesÕs offerings and ends by ignoring his claim that FLT
is proved.
When the life-cycle should be such. 1) prepare an alleged proof for
publication 2) alleged proof published 3) after a long time in
published form it is decided whether FLT is correct or not. These are
the steps I am preparing for the worldÕs first proof of FLT which is as
follows.

PROOF OF FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM
FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM IS FALSE. Proof:
For exp3 in 10 adics these are three counterexamples

1
10
...52979382777667001

1
20
...4437336001

1
30
...4919009001

The expression a^n+b^n=c^n is true for all n given the following values

a= ...9977392256259918212890625
b=...0022607743740081787109376
c= 1
Because a,b,c are idempotents. ATOM,ATOM

The reason such a simply stated math problem, FLT was not solved by
some of the world's greatest mathematicians Gauss, Riemann, Galois, . .
(not those dime a dozen professors of math-- just regurgitators of the
subject.) Was because it is false. And new math is created, more
realistically---uncovered to what was already laying there within the
Peano Axioms, by solving FLT. Galois photons saw "Group theory" to
solve the quintic problem. I photon saw the unearthing of infinite
integers from the endless adding of 1 in the Peano Axioms. The
mathematics world on Earth will never be the same after this year 0053.

[Kevin Sinclair]

Mr. Wiles, there is a lot of curiousity about FLT, your proof of it, and of
yourself. Can you answer a few questions?

1) How long have you been working on FLT?

2) Is your work focused on FLT? Or on some more general mathematics, that just
happens to prove FLT? I mean, was FLT your main goal? Or something deeper?

3) Any comment on the newspaper article and book by Marilyn Vos Savant that
discusses your work on FLT? Any comment on lay persons interest in FLT?

4) Any comment on the discussions that have gone on here in the Internet
regarding FLT and your proof?

5) It seems fairly unlikely that Fermat himself had a proof of FLT. Comment?

6) When you go over your work in your course in February, can it then be made
available on the Internet?

7) After FLT, what are your future plans? I.E. what is your next problem?

Thanks you.

[Bradley Brock]

In article <DRW.93De...@schauder.mit.edu>,

Dale R. Worley <d...@schauder.mit.edu> wrote:
>My newsreader presented the following capsule summary of part of sci.math:
>
> 59162: [ 21:wiles@rugola.] Fermat status
> 59241: [ 34:Ludwig.Pluton]
> 59245: [ 40:Ludwig.Pluton]
> 59249: [ 61:Ludwig.Pluton]
> 59250: [ 49:Ludwig.Pluton]
>
>For those of you who don't use the same newsreader, it meant: An
>article by Andrew Wiles on the status of the FTL proof, followed up by
>no less than 4 articles by "Ludwig Plutonium".
>
>I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

I didn't see this because I have
/plutonium/h:j
in my KILL file. You might want to try it.

By the way I checked. This message really was from Wiles.
--
Bradley W. Brock | "If I do, these persons may come to great harm....
br...@ccr-p.ida.org | After all a person's a person. No matter how small."
IDA/CCR Princeton, NJ | -Horton in "Horton Hears a Who!"
br...@alumni.cco.caltech.edu

[Dan Hoey]

br...@ccr-p.ida.org (Bradley Brock) writes:

> I didn't see this because I have
> /plutonium/h:j
> in my KILL file. You might want to try it.

As I mentioned back in October, that is a Bad Idea. It will kill
articles that mention plutonium in innocuous places like the Path
header, so you are likely to kill some innocuous or even valuable
article. If you want to avoid Ludi Toons,

/^from:.*plutonium@/h:j

is more precise. If your news reader is a version of xrn that calls
this a "malformed kill file entry", leaving off the "h:" should work.
Anyone else who needs further help writing kill files should take it
to news.software.readers.

Dan Hoey
Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil

ObMath: Up to symmetry, there are ten ways of cutting a regular
dodecahedron into two simply-connected six-pentagon pieces.
One of them is not like the others!

[Dan Cass]

Why don't you take a flying leap into the beyond?
That is, why don't you generalize your approach and
prove the meta-theorem:
Everything I think up is true.
That way, you could just post once, and we wouldn't
have to keep reading your posts, which basically just state
the above metatheorem over and over, in various special cases.

Incidentally, some of us who believe in God do not think that
the universe is deterministic; if it were, it would be perhaps
nothing more than the endless development of some pre-existing
condition. So why would God need the universe to exist, just
so that certain formal laws could parade themselves via their
inevitable implications, forever and a day? He'd be better off
making some beings who could easily derive these consequences,
and then just telling them the axioms.

[open for counter-flames from Pluto, d...@sjfc.edu]

[john baez]

In article <1993Dec8.0...@sjfc.edu> d...@sjfc.edu (Dan Cass) writes:
>In article <CHM11...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>> To new readers of this newsgroup. This is the true status of FLT.

To new readers of this newsgroup: welcome to sci.math, where mathematics
is sometimes different than it is elsewhere.

>Why don't you take a flying leap into the beyond?

He has, he has.

[Karl Heuer]

In article <9312091...@aic.nrl.navy.mil>,

Dan Hoey <ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil> wrote:
>ObMath: Up to symmetry, there are ten ways of cutting a regular
> dodecahedron into two simply-connected six-pentagon pieces.
> One of them is not like the others!

Only one of the ten produces two halves that are not congruent. Neat.

Reminds me of a question I came up with some time ago. Can the vertices of
the n-cube (n >= 1) be partitioned into two equal-sized subsets which are not
congruent to each other?

[Ludwig Plutonium]

In article <2ebc30$d...@galaxy.ucr.edu>
ba...@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez) writes:

Readers, I do not feel anger towards these persons with these kind
of postings. More, I feel pity and sorrow. They will spend most or all
of their life in a subject such as physics or math and rave about how
they knew this and that when 12 years old, or studied the Feynman
Lectures in High School. They are quick to put others down and make
arrogant remarks about their own physics or math abilities. Many of
these persons made excellent grades while in school and got
scholarships to the best Universities. Many can be seen with widespread
influence within the bandwagon of physics or math communities, such as
poisoning-the-well to any would be publisher of the revolutionary idea.
And they are quick to try to label me as another Hannu or Abian physics
crackpot. They try to label me, not debate me for they will come up the
fool. But as my ideas are slowly verified some will revert to even
worse methods, they will try to steal my new ideas. Some will go
through their notebooks and fabricate or postdate entries. Some will
rewrite my math proofs rewording everything and try to steal the ideas
for themselves. Some person may even try the trick (a Bernoulli played
this on a younger Bernoulli) of getting a publisher to publish a
back-dated journal with one of my proofs or ideas included within and
claiming it as his own.
No, I am not angry with these folks. Instead I pity them for I
realize well that they will never amount to anything important in
physics or math. The more they attack revolutionary ideas seems to give
them a pyschological satisfaction of filling their own void of
contributions. Some of these persons in older age will mellow out and
drop their arrogance. Some will even drop their self-delusion that they
contributed anything of importance to physics or math. As if it
mattered that they had picked physics or math as a career instead of
writing brain teasers in newspaper supplements. That their time would
have been better spent enjoying whatever hobbies they liked and earning
a living by pumping petrol at Exxon. Sort of the pathos feeling
Bertrand Russell had when he discussed a future library throwing his
Principia into the rubbish bin.
No, I am not angry at these folks. I pity them for I realize they
love physics and math perhaps as much as I do. But the fact is that
revolutionary science comes very infrequently and the chances of it
coming to persons in the bandwagon are rare, because their mind-set is
status quo, not conductive towards new ideas. Being a member of the
bandwagon means that your mind is hard as concrete so the likelihood of
getting a new important idea is low.
Readers, watch the comments of these attackers of my PU Atom Totality
theory and new math ideas once a part of that theory is verified. Watch
the comments of my attackers, say when spontaneous neutron
materialization is verified. Or when it is obvious that the Peano
Axioms yield infinite integers. How I pity them. For it is far better
to not be a professor of math or physics; to have had difficulty with
grades in University and yet be able to contribute something new and
important to the subjects of physics and math.

[Bill Richter]

In article <CHx36...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes endlessly

I use gnus as my newsreader. I've put LP in my kill file, with M-k
C-c C-c. But his articles still show up in my *Summary* buffer, they
just have an X in front of them, and I can never resist reading them.
I actually like his anti-establishment positions. But I feel that
striking similar position has cost me too much already, and I'd like
to not expose myself to his hourly posts.

Can someone tell me how use gnus so that LP's articles are hidden, as
well as "killed?"

BTW, does anyone think that I should have put the ? inside the "?

[Kimmo Kettunen]

In article <RICHTER.93...@kepler.math.nwu.edu> ric...@kepler.math.nwu.edu (Bill Richter) writes:

Path: kth.se!sunic!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!129.105.16.55!richter
From: ric...@kepler.math.nwu.edu (Bill Richter)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: 13 Dec 1993 01:49:05 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL USA
Lines: 14
Distribution: world
References: <1993Dec4.0...@Princeton.EDU> <CHM11...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
<1993Dec8.0...@sjfc.edu> <2ebc30$d...@galaxy.ucr.edu>
<CHx36...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kepler.math.nwu.edu

You must add (gnus-expunge "X") at the end of your kill file. For example,
my kill file looks like:

(progn
(gnus-kill "From" "somebody@somewhere")
(gnus-kill "From" "you-kn...@somewhere.else")
(gnus-expunge "X"))

and it works.

Kimmo Kettunen

[Ludwig Plutonium]

In article <1993Dec8.0...@sjfc.edu>
d...@sjfc.edu (Dan Cass) writes:

In article <1993Dec8.0...@sjfc.edu>
d...@sjfc.edu (Dan Cass) writes:

> Why don't you take a flying leap into the beyond?
> That is, why don't you generalize your approach and
> prove the meta-theorem:
> Everything I think up is true.
> That way, you could just post once, and we wouldn't
> have to keep reading your posts, which basically just state
> the above metatheorem over and over, in various special cases.
>
> Incidentally, some of us who believe in God do not think that
> the universe is deterministic; if it were, it would be perhaps
> nothing more than the endless development of some pre-existing
> condition. So why would God need the universe to exist, just
> so that certain formal laws could parade themselves via their
> inevitable implications, forever and a day? He'd be better off
> making some beings who could easily derive these consequences,
> and then just telling them the axioms.
>
> [open for counter-flames from Pluto, d...@sjfc.edu]

I want to comment about your lines ---

> Incidentally, some of us who believe in God do not think that
> the universe is deterministic; if it were, it would be perhaps

It seems reasonable that nowadays if one wanted to study the origins
of the cosmos or universe, that person would study astronomy and
physics, say at Berkeley (I do not know if St John Fisher College
teaches these subjects.) The origins of life, then study biology and
chemistry at Berkeley. Why does Berkeley, Stanford, Rutgers, MIT, UC,
Cambridge, Monash Uni, Goettingen, and on and on and on, not use the
Bible to teach these origins? Because physics,chemistry,biology, and
math are our highest forms of truth.
The history of mankind's ideas took a broad general pattern of first
observing natural physical laws which could not be explained and so
gods were assigned to them (rain-god, Sun-god, etc). Then as more of
the world was explained through science those collections of gods were
narrowed into one god. You do not need a rain-god once you understand
the science behind rain. Mankind then thought Earth was at the center
of the universe. And mankind using religion thought mankind was the
center of god's creation, just lower than the angels.
Science then explained that Earth was not the center of celestial
spheres. Biological evolution explained that Mankind is not the center
of creation. With the Atom Totality, I push it one step further. Life
is not the centerpiece of creation. In fact there is only one thing in
all of creation--atoms, for we are just a sack of chemical atoms.
Democritus said 2200 years ago "The only things that exist are atoms,
.."
The idea of an Atom Totality will take a long time to be recognized
as the truth because most will have difficulty in shedding their
arrogance that an "it" is god. The Bible hints of true things, such as
there is an afterlife--photon souls; there is a heaven--the Protons.
But for the most part the Bible is a collection of science fiction
stories. The Bible was given to us by the Protons of 231Pu as a book of
guidance to conduct a social life. But as the Earth centered universe
conception had to pass, so too must the Bible pass as the proper way to
live. Science will take over that guiding role also, including ethics.
The Bible of the future will be the textbooks of science such as
quantum physics. Some of the Bible is true provided if you replace the
words God, Lord, etc with the word Plutonium Atom Totality. Once you do
that you can see our Maker every day of your life for its physical laws
are always, forever, and almighty. You need not have to search anywhere
for our Maker for it is everywhere, and we are just a small part of it.
Its laws are always obeyed because it is physical law.
No person in human history has ever walk on water and violated
physical law. If Jesus was more than a human being then he would have
come down from the cross, but no he did not, he bled and died like the
thousands of other humans who were brutalized and crucified. Organized
religion had to hide behind some facade so the idea of salvation which
makes no biological or logical sense was invented. Organized religion
spent centuries and centuries destroying all true historical facts
surrounding Jesus and invented their own to try to make the story
believable. One true statement that Jesus made and which organized
religion was unable to twist was on the cross Jesus said " My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
This is what any normal human being would say who was being tortured
to death after his role in an uprising failed. It is my opinion that
Jesus was a morphine medical doctor who had joined a band of revolters
trying to remove Roman rule. Jesus's earlier years were spent learning
about morphine in Eygpt and India. Organized religion destroyed all the
historical facts pointing to Jesus's normal humanity. No group of
people have ever had the Red Sea parted for their escape for it
violates many if not all physical laws.

[Ludwig Plutonium]

In article <KIMMO.93D...@prudens.matematik.su.se>
ki...@prudens.matematik.su.se (Kimmo Kettunen) writes:

> You must add (gnus-expunge "X") at the end of your kill file. For example,
> my kill file looks like:
>

deleted

>
> and it works.
>
> Kimmo Kettunen

Kimmo Therapy

[Dan Cass]

I guess I got flamed. I've been told via e-mail "Don't respond to LP,
it just encourages him." But I don't believe he'll stop posting, and
in fact anyone has the right to post here. If one wants a nice news
group, one can use sci.math.research, or some other moderated group.
Who cares what's written? Like bad TV, one can always change the
channel.

Anyway, I only meant to raise the (old) question of whether or not
the universe is deterministic. It isn't easy even to frame this
question properly, in such a way that experiment could determine
its truth or falsity. It seems to me that deciding whether determinism
holds is much like deciding whether God exists: we don't have conclusive
proof/evidence/etc to decide either. (If such proof existed, why would
these questions be debated for so many centuries?)

--Dan Cass

[Ludwig Plutonium]

In article <1993Dec15....@sjfc.edu>
d...@sjfc.edu (Dan Cass) writes:

Dan the following below are excerpts from my textbook Plutonium Atom
Totality: The Unification of Physics,Chemistry,Biology, and
Mathematics.
It is my opinion that the debate between free-will and determinism is
now at an end, and surprizingly it is neither free-will nor determinism
which won but rather instead--superdeterminism. Our every thought and
action was ordered up by the 94 Protons of the nucleus. THE ANSWERS
COME FROM QUANTUM PHYSICS EXPERIMENTS AND IS ONE OF OUR MOST PRECIOUS
TRUTHS. This is the Bell Inequality with the Aspect experimental
results. See below.

EXCERPTS:
But the atom whole knows where all the atom parts are, and knows where
they will all be in the future. I quote John Bell's thinking on
superdeterminism: "[Superdeterminism] involves absolute determinism in
the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is
super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on
behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our
belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than
another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the
experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another,
the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light
signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on
particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows"
what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.
The atom totality is superdeterministic in its mode of operation.
Everything that happens or will happen has already been
superdetermined, i.e., registered and ordered-up by the atom whole
(mostly the nucleus with its 137 neutrons and 94 protons) of 231Pu. We
atom parts can only make indeterministic, and uncertain measurements
inside the atom whole, but the atom whole is superdeterministic. Below,
in the meaning of mathematics chapter, I will give another clear idea
relying on mathematical analogy by means of the logarithmic spiral of
what superdeterminism means.

h') Spooky action at a distance where a measurement in one part of an
experiment instantaneously changes the measurement in another part even
though the two parts are at opposite ends of the observable universe.
This is Bell's inequality and Aspect's experimental confirmation of
quantum mechanics. Bell's inequality distinguishes between Classical
physics and quantum physics on the large scale. On the small scale of
the atom and inside the atom, quantum physics governs completely. In
quantum mechanics a particle does not possess both a precise position
and a precise momentum. Or, in quantum mechanics, a particle does not
possess both a precise time and a precise energy. Then for Classical
physics on the large scale, a measurement on part of a previously
connected system will show the mathematics of -2 Łp Ł +2, but for
quantum physics, a different mathematics results. And for the case of
detectors oriented at angles of 45° the p for quantum theory will have
the value of +2.83. Where p is the probability that a particular
spin of an electron is detected. Replacing spin with polarization.
Aspect's team worked with the polarizations of pairs of photons, which
were produced from a single atomic event, and thus connected. Then if
quantum theory is correct, each photon exists in a mixed superposition
of states until a measurement is made on the polarization, and at that
instant of measurement, both photons collapse into a state which makes
the mathematics agree with quantum theory. Aspect's experimental
results obtained +2.83 exactly. Thus quantum theory applies to the
entire observable universe, both to the large scale of astronomical and
cosmological distances as well as to the distances of collections of
atoms and inside an atom. Classical physics can only answer Bell's
inequality and Aspect's experimental results by hypothesizing
superluminal speeds. But if there are speeds faster than the speed of
light means all of physics is destroyed, similarly, if in mathematics,
if ever 1+1=+2.83 or if ever 1x1= +2.83 then all of mathematics is
destroyed. The Bell inequality with the Aspect experimental result
thrusts the number one, most outstanding problem in all of physics
before us. Where does the quantum physics world end and the Classical
physics world begin? John Bell stated "There is a way to escape the
inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But
it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence
of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just
inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our
behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one
experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the
"decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements
rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a
faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been
carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A,
already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.
The Aspect experimental results implies a total cosmic link of every
atom. Aspect's experimental results and Bell's inequality changes our
view of the totality. Bell stated "The only alternative to quantum
probabilities, superpositions of states, collapse of the wavefunction,
and spooky action at a distance, is that everything is
superdetermined." Further, Bell said "For me it is a dilemma. I think
it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it
will require a substantial change in the way we look at things."
The resolution to Bell's dilemma is that the totality is an atom
itself. Quantum physics is all about atoms. Then with the Bell
inequality and Aspect experimental results confirming quantum theory on
the large scale, on the size of the observable universe, means the
observable universe is atomic. The totality is an atom.

This is a photograph of page 18-2>>
Another way of stating this problem is how many atoms does it take to
make a Classical physics apparatus, a measurement? Any specified number
is artificial since then the question would arise why this number? Why
does such a number have special meaning? Why is this number special
over other numbers? Since the Bell inequality with the Aspect
experimental results, quantum physics has displayed itself on the large
scale. Quantum physics is no longer confined to the small scale. One
resolution for the Bell inequality with the Aspect experimental results
is superluminal speeds, but if we accept superluminal speeds then
physics is inconsistent and all of physics is destroyed, just as all of
mathematics is destroyed if inconsistency is accepted.
Does the quantum world end at some distance from an atom? Then what
defines this distance? A search for a distance looks for some boundary,
but an electron does not have boundaries, in fact the Coulomb force of
an electron goes out to infinity, and the gravitational force however
small goes out to infinity. An electron has no boundaries, instead it
has a probability distribution. So where does the Classical physics
world of measurement begin? Does the world of measurement begin with
some specific number of atoms to make a measurement?
N. Bohr never answered this problem but instead gave parables to this
problem, such as a walking stick when held closely near you then it is
a part of you (Classical physics), but if you do not hold it, or hold
it loosely, it is part of the outside world (quantum physics). Quantum
physics has this beautiful mathematics but where exactly is it
applicable and not applicable. Physics before 7/11/ŻŻ5Ż had two
scales-- small and large, atom size was small scale, we and
astronomical objects were large scale. Where is the boundary between
these two scales?
How physics abhors artificial things, ad hoc things, arbitrarily
defined boundaries. This problem of where does the quantum physics
world end and the Classical physics world start evaporates immediately
once the totality is taken as a plutonium atom. Since quantum theory
describes atoms and if the totality is an atom then the quantum world
no longer has any artificial boundary with the Classical physics world.
The entire world is quantum. The quantum world is everywhere. The
Classical physics world is just another name for a first approximation
of the quantum physics world, a first approximation of the collapse of
the wavefunction of a quantum totality. What physics loses is scale.
No longer is there a small scale different from a large scale. Scale
is all the same since everything is atoms. Everything is atomic scale,
and an atom encompasses physical properties associated with zero,
finiteness, complex numbers, hypercomplex numbers, . . , infinity. A
Plutonium Atom Totality contains atoms from hydrogen to plutonium, and
then builds transplutonium atoms inside it.

The scarcity of technetium and promethium in a universe which is not
an atom is a huge puzzle. But in an atom totality, which results in a
superdeterministic totality, (see Bell's inequality discussion), the
scarcity of technetium and promethium and the plenitude of other
elements makes sense in that elemental abundance is needed in exact
quantum proportion for a purposive electron observable universe. Zinc,
molybdenum, iodine, thorium, and uranium are plentiful for the needs of
life. Molybdenum is needed for plant nitrogen fixation and zinc and
iodine are essential for Homo sapiens.

A superdeterministic universe has a purpose and hence a meaning. That
meaning is nucleosynthesis. Life carries out nucleosynthesis which the
stars will not. Life is a cold star. A free-will universe has no set
purpose and logically no meaning.

[Richard Simard]

In article <1993Dec15....@sjfc.edu> d...@sjfc.edu (Dan Cass) writes:
>

>Anyway, I only meant to raise the (old) question of whether or not
>the universe is deterministic. It isn't easy even to frame this
>question properly, in such a way that experiment could determine
>its truth or falsity. It seems to me that deciding whether determinism
>holds is much like deciding whether God exists: we don't have conclusive
>proof/evidence/etc to decide either. (If such proof existed, why would
>these questions be debated for so many centuries?)
>

***********************************************

It has been known for 65 years that the universe is NOT
deterministic; the laws of Quantum Mechanics are not
deterministic and have been tested in thousands of
differents experiments, none of which has ever
disagreed with quantum mechanics.

--
---------------------------------------
e-mail: sim...@iro.umontreal.ca |
---------------------------------------

[Trevor Blackwell]

sim...@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Richard Simard) writes:
> It has been known for 65 years that the universe is NOT
> deterministic; the laws of Quantum Mechanics are not
> deterministic and have been tested in thousands of
> differents experiments, none of which has ever
> disagreed with quantum mechanics.

This really over simplifies a very subtle philosophical question. Let
me illustrate.

Suppose some entity mails you a letter every day, with either a zero
or a one on it.

It could either be that
- this entity has pre-computed a sequence of zeros and ones before
he mailed the first letter, and it just picks the next one in the
sequence each day.

- this entity chooses a new zero/one by some process every day
he mails a letter

Now in the first case, the sequence is deterministic, and in the
second it is not. What this means is that in the first case, with
some knowledge about the internals of the agent, we could _predict_
the next value of the sequence; in the second we could not.

We could find out whether it is deterministic or not _only_ by
actually going and examining the inner workings of this agent. There
is _no way_ of telling simply by examining the received letters.

Don't be confused by various non-local properties of QM. The
proposition that the universe is deterministic means that there is
some agent, outside the universe, which controls the universe according
to some fully-worked-out-in-advance plan. This proposition does not
conflict in any way with any QM experiments that can be performed,
because it is _fundamentally undecidable_, since things within the
universe cannot observe things outside it.

It can, however, be said (and this is the conclusion of QM) that the
universe is nondeterministic _with respect to_ what can be observed
from within the universe. That is, if there exists 'somewhere' a
master plan, it does not exist within the universe. Just as the
letters were nondeterministic wrt your mailbox, they may or may not
have been nondeterministic wrt the agent.

--
--
Trevor Blackwell t...@das.harvard.edu (617) 495-8912
(info and words of wit in my .plan)

[Dan Hoey]

Two weeks ago ka...@spdcc.com (Karl Heuer) asked:

> Can the vertices of the n-cube (n >= 1) be partitioned into two
> equal-sized subsets which are not congruent to each other?

Not for n=1,2,3, but yes for n>=4. For n=4, labelling the vertices by
binary coordinates:

0000--0010--0011 1000--1010--1110
| | | | |
0100--0110--0111 1101--1001--1011
| | | |
1100 1111 0101--0001

The adjacency graphs are not even isomorphic. Also, the former
contains a square of diagonal 2 (0000,0011,1111,1100) while the
rectangle of diagonal 2 in the latter is 1 by sqrt(3)
(0001,0101,1110,1010).

I (not extremely carefully) enumerated the ways of partitioning the
vertices of the 4-cube into connected 8-point subsets, and counted
that four of the twenty-four partitions were into non-congruent parts.

I suspect that the partitions into congruent parts become
asymptotically scarce, but I haven't figured out how to prove it.

Dan Hoey
Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil

[WM]

Am Samstag, 4. Dezember 1993 02:36:50 UTC+1 schrieb Andrew Wiles:

Once upon a time in the west --- once upon a time there was mathematics in sm

Regards, WM

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

you cannot properly deal with rectangles, unless
you can deal with tetrarectangular tetraheda (or,
Coxeter's "orthoschemes, although\he used eight times to many
of them

> We make the table of all the numbers possible in the Beal 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 Beal 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 Beal solutions must have a common prime divisor.
>
> We stack Condensed-Rectangles of the number-space that Beal's conjecture applies:
>
> Solution Number Space for Beal 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 Beal 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 Beal 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 Beal 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 at random from the Solution Space of Beal {1, 8, 16, 27, 32, 64, 81, 125, 128, 216,  243, 256, . .} except of course 1, and can those three chosen random 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 Beal, 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 Beal 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 Beal be proven first in order to display that a Beal proof cannot co-exist unless FLT has no solutions.
>
> QED
>     
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
> Archimedes Plutonium

[Jürgen R.]

And now there is Muckmeathics instead.

Usenet is dead. Haven't you noticed?

[Virgil]

In article <na4055$mru$1...@dont-email.me>, Jürgen R. <jur...@web.de>
wrote:

In his Muckedup-matics, WM claims that the set of rationals is larger
than the set of reals. More specifically WM claims the set of rationals
to be uncountable, Card(|Q) > Card(|N) but the set of reals to be
countable, Card(|R) = Card(|N)!
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 12:14:17 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> > In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
> > Taniyama-Shimura conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem I will give a
> > brief account of the situation. During the review process a number of
> > problems emerged, most of which have been resolved, but one in
> > particular I have not yet settled. The key reduction of (most cases
> > of ) the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture to the calculation of the Selmer
> > group is correct. However the final calculation of a precise upper
> > bound for the Selmer group in the semistable case (of the symmetric
> > square representation associated to a modular form) is not yet
> > complete as it stands. I believe that I will be able to finish this
> > in the near future using the ideas explained in my Cambridge
> > lectures.
> >
> > The fact that a lot of work remains to be done on the
> > manuscript makes it still unsuitable for release as a preprint . In
> > my course in Princeton beginning in February I will give a full
> > account of this work.
> >
> >
> > Andrew Wiles.
>

> PROOFS of BEAL & FERMAT's LAST THEOREM
>
> Disclaimer:
> Looking for Sponsor to aid in publishing these contents in ArXiv or some other publication, and it would be inadvisable for students to apply any of the contents to their school course work.
>
> PROOFS of BEAL & FERMAT's LAST THEOREM as corollary
>
> Editing and commentary corner: Once Beal 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 Beal first is that FLT never has a proof until Beal is proven first.
>
> Summary of text: Both proofs of Beal 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 Beals 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 Beal 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 Beal, 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 Beal.
>
> Proof of the Beal conjecture that proves Fermat's Last Theorem
>
> I proved Beal 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 Beal 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 Beal had to come first.
>
> We see the relationship between a Theorem and its Corollary very easily from Beal 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 (Beal) 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 Beal's conjecture with its FLT corollary
>
>
> Both proofs of Beal 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 Beals 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 BEAL
> ________________________
>
> It is a constructive proof.

>
> We make the table of all the numbers possible in the Beal 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.
>

Now in a different thread I made the general conjecture that all major math proofs using numbers have a Mathematical Induction proof available. And this is because numbers at foundation are Mathematical Induction in the Peano Axioms. So where can we find a Math Induction of Beal along with Fermat's Last Theorem.

We need not look far, for we realize that the Grid Systems of Rationals is a Coordinate System based on Mathematical Induction-- is it true for 10 Grid, true for 100 Grid true for N then N+1 exponent Grid? So that for example in the above of Beal? Well, if we start the Math Induction in 100 Grid where 8 and 16 lie we see we have 8+8 = 16 as the first Beal triple. Now if we go to the 1000 Grid we have more Beal triples and no counterexamples. We suppose true for exponent N Grid of 10^N and show that 10^N+1 Grid also follows true, thus we proved by Math Induction Beal.

So, now, the Number Space of FLT above is shown. So, by math induction is it true for 100 Grid that FLT has no solutions, and if we suppose 10^N Grid then is 10^N+1 Grid follow true?

> 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 Beal, 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 Beal 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 Beal be proven first in order to display that a Beal proof cannot co-exist unless FLT has no solutions.
>
> QED
>     
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
> Archimedes Plutonium

AP

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

if you could recover Fermat's marginal proof,
you might be able to also handle the Beally generalization, but
you are just quaintly a-mathematical

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
> Taniyama-Shimura conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem I will give a
> brief account of the situation. During the review process a number of
> problems emerged, most of which have been resolved, but one in
> particular I have not yet settled. The key reduction of (most cases
> of ) the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture to the calculation of the Selmer
> group is correct. However the final calculation of a precise upper
> bound for the Selmer group in the semistable case (of the symmetric
> square representation associated to a modular form) is not yet
> complete as it stands. I believe that I will be able to finish this
> in the near future using the ideas explained in my Cambridge
> lectures.
> The fact that a lot of work remains to be done on the
> manuscript makes it still unsuitable for release as a preprint . In
> my course in Princeton beginning in February I will give a full
> account of this work.
>
> Andrew Wiles.

Andrew, your FLT is junk and a sham proof. So dumb on FLT are you, Andrew, that you never spotted the error of Euler in his exponent 3 of FLT, the error that Euler could never prove the case of when all three A,B,C are even, A^3 + B^3 = C^3. You never spotted that error of Euler and yet you are so pompous that you think you found a proof of all of FLT. No, Andrew, actually you are a math failure for you never recognized that the pressing problem in all of mathematics of our generation is to give a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (see below at end). Instead, you, Andrew chased after fame and fortune, but never the "truth of mathematics".

5-Andrew Wiles and his fake FLT proof, so dumb on FLT he could not even spot Euler's flaw of exp 3 FLT, and so dumb as a mathematician, he never could do a geometry proof of calculus, FTC.

Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 7, 2021, 11:10:15 PM
to sci.math
For thirty years, 30 years, AP has been at it on Fermat's Last Theorem. It was 1991, that I saw that 2+2=2x2=4 was the heart and crux of the proof of FLT. And it was a hard and bumpy ride in those 30 years, with much fanfare and intrigue. And where the fame and fortune of proving FLT by AP was stolen from him, stolen by Andrew Wiles. But I am not sorry of that stealing because in the meantime, I had far far more important work and discoveries to do, than to claim back my proof and success of FLT. But now, here in 2021, some 30 years later, I am not so generous, not so lenient, and now I want my proof to have its rightful historical place mark. FLT was never proven by Andrew Wiles and his alleged proof is a massive joke. And a measure of how dumb and a joke that Wiles offering was, is easily seen in asking Wiles, how his offering proves that exponent 2 has solutions. Ask Wiles how his technique or mechanism of elliptic curves shows A^2+B^2=C^2 has solutions but not A^3+B^3=C^3 with no solutions. You see, Andrew Wiles has few logical marbles to ever be doing a mathematics proof, let alone FLT. Let alone asking Andrew to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP reclaims his "world's first valid proof of Fermat's Last Theorem".

More to add to AP's 6th book//World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author). A scientist, when he does a math proof or a physics theory, none of them.

More to add to AP's 6th book//World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author).

A scientist, when he does a math proof or a physics theory, none of them leave you, none leaves you alone after a while. All of them continually nag you and the nagging never goes away. Such is the case of doing science. And sometimes in this nagging a new twist enters the picture. I have found this to be the case of nearly all my science work. Every time I write something on those discoveries, it is as if a new twist is bursting to come forth.

So on FLT which I proved in early 1990s, as early as 1991, my argument was that of a Basis Vector of Algebra is the reason no exponent 3 or higher has a solution. Of course, there are ample solutions in exponent 2 and more so in exponent 1.

But the new twist that dawned on me, is that a proof of FLT, should involve exp 1 and exp 2 and then exp3 and higher, as a mathematical induction proof.

Maybe we need not start at exp 1, for that is arithmetic A + B = C. Then exp 2 is the Pythagorean Theorem. So we have two starting true cases of the General FLT. For exp 2 we have the basis vector 2+2 = 2x2 =4, where we have a number that is equal under add and multiply. Now for exponent 1 we could say the basis vector is all of Arithmetic. Now for exponent 3, we can have no n+n+n = nxnxn = m, same for higher exponents.

So what I missed in my book was to emphatically suggest that a proof of FLT has to fully incorporate the exponents that do have solutions. Every mathematician before AP , looks at FLT in isolation of exponent 2, and by doing so, cut off their chances of finding a valid proof of FLT. Because the moment your mind asks the question, why no solutions in exp 3 but myriad solutions in exp 2, forces the mind to think that the valid proof has to incorporate in its proof, a mechanism, a mechanism the spans and bridges between exponent 2 and exponent 3, fully incorporate the picture that exp 2 has solutions not exp 3. And that then puts the onus of the mind to look at a Basis Vector where add is the very same as multiply. So that solutions are metaphorically analogous to building concrete block buildings and the concrete blocks are the basis vector.

Every Pythagorean theorem solution in Natural Counting Numbers has its basic building block of 2 and 4, of 2+2= 2x2= 4. You can analyze every P-triple and find it is constructed of 2 and 4. Whereas every exp 3 is wanting a building block for all possible solutions, yet no numbers (not even 0 for the n and m have to be different) have the ability to be n+n+n = nxnxn = m.

So I need to emphatically state in my 6th published book, that a proof of FLT, or even Generalized FLT should look at all exponents and not isolate-out exp2 from the higher exponents.

That is extremely important point of logic, that we tend to shove off to the side and want to focus all our attention on just a part of the puzzle, a part of the problem, separate from the larger problem. We tend to separate, when we should look at the big picture to give us guidance and clues as to the mechanism of the proof.

So, actually, FLT was even absurdly more simple as a math problem and proof than most every other math proof in recorded history. FLT is more simple to prove than even the Pythagorean theorem is to prove. Because this is a proof of FLT. Proof: 2+2= 2x2= 4 allows us to build solutions in exp 2, but there does not exist a n+n+n = nxnxn = m so no solutions ever in exp 3 and the same argument for exp 4 and higher. QED

Totally simple proof is FLT, and if mathematicians had asked, what, ultimately what allows solutions in exp2 and said, well, well, 2+2=2x2 is the building block of all solutions in exp2.

No, my proofs in math and my theories in science and physics will never leave me alone, even if I tried. I can picture myself at my deathbed, and even there, one of my science theories will invade my mind as a die. Such, is the nature of a world of superdeterminism in an Atom Totality.

6th published book

World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.

Preface:
Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.

Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.

Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.

As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
Length: 156 pages
File Size: 1503 KB
Print Length: 156 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQKGW4M
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 7, 2021, 12:01 PM
to sci.math
Now everyone is free to chose who they want to believe, do you want to believe Andrew Wiles with his 100 pages or more of math that is everything including the kitchen sink of mathematics thrown at the Fermat's Last Theorem FLT ? Where most people cannot even understand the 1st page-- what the hell is going on. Or, do you want to chose AP's proof of FLT where he proves it in a sentence that everyone in the entire world, even in Grade School can understand, that 2+2 = 2x2 = 4 gives solutions to Pythagorean theorem and A^2 + B^2 = C^2, but if you want solutions for A^3+B^3 = C^3 or higher, you need a special number of n+n+n = nxnxn = m for n and m in exponent 3, yet there exists no such special numbers n and m to satisfy that, hence, FLT.

So, take your pick, do you believe in B.S. of Wiles with his obnoxious over 100 pages of cluttered together phony baloney mess argument. Wherein Andrew Wiles was so stupid on FLT, he failed to even notice that Euler had **no proof** in exponent 3 of FLT because Euler forgot he had to prove the case of where A,B, C in A^3 +B^3= C^3 were even numbers. Euler forgot he had to prove that; and instead assumed there was no three even Counting numbers were no solution. But Andrew Wiles, the math failure he is, never even noticed that Euler had no proof in exponent 3. So, do you believe in a Andrew Wiles 100 page "hornswaggle mess" of elliptic curve argument. Or do you believe in AP when he says the reason 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 is because 2+2 = 2x2 = 4, the only two counting numbers with that feature of addition is the same as multiplication.

Now Andrew Wiles was looking for a proof of FLT in early 1990s, as early as 1993 when AP notified the world public that AP had already proven FLT, for I proved it in 1991, but Andrew Wiles had no proof of FLT, even after 1993.

And there was a exciting exchange of ideas from AP and from Princeton Univ and Berkeley where Roland Dreier gives the SUPPORTING ARGUMENT, that the AP proof of FLT is the world's only valid proof of FLT. Although Roland was not prepared to go that far, it is obvious, these almost 30 years later, that AP had the proof, but Wiles is a con-artist failure of FLT.



From: dre...@durban.berkeley.edu (Roland Dreier)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: 1 page proof of FLT
Date: 18 Aug 93 14:55:02
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Lines: 42
Message-ID: (DREIER.93A...@durban.berkeley.edu>
References: (CBxp0...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(24s7de$c...@outage.efi.com>
(CByoq...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(1993Aug18.1...@Princeton.EDU>

In article (1993Aug18.1...@Princeton.EDU>
kin...@fine.princeton.edu (Kin Chung) writes:
In article (CByoq...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
LP Hardy in Math..Apology said words to the effect that the
LP understanding of any math proof is like pointing out a peak in the
LP fog of a mtn range and you can only point so long and do other
LP helps and hope the other person will see it and say Oh yes now I
LP see it. But you can not exchange eyeballs. Again I repeat the
LP arithmetic equivalent of FLT is that for exp2 there exists a
LP number equal under add & multiply i.e. 2+2=2x2=4. Immediately a
LP smallest P triple is constructible for exp2 i.e. (3,4,5>. But no
LP number exists like 2 for exp3 or higher in order to construct P-
LP triples for these higher exp. I am very sorry that I cannot make it
LP any clearer than that. Time to take a break and reread Hardy Math
LP Apology.

KC You also say that a smallest P-triple is constructible for exp2
KC immediately from the existence of a number N such that
KC N+N=NxN, namely N=2. How do you construct a P-triple given N
KC with this property? Please note that I am not asking how you do
KC it for exp3, but for exp2.

Before I continue, let me say that this post does not in any way constitute
an endorsement of LvP's "proof"; what I am about to explain does not
extend to exponent 3 in the least. However, things are rather easy for
exponent two. (Not to be critical, but you really could have figured this
out yourself :-)

So suppose we have an N with 2xN=N+N=NxN. Set a=N+1, b=N+N=NxN.
Then we get
a^2 = (N+1)^2 = N^2+2xN+1 = 2xN^2+1
also
b^2 = (N+N)^2 = 4xN^2.
So
a^2+b^2 = 6xN^2+1.
Now set c=2xN+1. Then
c^2 = (2xN+1)^2 = 4xN^2 + 4xN + 1 = 4xN^2 + 2xN^2 + 1
= 6xN^2+1.
So magically a^2+b^2=c^2, just as desired! !

If you can figure out how to do that for exponent 3, make yourself famous.

Roland
--
Roland "Mr. Excitement" Dreier dre...@math.berkeley.edu


Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 9, 2021, 11:33:39 AM
to sci.math
On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 6:30:02 AM UTC-5, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 12:10:15 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > For thirty years, 30 years, AP has been at it on Fermat's Last Theorem. It was 1991, that I saw that 2+2=2x2=4
> Errrr..... Pretty sure this should read:
> 1 + 2 + 3 = 1 x 2 x 3 = 6

Thanks, as I said, I have been at it for 30 years now, on FLT, and it fascinates, but also burdens me, for as the years and decades roll by, there is constant new items on the menu. For when you prove something in math, or discover a physics law, they just never go away, but constantly bear down pressure upon you. That is, once you get over the hurdle that your proof or law is true.

So, well, let me see if Tim's above has any relevancy?

We have Equations of form A^n + B^n = C^n. Naturally, 2+2 = 2x2 = 2^2 = 4

So, well, that is n+n = nxn = n^n = 4. So we need two numbers, a n and a m that are different. Tim has 4 numbers different.

That 2 and 4 in FLT, fits perfectly as a basis vector building block, what Physics would call UNITS for magnetic field building other units, for equations of form A^n + B^n = C^n, and fits perfectly as a proof that only exponent 1 and 2 have solutions, but none higher.

The trouble with Tim's is it is form j+k+l = jxkxl = p and does not fit into equations of form A^n + B^n = C^n. There are no exponents involved in Tim's and FLT is about exponents, about squares or volumes of cubes. Is Tim's a basis vector to perhaps some other math equation? I do not think so, and is a one-off curiousity, for really, it plays on the specialness of the number 1. If it was not for "1" Tim would have nothing to speak of. So say we cannot play with 1 then that leaves us with 2+3 =/= 2x3.

Of course in Old Math they had a grimy dirty concept of "perfect number" and even there, the 1+2+3 = 1x2x3 had no role as basis vector. I say grimy and dirty because the Counting Numbers are a partial set, not a full legitimate set in New Math, for the counting numbers are not well defined to division. But we then must ask, in the actual true number system of mathematics, of New Math which is the Decimal Grid Systems, we ask if 1+2+3 = 1x2x3 perhaps has a major role that 2+2=2x2= 2^2 = 4 has? And we know that in New Math, it does not even have the concept of "primes" for there are no primes in Decimal Grid Systems, and this is easily proven true, because primes never have a formula, meaning, well, meaning that primes are imagination gone amok because a set of Counting Numbers is never well defined with division. The Decimal Grid System with higher grids is well defined to division, and if we throw in the axiom of subtraction, never subtract more than available, is well defined to subtraction, all 4 operators of math.

To be well defined set in mathematics, means you have an operator and if you take any two numbers in that set using the operator, it delivers back to you another number in that set-system. So, although 6 divided by 2 is another counting number, but, 2/6 is a number that is not a counting number. In Grid system, for example 6/10 in 10 Grid is still 0.6 a member, but 0.1/10 = 0.01 is a member in 100 Grid system.

So we ask the question of whether 1+2+3 = 1x2x3 has any use or utility in say some other math problem, and I cannot think of any. So at this point in time, I see it as merely a novelty, playing on the specialness of the number 1 and of no more significance, certainly no significance in FLT proof.

Archimedes Plutonium
12:25 AM
to sci.math

I forgot to mention the very first mistake of Andrew Wiles FLT, although no-one of his generation would have known about Reductio ad Absurdum as a nonviable method of proof. For that is the very first mistake of Wiles FLT, for no reductio ad absurdum can be used in a mathematics proof.

I am not sure of whether RAA was used by Kempe for his sham proof of 4 Color Mapping but in Appel and Haken the RAA was used. I am not sure if Thomas Hales went out on a limb in his Kepler Packing by using RAA. Or whether Tao and Green used the RAA in their sham proof of primes in arithmetic sequence 5, 11, 17, 23, 29 where +6, but Tao and Green never in hell define what is infinity.

So, where all of these above sham and fake proofs using a Reductio Ad Absurdum. I only know for sure the Wiles and Appel & Haken used RAA, and thus, those two alleged proofs were con-artist fakery. But I would not be surprised at all if all the above mentioned proofs were RAA, and thus fakes on just those grounds alone.

Why is the RAA not sound to use in math proofs? Because the Logic connector of If--> Then has a truth table of TFUU where u means unknown or uncertain. And the truth table has to be that for If--> Then in order for division by 0 is unknown.

I wrote a whole logic book on RAA.

27th published book

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T

If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)

And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F


Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Length: 86 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•


Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 10, 2021, 3:32:17 PM
I was looking through the Internet last night for these fake proofs if they were all Reductio Ad Absurdum, or Contrapositive method, or some call it the Indirect method.

I had known that Wiles FLT was Reductio Ad Absurdum and also the Appel & Haken fake 4 Color Mapping was RAA, also. I was not sure of these others. So I looked via Google to see if all the recent fake proofs of math were all of one method-- Reductio Ad Absurdum. And if all are such, well, that is very telling of how modern day Con-Art Math is established. It is established through a method of proof that is not valid method. The method itself is a con-art.

1) Andrew Wiles elliptic curves FLT Fermat's Last Theorem-- is a Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art fakery.

2) Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping is Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art math.

3) Green-Tao primes any length of arithmetic sequence is Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art fake math.

4) Thomas Hales Kepler Packing offering is Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art worthless and fake math.

But looking even deeper, there are fake proofs built on more fake proofs. For that Wiles needed the fake proof of Ribet theorem, where Ken Ribet uses Reductio Ad Absurdum to build up Wiles fake proof. So we have layers and layers of Reductio Ad Absurdum for Wiles to add on another RAA for his fakery.

And the same with Green-Tao using the fake Szemeredi theorem which is a reductio ad absurdum proof and hence fake.

So we have not only a singular use of Reductio Ad Absurdum to create fake worthless con-art math proofs, but we have a cascading mountain of RAA to contrive more con-art fake math proofs.

Now, most people are not logical. And unfortunately, most mathematicians are not logical although they have potential of becoming logical, most mathematicians never reach the heights of being logical.

That being said, we must show not only mathematicians but laypersons on how to be more logical.

And the best way of showing this is through common language. And the best example I can give of this RAA nonsense is the tv show "Death in Paradise" where every week the show has the inspector solve a crime mystery. This is an example of an excellent "natural language example of Reductio Ad Absurdum" and multiple RAA used.

Even Wiles, Tao, Hales can learn from this tv show why their proof is worthless garbage.

A few weeks back Death in Paradise had a nurse die of poison in her locked stateroom. The locked door is a RAA that her brother did not do it, nor anyone else. The suicide note left behind is a RAA that she committed suicide. So we have 2 RAA and thus a Wiles or Hales or Tao would conclude suicide just as their fake math proofs of RAA. And this is why RAA is not a valid proof of mathematics as AP wrote in his RAA book.

Another few weeks back in Death in Paradise was a journalist reporter who was killed at her own home found in the swimming pool. The death was estimated at a specific time that a RAA excluded the radio announcer. An RAA excluded the daughter of the radio announcer. And so a Wiles and Tao and Hales logic would, like their fake math proofs, exonerate the radio announcer and his daughter.

You see, Reductio Ad Absurdum is not deductive logic, but probability and uncertain logic. Read AP's book on RAA.

5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.


Length: 72 pages

File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 10, 2021, 3:58:00 PM
Andrew Wiles and his fake FLT proof, so dumb on FLT he could not even spot Euler's flaw of exp 3 FLT, and so dumb as a mathematician, he never could do a geometry proof of calculus, FTC 44 views


Jul 10, 2021, 3:32 PM
to sci.math

I was looking through the Internet last night for these fake proofs if they were all Reductio Ad Absurdum, or Contrapositive method, or some call it the Indirect method.

I had known that Wiles FLT was Reductio Ad Absurdum and also the Appel & Haken fake 4 Color Mapping was RAA, also. I was not sure of these others. So I looked via Google to see if all the recent fake proofs of math were all of one method-- Reductio Ad Absurdum. And if all are such, well, that is very telling of how modern day Con-Art Math is established. It is established through a method of proof that is not valid method. The method itself is a con-art.

1) Andrew Wiles elliptic curves FLT Fermat's Last Theorem-- is a Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art fakery.

2) Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping is Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art math.

3) Green-Tao primes any length of arithmetic sequence is Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art fake math.

4) Thomas Hales Kepler Packing offering is Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art worthless and fake math.

But looking even deeper, there are fake proofs built on more fake proofs. For that Wiles needed the fake proof of Ribet theorem, where Ken Ribet uses Reductio Ad Absurdum for his own proof, which is then used by Wiles for a piling up mountain of RAA to build up Wiles fake proof. So we have layers and layers of Reductio Ad Absurdum for Wiles to add on another RAA for his fakery.

And the same with Green-Tao using the fake Szemeredi theorem which is a reductio ad absurdum proof and hence fake.

So we have not only a singular use of Reductio Ad Absurdum to create fake worthless con-art math proofs, but we have a cascading mountain of RAA to contrive more con-art fake math proofs.

Now, most people are not logical. And unfortunately, most mathematicians are not logical although they have potential of becoming logical, most mathematicians never reach the heights of being logical.

That being said, we must show not only mathematicians but laypersons on how to be more logical.

And the best way of showing this is through common language. And the best example I can give of this RAA nonsense is the tv show "Death in Paradise" where every week the show has the inspector solve a crime mystery. This is an example of an excellent "natural language example of Reductio Ad Absurdum" and multiple RAA used.

Even Wiles, Tao, Hales can learn from this tv show why their proof is worthless garbage.

A few weeks back Death in Paradise had a nurse die of medication overdose in her locked stateroom. The locked door is a RAA that her brother did not do it, nor anyone else. The suicide note left behind is a RAA that she committed suicide. So we have 2 RAA and thus a Wiles or Hales or Tao would conclude suicide just as their fake math proofs of RAA. And this is why RAA is not a valid proof of mathematics as AP wrote in his RAA book.

Another few weeks back in Death in Paradise was a journalist reporter who was killed at her own home found in the backyard swimming pool. The death was estimated at a specific time that a RAA excluded the radio announcer. An RAA excluded the daughter of the radio announcer. And so a Wiles and Tao and Hales logic would, like their fake math proofs, exonerate the radio announcer and his daughter. Multiple RAA used.

You see, Reductio Ad Absurdum is not deductive logic, but probability and uncertain logic. In one sense, RAA is akin to Occam's Razor, and Occam's Razor is not deductive logic. Read AP's book on RAA.

Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 10, 2021, 6:41:10 PM
Alright, searching through the Internet on the proofs of Kempe and Tait in the late 1800s of 4 Color Mapping that both Kempe and Tait fake proofs were Reductio Ad Absurdum, some call it Indirect some call it proof by contradiction, some call it contrapositive.

Alright, looking and I find the Kempe fakery and Tait fakery were Reductio Ad Absurdum.

--- quoting Wikipedia ---
One alleged proof was given by Alfred Kempe in 1879, which was widely acclaimed;[10] another was given by Peter Guthrie Tait in 1880. It was not until 1890 that Kempe's proof was shown incorrect by Percy Heawood, and in 1891, Tait's proof was shown incorrect by Julius Petersen—each false proof stood unchallenged for 11 years.[11]

--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

So here we have the idea that the entire method of proof in mathematics using Reduction Ad Absurdum is a fake method and allows con-artists of math to gain recognition and fame and fortune but at the cost of fakery math proof.

We could not expect Heawood nor Petersen to connect the dots that the very method of proof using Reductio Ad Absurdum was itself flawed. It was not until the late 1800s that Formal Symbolic Logic was established by Boole and others but riddled full of mistakes. It took until 1990s for AP to finally unravel the errors of Symbolic Logic and to capitalize on the idea that Reductio Ad Absurdum itself was fakery for math proofs.

Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 10, 2021, 8:48:35 PM
--- quoting from scholar dot uwindsor dot canada
Web results
Common Ground, Argument Form and Analogical Reductio ad Absurdum
by H Jansen · 2007 · Cited by 4 — 23). Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca suggest that this effect is due to the typical form of reductio ad absurdum . Characteristic of the reductio ad absurdum form is the ...
--- end quote ---

Another fakery of the 21st century, is the Poincare Conjecture, for not only is the proof a fake, but the entire conjecture is hard boiled stupid fakery. One of Poincare's few mistakes as a mathematician.

I do not want to deride Poincare for he was a valuable scientist, both in physics and math.

The Poincare conjecture is a problem I myself spent considerable time on in the early 1990s, around 1991 when I did the Fermat's Last Theorem Proof.

But the ugly fact of the Poincare conjecture is 4th dimension, yet science stops at 3rd dimension. There simply is no 4th dimension and EM theory proves this, in the simple fact of Volume is 3rd D and Voltage is 3rd D.

But I was curious if the so called proof by Perelman, who I deeply admire for rejecting prize and awards, whether Perelman's so called proof was Reductio Ad Absurdum.

Apparently it was built from another so called proof which used Reductio Ad Absurdum -- Olbrechts-Tyteca.

What this goes to show is that every proof of the past history of mathematics that is a Reductio Ad Absurdum is thrown out the window as trash math.

Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 11, 2021, 2:24 AM
Alright, what I have given for objections to Reductio Ad Absurdum, RAA, or proof by contradiction, was a math-logic objection. That the If --> Then conditional must need a truth table of TFUU where U stands for unknown and has probability value, not certainty to allow for division by 0 in math be unknown. That screws up the Reductio Ad Absurdum.

But then philosophers also joined into the debate on whether RAA was sound or fallacious.

And one line of thought was that it was awfully tedious to police a RAA argument, where a proponent of RAA slips in unrelated material that produces a contradiction. To illustrate that point, suppose someone is doing the Wiles FLT and they slip into the proof that right triangles have one angle of 91 degrees, and then later recognize it as a contradiction and then say Wiles's FLT proof is correct. So here we see the objection to RAA proofs because it is a tough line to enforce on what is pertinent and relevant to a individual proof and what is brought in from outside to generate the contradiction. Especially in Wiles's FLT or Appel&Haken's 4 Color Mapping which draws so much outside material.

But another philosophy objection to RAA is the Intuitionist School of Philosophy that objects to RAA on the grounds it relies upon Law of Excluded Middle where the world is either true or false and no shade in between T and F. Yet Quantum Mechanics shows us both particle and wave and no sharp lines of either one or the other. So the Intuitionist School of Philosophy rejects RAA on the grounds it makes the world all be black and white with no shade of color in between.

But it should not surprise anyone that RAA is the favorite method of most mathematicians as being the most expedient method, the fastest method, and even though, in the end, the method says nothing about the underlying structure of the math statement proven.

So, well, RAA, is a fake method of mathematics and is never a proof of any statement. It is closely similar to Occam's Razor where the most simple explanation is often, not always but often the true explanation. In the same manner, RAA, hints of whether a statement is ultimately found true or false, but RAA cannot itself be the proof.

Archimedes Plutonium
July 11, 2021, 11:56 AM
Euclid's Infinitude of Primes was one of AP's first math proof corrections in 1991. I published my proof in several places, obviously to sci.math in 1993. Whether I did so in Dartmouth newspaper, I no longer recall.

Anyway, the gist of AP's proof was that multiply the lot, add 1 is a new number necessarily a prime number and that is guaranteed by the definition of prime number itself.

But in 1991 and up until I corrected Boole logic in the 2000s, I had believed that RAA was a valid proof method. Once I had corrected Boole Logic I realized If--> Then truth table had to be TFUU and not what Boole had of TFTT. The U stands for uncertain or unknown and is a probabilistic unit. So in true logic we have true, false and unknown. In true logic we have no law of excluded middle, where the only units are true and false. This further means RAA is invalid proof method, in addition to the fact that a truth table of TFUU for if--then does not allow RAA to be a method of deductive logic.

So here I am in 2021 and going back to review Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof to point directly to the error or flaw as to why it cannot be a proof of mathematics. And it is very easy to spot that flaw.

Before I do so, I must say that I had concluded in the 1990s that Euclid gave a direct proof of Infinitude of Primes, a construction proof, from the wording of his proof. And it was only in modern times that people went back and "imagined it was RAA". To give an example of how you make a proof of IP construction by multiplying a "small group of primes, add 1". So say all the primes that exist in the world are just 3 and 5. Then 3x5 plus add 1 is 16. Now, the divisors of 16 are not 3, and 5 and so from another theorem, unique prime factorization there exists a prime, specifically 2, that we can add to our list of {3,5}. So in this fashion we can see a construction proof of IP, instead of RAA.

But I want to point out the flaw of RAA for Infinitude of Primes. Why IP using RAA was never a valid proof of IP. Because pointing out this flaw, is very much relevant in why Wiles FLT is a flawed RAA, and Hales Kepler Packing is flawed RAA, and Perelman's Poincare conjecture is flawed RAA, and Appel& Haken's 4 Color Mapping is flawed RAA, and Green-Tao prime intervals is flawed RAA, and hence none of them were a math proof.

Before I show the flawed gap of RAA in Euclid Infinitude of Primes, I must mention the fact that in True Mathematics, there are no prime numbers, for the true numbers of mathematics require small numbers along with large numbers, and these are Decimal Grid Number Systems, the smallest of which are the 10 Grid of the set { 0.1, 0.2, ..., 9.8, 9.9, 10.0} We generally throw in 0 into that set for utility sake. And the 10 Grid has small numbers along with the whole numbers {1, 2, ..., 9, 10}.

When you have a set of just Whole Numbers, it is ill-defined towards division, not well defined. In every proof of mathematics, all your concepts must be Well Defined. So in Decimal Grid Systems, there is no concept of "prime". And this is true not only for mathematics but the larger science called Physics. Physics never had a "prime" concept. The Old Math primes never had a "physics feature", for helium was not special over lithium over carbon. You ask a physicist, do you see a "prime concept" in physics, and hell no is the answer.

So the concept of prime in Old Math was itself a delusion, built on the fact that a set {1, 2, 3 , ....} is not well defined per the operator division. That set is well defined over multiplication, because you take any two members yields a new number that is within that set. And because Counting numbers are well defined over multiplication means you can have a theorem of Unique Factorization. But not Unique Prime Factorization.

So before I begin, in True Math, there are no primes because the true numbers of math-- Decimal Grid Numbers have no primes. And that is logically reasonable given the obvious fact that in 2 thousand years of math everyone looked for a formula that describes all the primes. A formula like Y= 2k that describes all even numbers of Counting numbers. So why was there never a formula to describe all primes? You guessed it, because primes are a delusion set, built from imagination with no logic support.

So, let me get directly to the heart of the huge gaping flaw of a RAA, indirect proof of Infinitude of Primes.

The flaw is actually easy to see from the get go. We have definitions of prime of counting numbers, but we have no definition of finite or of infinite. We defined primes as counting numbers divisible only by 1 and itself. We defined Counting Numbers as start with 1 and add 1 to achieve a set {1, 2, 3, .... }.
But, we never define what is finite and what is infinite. That is the huge gaping flaw of RAA on Infinitude of Primes Proof. So, in that flawed RAA proof we reach a moment where we say If primes are finite, there exists a largest prime call it P and where we have a set of all smaller primes before we reach P, {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, . . ., P}. Now multiply all those primes and add 1 to form a new number, all it Q. With Q you notice that when you divide by all the primes that exist, you always have a remainder, meaning that Q itself must be prime from the definition we started with of "what is being prime mean". So, we have a RAA of showing that Q is a new prime beyond the list of all finite primes, and then we conclude primes are infinite. So what is wrong with that RAA? Where is the gap?

The gap is that we never defined "finite or infinite" at the start. We well defined "prime and the Counting Numbers" but we did not well define finite and infinite. So in the above proof, when we said "Suppose primes are a finite" to get P as the largest finite prime. At that critical moment, we cannot say P is the last and largest prime because we never had a well defined finite, nor a well defined infinite. When you do not well define what finite and infinite means, you cannot say there is a last and largest prime.

So, during the 2000s I well defined finite and infinite with a borderline between the two concepts. And I used Huygens proof of tractrix to fetch the borderline between finite and infinite as being 1*10^604 for macroinfinity and for microinfinity 1*10^-604. And in the 2000s, I gave the modern day Well Defined Proof of Infinitude of Primes, of course knowing that primes do not exist in Decimal Grid Systems.

Here we well define finite and infinite for Counting Numbers as all finite counting numbers are equal or below 1*10^604 and above are infinite numbers. But I had to well define what a Infinite set would be in True Math. And I defined it as saying the square of 1*10^604 is 1*10^1208. And a Infinite set of numbers is one in which there are 1*10^604 type or kind of number of interest between 1 and 1*10^1208.

So, well, that is WELL DEFINED finite and infinite, with borderline and amount of numbers to be called an infinite set.

So in that well defined definition, we see the Perfect Squares are an infinite set {1, 4, 9, 16, .... } And Pythagorean triples are an infinite set, and many others, but how about the Primes of Old Math? Well, it is easy to calculate that in about 10^607 you have 10^604 of what we used to call primes of Old Math.

So, this is the modern day method of proving if a set is infinite or finite, a calculation of whether there are 10^604 of that kind within 1 and 1*10^1208.

Did you see the flaw, the gap of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes done RAA? To remind you, the gap was no well defined concept of "finite or infinite". So that in RAA when we say P is the last and largest finite prime, you had no borderline between finite and infinite numbers to be able to say P even actually exists.

And the reason I write this today, is to look carefully at Wiles's fake FLT for his gap and flaw, to look closely at Appel&Haken 4 color mapping for their gap and flaw, to look carefully at Green-Tao for their gap and flaw, to look carefully at Hales Kepler Packing for his gap and flaw, to look carefully at Perelman's Poincare conjecture for his gap and flaw.

Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 11, 12:29 PM
Euclid's Infinitude of Primes was one of AP's first math proof corrections in 1991. I published my proof in several places, obviously to sci.math in 1993. Whether I did so in Dartmouth newspaper, I no longer recall.

Anyway, the gist of AP's proof was that multiply the lot, add 1 is a new number necessarily a prime number and that is guaranteed by the definition of prime number itself. (My correction was more to say about how logically crippled were math professors in not recognizing that "multiply the lot and add 1" is necessarily a new prime, no, those crippled in logic would then needlessly continue on with more added stuff, not realizing the proof had ended the instant that "multiply the lot and add 1" was formed.)

But in 1991 and up until when I corrected Boole logic in the 2000s, I had believed that RAA was a valid proof method of mathematics. Not until later in 2000s would I slowly realize RAA is not deductive science and cannot be used as a math proof. Once I had corrected Boole Logic I realized If--> Then truth table had to be TFUU and not what Boole had of TFTT. The U stands for uncertain or unknown and is a probabilistic unit. So in true logic we have true, false and unknown. In true logic we have no law of excluded middle, where the only units are true and false. This further means RAA is invalid proof method, in addition to the fact that a truth table of TFUU for if--then does not allow RAA to be a method of deductive logic.

So here I am in 2021 and going back to review Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof to point directly to the error or flaw as to why it cannot be a proof of mathematics. And it is very easy to spot that flaw.

Before I do so, I must say that I had concluded in the 1990s that Euclid gave a direct proof of Infinitude of Primes, a construction proof, from the wording of his proof. And it was only in modern times that people went back and "imagined it was RAA". To give an example of how you make a proof of IP construction by multiplying a "small group of primes, add 1". So say all the primes that exist in the world are just 3 and 5. Then 3x5 plus add 1 is 16. Now, the divisors of 16 are not 3, and 5 and so from another theorem, unique prime factorization there exists a prime, specifically 2, that we can add to our list of {3,5}. So in this fashion we can see a construction proof of IP, instead of RAA.

But I want to point out the flaw of RAA for Infinitude of Primes. Why IP using RAA was never a valid proof of IP. Because pointing out this flaw, is very much relevant in why Wiles FLT is a flawed because it is RAA, and Hales Kepler Packing is flawed because it is RAA, and Perelman's Poincare conjecture is flawed because it is RAA, and Appel& Haken's 4 Color Mapping is flawed because it is RAA, and Green-Tao prime intervals is flawed because it is RAA, and hence none of them were a math proof and all of them were fakes.

Before I show the flawed gap of RAA in Euclid Infinitude of Primes, I must mention the fact that in True Mathematics, there are no prime numbers, for the true numbers of mathematics require small numbers along with large numbers, and these are Decimal Grid Number Systems, the smallest of which is the 10 Grid of the set { 0.1, 0.2, ..., 9.8, 9.9, 10.0} We generally throw in 0 into that set for utility sake. And the 10 Grid has small numbers along with the whole numbers {1, 2, ..., 9, 10}.

When you have a set of just Whole Numbers, it is ill-defined towards division, not well defined. In every proof of mathematics, all your concepts must be Well Defined. So in Decimal Grid Systems, there is no concept of "prime". And this is true not only for mathematics but the larger science called Physics. Physics never had a "prime" concept. The Old Math primes never had a "physics feature", for helium was not special over lithium over carbon. You ask a physicist, do you see a "prime concept" in physics, and hell no is the answer.

So the concept of prime in Old Math was itself a delusion, built on the fact that a set {1, 2, 3 , ....} is not well defined per the operator division. That set is well defined over multiplication, because you take any two members, multiply, yields a new number that is within that set. And because Counting numbers are well defined over multiplication means you can have a theorem of Unique Factorization. But not Unique Prime Factorization.

So before I begin, in True Math, there are no primes because the true numbers of math-- Decimal Grid Numbers have no primes. And that is logically reasonable given the obvious fact that in 2 thousand years of math everyone looked for a formula that describes all the primes. A formula like Y= 2k that describes all even numbers of Counting numbers. So why was there never a formula to describe all primes? You guessed it, because primes are a delusion set, built from imagination with no logic support.

So, let me get directly to the heart of the huge gaping flaw of a RAA, indirect proof of Infinitude of Primes.

The flaw is actually easy to see from the get go. We have definitions of prime and of counting numbers, but we have no definition of finite or of infinite. We defined primes as counting numbers divisible only by 1 and itself. We defined Counting Numbers as start with 1 and add 1 to achieve a set {1, 2, 3, .... }.
But, we never define what is finite and what is infinite. That is the huge gaping flaw of RAA on Infinitude of Primes Proof. So, in that flawed RAA proof we reach a moment where we say If primes are finite, there exists a largest prime call it P and where we have a set of all smaller primes before we reach P, {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, . . ., P}. Now multiply all those primes and add 1 to form a new number, all it Q. With Q you notice that when you divide by all the primes that exist, you always have a remainder, meaning that Q itself must be prime from the definition we started with of "what is being prime mean". So, we have a RAA of showing that Q is a new prime beyond the list of all finite primes, and then we conclude primes are infinite. So what is wrong with that RAA? Where is the gap?

The gap is that we never defined "finite or infinite" at the start. We well defined "prime and the Counting Numbers" but we did not well define finite and infinite. So in the above proof, when we said "Suppose primes are a finite" to get P as the largest finite prime. At that critical moment, we cannot say P is the last and largest prime because we never had a well defined finite, nor a well defined infinite. When you do not well define what finite and infinite means, you cannot say there is a last and largest prime. And you cannot even say, your set is infinite, for the sheer logical reason-- you never in hell defined what infinite is.

Now some may say, define finite as "ending" and define infinite as "never ending". Does that help, or does that relieve the above Euclid RAA on Infinitude of Primes? No, it does not help, it does not make the gap go away, because without a Borderline, you cannot take a number like P, and know if it is below the borderline or above and is a infinite number or a finite number. You are stuck with having to have a Well defined finite and infinite, not a ill-defined. The only way to Well Define finite and infinite is a border crossing, just as ending and never ending are evasive and elusive.

So, during the 2000s I well defined finite and infinite with a borderline between the two concepts. And I used Huygens proof of tractrix to fetch the borderline between finite and infinite as being 1*10^604 for macroinfinity and for microinfinity 1*10^-604. And in the 2000s, I gave the modern day Well Defined Proof of Infinitude of Primes, of course knowing that primes do not exist in Decimal Grid Systems.

Here we well define finite and infinite for Counting Numbers as all finite counting numbers are equal or below 1*10^604 and above are infinite numbers. But I had to well define what a Infinite set would be in True Math. And I defined it as saying the square of 1*10^604 is 1*10^1208. And a Infinite set of numbers is one in which there are 1*10^604 type or kind of number of interest between 1 and 1*10^1208.

Now in Physics the square is also extremely important and its reverse the square root. For you see it in the Shrodinger equation all the time as a probability function of square or square root. So it is not surprising that the Need of square in Physics translates over to being essential in mathematics.

So, well, that is WELL DEFINED finite and infinite, with borderline and amount of numbers to be called an infinite set.

So in that well defined definition, we see the Perfect Squares are an infinite set {1, 4, 9, 16, .... } And Pythagorean triples are an infinite set, and many others, but how about the Primes of Old Math? Well, it is easy to calculate that in about 10^607 you have 10^604 of what we used to call primes of Old Math.

So, this is the modern day method of proving if a set is infinite or finite, a calculation of whether there are 10^604 of that kind within 1 and 1*10^1208.

Did you see the flaw, the gap of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes done RAA? To remind you, the gap was no well defined concept of "finite or infinite". So that in RAA when we say P is the last and largest finite prime, you had no borderline between finite and infinite numbers to be able to say P even actually exists.

And the reason I write this today, is to look carefully at Wiles's fake FLT for his gap and flaw, to look closely at Appel&Haken 4 color mapping for their gap and flaw, to look carefully at Green-Tao for their gap and flaw, to look carefully at Hales Kepler Packing for his gap and flaw, to look carefully at Perelman's Poincare conjecture for his gap and flaw.

Not only every present day math proof using the RAA is not a valid proof, but every math proof of the past history using RAA is internally flawed and is junk and invalid. But there is also this very curious aspect of modern day RAA proofs such as Wiles, Hales, Appel&Haken, Green&Tao, is that they use multiple RAA in their fake proofs. Wiles uses the fake Ribet theorem which is a RAA, same goes for Green&Tao and Perelman who use a outside RAA to build their own RAA. In Euclid's Infinitude of Primes using RAA, that was only one use of RAA, but for some monster ugly fake proof like Wiles's FLT, he likely used perhaps 5 other fake RAA's within his own overarching RAA. Fakes plastered over other fakes for a granddaddy of Fakery.


Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 11, 2021, 11:42:08 PM
to sci.math
So here we have to have math historians do the actual research.

We ask the question of how many RAA fake proofs are composed of more RAA inside the proof itself.

1) Wiles FLT is overall a RAA fake proof, but how many other RAA inside of Wiles fake proof were used? The Ribet theorem is a fake RAA proof, so we know at least one other RAA fake inside of Wiles overall RAA fake. But how many in total RAA can be found in Wiles FLT?

2) Same question for the fake 4 Color Mapping of Appel & Haken where the overall is RAA fake, but are there more RAA fakes inside that Appel & Haken used? And AP would guess that Wiles has more total RAA fakes than does Appel & Haken.

3) Same question for Hales's Kepler Packing, is his fake proof utilize 1 RAA, or more than 1 RAA?

4) Same question for Green-Tao prime intervals proof that is a RAA fakery? And here they utilized Szemeredi theorem which is a RAA fake proof so at least Tao-Green use 2 RAA.

5) Same question for Perelman's fake Poincare conjecture which is not even a mathematics problem since 4th dimension is nonexistent. But how many RAA was utilized here? Was it 2 with Olbrechts-Tyteca RAA utilized or more than 2, or was it far more? And here we have to ask whether every topology proof of 4th dimension or higher use RAA, as if RAA is the only proof method in higher dimension topology. AP thinks the entire subject of topology is trash nonsense and delivered to the trashcan for "bending" is not a subject of mathematics. Perhaps welding or metallurgy can have a science of bending but ridiculous in math.

So, I ask, who has the world record of number of RAA arguments used in a proof-fake of math? I would guess Wiles, since it is so long.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics


Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 11, 2021, 10:11 AM
to sci.math
Now the science of Topology is a bag of b.s., pure raw b.s. for "bending" was never a math enterprise.

Remember our definition of a "kook"? A kook is a person that loves to crank garbage and loves to make up things that he feels others can never understand, so that others think of him as a genius. That he can do that yet others never able to do it. And that is because the kook wants fame and fortune but never the truth of math or science.

A nice example is Topology of Old Math.

In New Math, we simply throw the entire lot of Topology out the window as raw fetid garbage, stinking garbage-- because Bending is not mathematics.

Counting is mathematics
Measuring in numbers is mathematics
Line segments is mathematics
Straight line figures is mathematics
Area is mathematics
Volume is mathematics
Equations are mathematics
Functions are mathematics
Calculus is mathematics
Derivative is mathematics
Integral is mathematics

Only a kook would dream up bending and call it mathematics.

So I ask you, for I do not know myself, since I have an aversion to kook math and never want to waste time on it. But, are all the proofs of Topology, are all of them using the Reductio Ad Absurdum? Is there a single proof in Topology that is not RAA?

Because Topology really belongs in a science like that of welding or metallurgy where you have to bend things.

So, who was the first kook in math history to dream up this crankery subject now called topology and that wastes the time in the life of so many students across the world, wastes their time when they could be learning real true math of calculus and the EM equations of physics, real science.

Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 12, 2021, 10:21 AM
to sci.math

Now sad to say Harold Jacobs in his book Mathematics A Human Endeavor inserted a chapter of Topology in his book, as the last chapter. I would recommend to Harold in future revisions of his book to delete the entire chapter of Topology and in its place do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- the very most important mathematics of our times.

11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)


y  z
|  /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.  And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium

[Quantum Bubbles]

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:16:20 PM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

[snip - load of nonsense]

In response to AP.

Without intending to sound nasty, it does strike me as rather tragic that you waste so much of both your time and effort (and other people's) writing your pseudo-mathematical drivel on here when you don't have much time left on the clock. You are in your 70's aren't you? Average life expectancy in wealthier parts of Europe is about 80, and obviously health runs the risk of seriously declining beyond 70 unless you have taken amazing care of yourself. So barring Aubrey de Grey's efforts succeeding at a speed beyond his expectations (at present), you've probably got less than a decade. If you are actually interested in mathematics, wouldn't you be better off actually trying to learn some genuine number theory rather than just writing down whatever occurs to you and writing crap about Wiles (whose proof has been thoroughly checked ages ago)?

A nice book is Hardy and Wright's text: An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers

The latest edition has an introduction by Wiles himself.

Geniuses like Wiles should be looked up to and imitated so that what worked for them can help the community at large and so aid humanities quest for truth. Being jealous and scornful of them accomplishes nothing at all, but wastes a lot of time that could be better spent.

Some Number Theory Book Recommendations

1) An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers, By G.H. Hardy and E.M. Wright. This book gives a highly respected overview of the field, starting from reasonably basic level, and is highly respected by the mathematical community. It is a reference book rather than a text book though and covers some quite hard material. So its a companion text rather than anything else.

The four books below give different approaches to elementary number theory or look at different topics.

2) Higher Arithmetic: an algorithmic introduction to number theory, by Harold Edwards. Perhaps the simplest introduction to number theory that I have come across, and one of the shortest. Edwards favours an old fashioned constructivist approach to mathematics, so you won't find set theory and hard analysis in here, its all elementary and written in an almost 19th century spirit at times.

3) Number Theory, by George Andrews. Takes a combinatorial approach to number theory. Starts off at same level as Edwards, but utilises some ideas from calculus later on. Doesn't seem to assume any background in abstract algebra though.

4) Elementary Number Theory, by Jones and Jones. A standard first text in the UK. Has solutions for most exercises and is more modern in its treatment than the Edwards or Andrews two texts, but still requires little in the way of pre-requisites for most chapters, however it enters more abstract territory than the other two texts.

5) The Higher Arithmetic, by Davenport. More of a monograph than a proper textbook, but is aimed at a beginning level and is reasonably short. Includes an extended discussion of continued fractions which the previous three texts don't really go into.

You would do yourself a service by cutting your losses on the constant, boring and repetitive posting (do you really think google or the mathematics community gives a damn about your unlettered views on Wiles and Tao?), and instead having a crack at absorbing these lovely texts.

Have a Wonderful Day
QB

Remain Calm and Keep Loving Real Analysis
[Recommended Book of the Day: Mathematics and its History, by John Stillwell]

[Archimedes Plutonium]

1. Berkeley's Roland Dreier was extremely generous in 1993, and he needed not state that AP had proven FLT, for it is obvious that AP had proven FLT and Roland had given that part of the proof with his above proof that Pythagorean Triples are built from 2+2 = 2x2 = 2^2 = 4.

2.

On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
> Taniyama-Shimura conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem I will give a
> brief account of the situation. During the review process a number of
> problems emerged, most of which have been resolved, but one in
> particular I have not yet settled. The key reduction of (most cases
> of ) the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture to the calculation of the Selmer
> group is correct. However the final calculation of a precise upper
> bound for the Selmer group in the semistable case (of the symmetric
> square representation associated to a modular form) is not yet
> complete as it stands. I believe that I will be able to finish this
> in the near future using the ideas explained in my Cambridge
> lectures.
> The fact that a lot of work remains to be done on the
> manuscript makes it still unsuitable for release as a preprint . In
> my course in Princeton beginning in February I will give a full
> account of this work.
>
> Andrew Wiles.

3.

4.

And there was a exciting exchange of ideas from AP and from Princeton Univ and Berkeley where Roland Dreier gives the SUPPORTING ARGUMENT, that the AP proof of FLT is the world's only valid proof of FLT. Although Roland was not prepared to go that far, it is obvious, these almost 30 years later, that AP had the proof, but Wiles is a con-artist failure of FLT.


5.

6.
Berkeley's Roland Dreier was extremely generous in 1993, and he needed not state that AP had proven FLT, for it is obvious that AP had proven FLT and Roland had given that part of the proof with his above proof that Pythagorean Triples are built from 2+2 = 2x2 = 2^2 = 4.

The immense hatred of AP is the only thing stopping the math community from acknowledging that Wiles has no proof of FLT, and that AP has had a proof ever since 1991.

AP
7.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Andrew Wiles, you are a con-artist, fraud of mathematics, so dumb in math you could never spot the error in Euler, so stupid in math you could never do a Geometry proof of Calculus Fundamental Theorem Re: Fermat status.

Andrew Wiles and his fake FLT proof, so dumb on FLT he could not even spot Euler's flaw of exp 3 FLT, and so dumb as a mathematician, he never could do a geometry proof of calculus, FTC. Thanks to Roland Dreier of Berkeley back in 1993.

Errors in Wiles's work on Fermat's Last Theorem
1) So dumb in logical reasoning that Andrew never saw the gaping hole in Euler's so called proof of FLT in exponent 3. The hole is that Euler had to prove no A,B,C all even numbers are a solution in A^3+B^3=C^3. One would think that a person wanting to prove all of FLT would have a good enough logical mind to spot a error in a proof of just exponent 3. No, not Andrew Wiles, for he is chasing after fame and fortune but never the truth of mathematics.

2) Andrew was stupid in math, for the most pressing problem of all of mathematics of the 1900s and now 2000s is a geometry proof of Calculus Fundamental Theorem. This was #1 urgent problem in all of mathematics because for the simple reason, it corrects and cleans out the entire house of mathematics in the "giving of a geometry proof of calculus". Reals are not the true numbers of mathematics. Functions and equations have to be turned into polynomials to be valid, just to list two key items that a geometry proof of Calculus would clean up and clean out. But where was Andrew? Of course, chasing after fame and fortune, but not math truth.

3) Andrew was intensely stupid in Logic, for you need logic to prove FLT, but there was Andrew with his Boole logic that 2 OR 1 = 3, that Either..Or..Or.. Both is acceptable, with Andrew accepting the logic that 2 AND 1 is subtraction, that the truth table of AND for Andrew was TFFF when in reality it is TTTF. That Andrew thought the truth table of IF-Then was TFTT when in reality it is TFUU where U means unknown. And where Reductio ad Absurdum, RAA is not a valid proof method for mathematics, yet, stupid Andrew uses RAA for his fakery FLT.

4) Andrew's FLT is so dumb, that he never thought about Shadowy FLT where you get a equation of A^x+B^y= C^z where one of x,y,z is exponent 2 and it turns that these Shadowy FLT follow the same course of geometry-- Condensed Rectangles as does Generalized FLT, except the one exception of 1^3 +2^3 = 3^2. This Shadowy FLT was totally unknown to Andrew Wiles as was a proof of Generalized FLT. So Andrew Wiles is a con-artist and fraud mathematician that has duped the world down his insane path away from the real truth of mathematics.

Andrew Wiles and his fake FLT proof, so dumb on FLT he could not even spot Euler's flaw of exp 3 FLT, and so dumb as a mathematician, he never could do a geometry proof of calculus, FTC.

Thanks to Roland Dreier of Berkeley back in 1993. For I was working on the algebra, but Roland was too fast for me and had it before I did.
Berkeley's Roland Dreier was extremely generous in 1993, and he needed not state that AP had proven FLT, for it is obvious that AP had proven FLT and Roland had given that part of the proof with his (below proof) that Pythagorean Triples are built from 2+2 = 2x2 = 2^2 = 4.


On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
> Taniyama-Shimura conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem I will give a
> brief account of the situation. During the review process a number of
> problems emerged, most of which have been resolved, but one in
> particular I have not yet settled. The key reduction of (most cases
> of ) the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture to the calculation of the Selmer
> group is correct. However the final calculation of a precise upper
> bound for the Selmer group in the semistable case (of the symmetric
> square representation associated to a modular form) is not yet
> complete as it stands. I believe that I will be able to finish this
> in the near future using the ideas explained in my Cambridge
> lectures.
> The fact that a lot of work remains to be done on the
> manuscript makes it still unsuitable for release as a preprint . In
> my course in Princeton beginning in February I will give a full
> account of this work.
>
> Andrew Wiles.

And there was a exciting exchange of ideas from AP and from Princeton Univ and Berkeley where Roland Dreier gives the SUPPORTING ARGUMENT, that the AP proof of FLT is the world's only valid proof of FLT. Although Roland was not prepared to go that far, it is obvious, these almost 30 years later, that AP had the proof, but Wiles is a con-artist failure of FLT.


Berkeley's Roland Dreier was extremely generous in 1993, and he needed not state that AP had proven FLT, for it is obvious that AP had proven FLT and Roland had given that part of the proof with his above proof that Pythagorean Triples are built from 2+2 = 2x2 = 2^2 = 4.

The immense hatred towards AP is the only thing stopping the math community from acknowledging that Wiles has no proof of FLT, and that AP has had a proof ever since 1991.

AP
11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported

Enhanced typesetting : Enabled

X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled

Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

World's newest FLT, Fermat's Last Theorem, For example 1^3 + 2^3 = 3^2 Or take the example of 2^2 + 2^2 = 2^3. Or the example of 3^3 + 3^2 = 6^2 AND WHAT GEOMETRY ARE THEY? 14Jul2021

Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 15, 2021, 12:07 PM
to sci.math

Alright, all of this is to be included in my book Fermat's Last Theorem.

World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I no longer recall if I did a synopsys of the infinitude of Pythagorean Primitive Triples, probably not because I considered such as <3,4,5> goes to composite <6,8,10> so why bother.

But today since we have Shadowy FLT
1^3 + 2^3 = 3^2
2^2 + 2^2 = 2^3
3^3 + 3^2 = 6^2
4^2 + 4^2 = 2^5

Define Shadowy FLT as at least one A,B,C is of exponent 2. A^x + B^y = C^z.

AP believes that Pythagorean Theorem unioned with FLT unioned with Generalized FLT unioned with Shadowy FLT includes every and all solutions to A^x + B^y = C^z where A,B,C are 1 and above and x,y,z are 2 and above. The lowest A^x + B^y = C^z is just ARITHMETIC such as 1+2 =3 or 4+6 =10.

What AP is examining here is not Arithmetic, but equations of at least exponent 2 or higher. And once we include Shadowy FLT, then we have All Possible Equations of solutions.

And what I intuit as being true, is that with the exception of 1^3 + 2^3 = 3^2, all the rest of the equations have solutions with Condensed Rectangles or Right Triangles.

So what was missing in Old Math even including Wiles fakery FLT, what was missing was a Overall Total Picture of solutions to A^x + B^y = C^z where A,B,C are 1 and above and x,y,z are 2 and above.

So, once we put aside the 1^3 + 2^3 = 3^2, as some sort of strange equation. All the rest of the solutions come as either a Condensed Rectangle from Generalized FLT and Shadowy FLT or come from Pythagorean triples as Right Triangles. And considering that Rectangles are composed of 2 right triangles, this is a magnificent summary.

We can examine the strange equation 1^3 + 2^3 = 3^2 and consider it to be a form of 2+2=2x2=2^2=4. And I call it a Linear Line Rectangle, just because it describes its geometry. I have tried forming a right triangle with sides 1 and 8 means the hypotenuse is sqrt65, hoping it be close to 9. So, well, we have to explore this strange equation.

So now, the Primitive Pythagorean Triples in New Math of infinity reckoning. How abundant are they?
We know that Perfect Squares are Minimal Infinity in that there are exactly 1*10^604 Perfect Squares from 1 through 1*10^1208. Exactly that many and is the Smallest Infinity in New Math.

So, how does Primitive Pythagorean Triples measure up to the smallest infinity? So if we focus upon the smallest member of a P-Triple

3,4,5
5,12,13
7,24,25
8,15,17
9,40,41

So, from 1 to 10 we have in total 5 primitive P-triples.

From 1 to 10 we have in total 3 perfect-squares.

1
4
9

This immediately tells me that the infinitude of Primitive Pythagorean Triples are far far more than Perfect Square abundance.

Now looking at Shadowy FLT where one of A,B,C has exponent 2, between 1 and 10.

2^2 + 2^2 = 2^3
2^2 + 2^5 = 6^2
2^3 + 2^3 = 4^2
3^3 + 3^2 = 6^2
4^2 + 4^2 = 2^5
5^2 + 10^2 = 5^3

And I stop there because it is more abundant than Primitive Pythagorean Triples. In fact, I intuit that we have 1*10^604 such Shadowy FLT just between 1 and 10 itself.

P.S. I am going to have to write a book just on the fictional math and fictional physics we have and use. And although we know they are fictional entities we still carry them around with us. For example in math the "primes" are fictional because Natural numbers are ill-defined to division. In physics we still carry around the centrifugal force, even though we know it is fictional. In physics we still carry around the idea of speeds faster than light speed, although we know no speed is faster. So a whole entire book needs to be written of science and in science on this idea of "fictional entities". For many people in science, can end up wasting their entire career on "fictional science".

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, so in the true proof of FLT via Generalized FLT we accomplish this via Condensed Rectangles and FLT is a corollary of Generalized FLT. Another proof of FLT is directly from the Algebra of 2+2=2x2=2^2=4. Then a direct proof of Generalized FLT is also from 2+2=2x2=2^2=4.

And as for geometry we are left with two geometry figures, the Condensed Rectangles for Generalized and for Shadowy FLT. And Right Triangles for Pythagorean Theorem.

So, a big big question now looms. Since all equations of Form A^x + B^y = C^z except x,y,z = 1 for that is just plain Arithmetic, but for x,y,z = 2 or larger, and A,B,C of = 1 or larger, the big looming question is can we directly link Right Triangles of Pythagorean Theorem with Rectangles of FLT?

We all know that half of a rectangle is a right triangle at diagonal.
__________
|\ |
| \ |
| \ |
|_______\ |

So, can we link up Pythagorean Theorem as right triangles directly with FLT as Condensed Rectangles?

I know of one such link up is Calculus where the Integral is the rectangle while the derivative is the hypotenuse of right triangle. In the specialized function of Y= x the integral is area 1/2 x^2, the area of right triangle, while the derivative is 1 = dy/dx.

So in some sense is the derivative the right triangle hypotenuse and the Condensed Rectangle is the integral.

This would be a beautiful link up of All solutions to equation A^x + B^y = C^z, not Arithmetic but x,y,z = 2 or larger.

And this would make sense in Quantum Mechanics, that numbers 1,2,3,... are quantized and the geometry of calculus is either rectangle or right triangle.

This ties both Pythagorean Theorem together with FLT.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

The discovery of calculus by Newton and Leibnitz, more than anything else was started with the polynomial function Y=x^2 where it was noticed that 2x was rate of change and that (1/3)x^3 was area under function graph of x^2.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

The discovery of calculus by Newton and Leibniz, more than anything else was started with the polynomial function Y=x where it was noticed that 1 was rate of change as dy/dx and that (1/2)x^2 was area under function graph of Y=x. Of course, the rectangle of Y=x is a square and (1/2)x^2 is area of right triangle inside of square.

So, can I retrieve the entire modern day Calculus by noting that the Pythagorean Theorem is right triangles and FLT solutions are Condensed Rectangles.

It should be there!!!

[Archimedes Plutonium]

It is of no surprise that the integral as area is the polynomial x^2 for square for every rectangle is composed of a square inside itself.

It is no surprise that the hypotenuse of right triangle is the derivative of calculus.

It is no surprise that a square has right-triangles inside the square.

So a Algebra of all functions as polynomials, where equations as A^x + B^y = C^z where x,y,z are 2 or larger covers all equations of 3 geometrical figures of squares and right-triangles. A geometry figure of something like A^4 such as 3^4 can be written as 9^2 or written as 9 times the square 3x3. The equation A^x + B^y = C^z is comprehensive and encompassing for calculus.

And so we can contemplate that Calculus itself comes directly out of Pythagorean theorem as the hypotenuse of right triangle while the Condensed Rectangles of FLT theorem compose the integral of calculus.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, this should not be too difficult to prove. What I am proving is that the Pythagorean theorem along with the Generalized FLT theorem proven by AP with condensed rectangles creates the Calculus of mathematics. The right triangles of Pythagorean theorem is the derivative of calculus and the Condensed Rectangles of FLT is the Rectangle Square of integrals of calculus. I have a depiction of the geometry below.

We start with a rectangle for integral in a interval say between 1 and 2 in whole numbers or between 0.1 and 0.2 in 10 Grid System.

_______
|______|
1 2

Now in calculus the above represents the area of a rectangle under a function graph and the above would be a function such as perhaps Y = 3 or Y =4, some straight line function horizontal and parallel to x-axis.

But now we take the midpoint of that rectangle, call it m.

___m___
|______|
1 2

And m would be something like 1.5 if we had 1 and 2 , or it would be 0.15 if we had the interval 0.1 to 0.2.

Notice the midpoint in geometrical-calculus is a number that does not exist in the numbers used, for 1.5 is not a whole number, and 0.15 is not a member of the 10 Grid but a member of the next higher grid system of 100 Grid. So in geometrical-calculus, we always have to borrow from a higher grid to make calculus work. For we need empty space from one point to the next successor point.

You are required to have Discrete Space for Calculus to exist at all.

So, now we have our midpoint of the above rectangle and now what I want to do is outline two squares that exist in the upper portion of the rectangle.

___m___
|___|___|
1 2

And now I want to specify a specific function, the easiest function with a derivative that is equal to 1 and with angle 45degrees. That of course is the function Y = x and is a diagonal inside a square.

The integral of the function Y=x is (1/2)x^2 which makes sense as being the area of a isosceles right triangle. So now let me draw into the above picture the two right triangles in the one square.


___m___
| /_|___|
1 2

Now we lift up the one right triangle on its hinge at m, and place it on the base of the other square, looking like this.


m/__|
/_|___|
1 2

So in this diagram we show the geometrical Derivative of Calculus coming from the geometrical Integral of Calculus.

We have shown how right triangles are embedded inside a rectangle and are hinged at a midpoint of rectangle and when lifted up (or down) create a derivative.

If we started with derivative, we still find the midpoint and hinge the right triangle down to form a rectangle that is the integral, the area of the function graph in that interval.

Now in geometrical calculus, we have to take the derivative and integral in the smallest interval possible and in 10 Grid that would be every 0.1 interval, in 100 Grid that would be 0.01 interval. We cannot do geometrical calculus over a function with a interval larger than the smallest interval for that messes up the midpoint.

As I said earlier, the whole numbers, the Counting numbers from 1 to 100 is a representation of the 10 Grid, where 1 = 0.1 and 10 = 100. In this view, as we do calculus upon the 10 Grid, we can switch our view to saying we did calculus on the Counting numbers from 1 to 100 and thus we can say the Pythagorean theorem is our right triangle we lifted up to form the derivative of Y=x. And the Counting numbers from 1 to 100 is the integral area of the condensed rectangle in Generalized FLT, as in the example above of adding together the two squares.

[Quantum Bubbles]

On Saturday, July 17, 2021 at 5:00:57 PM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

[snip - imagine some monkeys randomly typing stuff]

Andrew Wiles is a genius who cracked Fermat's Last Theorem. The proof has been checked and validated by experts. AP probably can't even understand the reasoning involved in the proof let alone much else.

One day someone is going to have to make a decision: leave AP's comments intact for the benefit of some future internet historian writing about 'quirky online personalities', or to simply delete them all in one go. Would anything of value be lost?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So, now, the function Y= x is a constant derivative of 1 with dy the same number as dx. And is coming from a 90-45-45 right triangle as the right triangle we hinge up or down on the midpoint. But what about a more complex function of Y = x^2 for the derivative varies from each cell to the next and so the right triangle varies from each cell to the next. Read below as to the structure of the cells.

[Mostowski Collapse]

ATOM TOTAL FAILURE

LoL

Ludwig Plutonium schrieb am Montag, 6. Dezember 1993 um 11:02:50 UTC+1:
> In article <1993Dec4.0...@Princeton.EDU>

> wi...@rugola.Princeton.EDU (Andrew Wiles) writes:
> > In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
> > Taniyama-Shimura conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem I will give a
> > brief account of the situation. During the review process a number of
> > problems emerged, most of which have been resolved, but one in
> > particular I have not yet settled. The key reduction of (most cases
> > of ) the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture to the calculation of the Selmer
> > group is correct.

> Roughly, how many persons are there in the world now who have a
> Masters degree or higher in mathematics? Perhaps 100,000? Of those, how
> many believe they will prove a famous outstanding math problem? My
> guess of the above is 50%. I believe 50% of mathematicians are arrogant
> and self-deluded enough to believe they were "chosen" to do a famous
> outstanding math problem. This guess-estimate of 50,000 if true is in
> my opinion a good thing because if all persons entering mathematics
> were realistic from the start, then the number of people who end up
> majoring in mathematics would diminish to perhaps a mere thousand.
> There is safety in numbers.
> Since I believe the universe is superdeterministic then it follows
> by this line of thinking that math problems become "famous" because of
> our Maker. It was our Maker who made Fermat write his margin note. It
> was our Maker who forced Riemann to conjecture 1/2, the only number
> which the electron spin "M sub s" can have. And it is our Maker, 231Pu,
> who has superdetermined already before the person is even born what
> person will prove the outstanding problem. The proof of a very famous
> outstanding math problem Riemann Hypothesis, Poincare Conjecture,
> Fermat's Last Theorem, and others will use "new techniques" and yield
> "new mathematical knowledge." That is the reason these problems are
> long outstanding. In this sense, a proof of FLT from the regular old
> math is what Hardy and Dirac would have called "ugly mathematics."
> Wiles's proof attempt uses the old math, nothing new. Just the length
> of his alleged proof is testimony of "ugly mathematics."
> The person superdetermined to prove RH,PC, and FLT will have done
> so incidentally to something else--Atom Totality. In a thousand years
> from now, historians will pick through these postings, not for the sake
> of FLT but because of a beautiful and simple idea which can be
> described in two words, ATOM TOTALITY.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, so, let us examine this situation of where Old Math has 3 groupings for the equation A^x + B^y = C^z.

We have

1) Pythagorean Theorem A^2 + B^2 = C^2 and that is geometrically the forming of a Right Triangle by placing the squares at corners from each other.

2) A^x + B^y = C^z called Generalized FLT where A,B,C = 1 or higher, and x,y,z = 3 or higher and the AP proof of 2014 via Condensed Rectangles show we can adjoin two rectangles with a common side to form the C^z rectangle of common side.

3) Until recently, we have the Shadowy FLT, all A^x + B^y = C^z with A,B,C = 1 or higher and x,y,z 2 or higher. If we said 1 or higher for exponent we would trivially include Arithematic e.g. 2 + 3 = 5 and that would be pointless.

But the question here becomes since Shadowy FLT has equations that have no common factor other than 1. So that questions the truth of Generalized FLT; are there solutions which have 1 as the only common factor.

So looking at some examples of

2^5 + 7^2 = 3^4

1^3 + 2^3 = 3^2

3^2 + 3^3 = 6^2
and
7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3

And as we analyze these such as 7^3 + 7^4 would be two condensed rectangles, one that is side 7 by 49 and one with side 7 by 343. So we stack 7by49 with 7by343 on side 7 and the result is 7 by (49+343=392) and now we have a rectangle of 7 by 392. Now we see if that is the same condensed rectangle of 14^3. And sure enough 7*392 is 2744 as well as 14^3 is 2744.

So the proof of Generalized FLT was always about comparing Condensed Rectangles that HAD to have a common side, all three rectangles having that common side.

But now, we have Shadowy FLT here in 2021, whereas in 2014 we had just Generalized FLT. And Shadowy FLT shows some equations with the only factor in common is the factor of 1.

This of course, begs me to ask the question if Generalized FLT has solutions where the only common factor is 1. Whereas Old Math put Generalized FLT saying the factor in common had to be a prime number, not 1 for 1 is not a prime in Old Math but a units.

So, this is why I am here now, battling whether Generalized FLT has any solutions that have only 1 as a common factor. And I come very close with a example already in that of 2^5 + 7^2 = 3^4 if only there was no exp2.

So, the perplexing question is, does Generalized FLT also have solutions where 1 is the only common factor, or, does Generalized FLT, due to the fact one of the exponents is a 2, somehow avert the chances of a solution with 1 as the only common factor.

So I turn my attention not to volume but to condensed rectangles.

In 2^5 + 7^2 = 3^4 we can have rectangles 1by32 and 1by49 to join to form rectangle 1by81. This was a Shadowy FLT equation. But is there a Generalized FLT equation which can only be assembled with common factor 1. If not, what is the mechanism that a single 2 exponent throws it off and has to be a prime factor {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, ...}.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Whenever I am in a tough, tight, perplexed problem like this-- does Generalized FLT have solutions of where 1 is the only common factor, because Shadowy FLT where one or two of the exponents of x,y,z are 2, and the third is 3 or higher, for Shadowy FLT has solutions where 1 is the only common factor, eg, 2^5 + 7^2 = 3^4.

So, which is true, only Shadowy FLT but not Generalized FLT has 1 factor solutions or does both FLT have solutions where 1 is the only common factor.

When stuck with a problem like this, I generally lunge forward with a idea, favoring one answer, and spend the rest of the day pondering that solution.

So, let me lunge forward into the unknown by siding on the side that no Generalized FLT, all exponents 3 or higher has a solution where 1 is the only common factor. Let me side with that, not because that is the history of Old Math siding with that idea, for it is doubtful anyone in Old Math ever realized they had to include the Shadowy FLT in a overall picture of equation A^x + B^y = C^z.

But I side on Shadowy FLT as the only 1 unit factor solutions because Pythagorean Theorem is squares locked together to form right triangles, while Generalized FLT is rectangles joined from sides forming another new rectangle.

So the process of locking together vertex of squares to form in its center a right triangle is a altogether different process of locking together entire sides of rectangles to form a larger rectangle.

So in those two processes, of square + square locked at vertices versus rectangle + rectangle locked together at sides, it would seem to me, the most probably outcome of a Shadowy FLT, a hybrid world of FLT, that the appearance of a square + rectangle, that it would not know where to lock onto a side or a vertex, and that this hybrid process of locking together geometry figures would tend to favor only solutions for Generalized FLT is a locking of side to side, not vertex locking.

So let me mull that idea over and over for the entire rest of the day. I am pretty confident even now, as I write this, that the Generalized FLT has only common factor solutions of {2,3,5,7,...} and because Shadowy FLT has a square involved not a rectangle, it is able to have solutions with no common factor other than 1. This is bolstered from the fact that all Primitive Pythagorean Theorem Triples have only 1 as a common factor.

[Mr Sawat Layuheem]

ในวันที่ วันอังคารที่ 20 กรกฎาคม ค.ศ. 2021 เวลา 4 นาฬิกา 26 นาที 33 วินาที UTC+7 Archimedes Plutonium เขียนว่า:

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1983055138516134&set=a.397252653763065

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, spent the day thinking about this, and coming closer to a overall proof. I have so far, mini proofs below.

In Pythagorean Theorem A^2 + B^2 = C^2 we have three squares when joined vertex to vertex form a right triangle.

In Generalized FLT A^x + B^y = C^z where x,y,z must all be 3 or higher we have condensed rectangles of A and B when joined at a common side equals the condensed rectangle of C.

In Shadowy FLT, a hybrid of A^x + B^y = C^z, where one or two of the A,B,C is exponent 2 and the other/s are exponent 3 or higher. We can have only a condensed rectangle solution, but with the caveat that some of the condensed rectangles are with a unit 1 length. In Generalized FLT the condensed rectangles joined to sides must be one of {2,3,5,7,....}. In Shadowy FLT, condensed rectangles come from {1,2,3,5,7, ....}.

So, am I closer to a proof of the above? Well it is obvious that since Generalized FLT has no A,B,C with exponent 2, thus, no squares, leaving all A,B,C as condensed rectangles, and that alone would serve as a proof you will not find a unit 1 factor in {1,2,3,5,7, ....} in Generalized FLT.

AP, King of Science

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So, we can accept the idea that in Shadowy FLT, we can have either a condensed rectangle solution where the rectangles are 1 unit wide and however many units long rectangle, or we can have condensed rectangle solutions whose width is one of the primes {2,3,5,7, ....}.

In Generalized FLT, we can only have condensed rectangle solutions of a prime width.

In Pythagorean Theorem we can only have solutions if the three squares joined at vertices forms a right triangle in center of outlying squares.

But I want to return to this idea of a barrier in Calculus. My earlier attempt of placing a barrier, where the rise is too enormous for the run and thus no geometry for a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid for the derivative of calculus.

Does Calculus have a internal barrier? The idea is so fascinating, it will not let me go. When I could not immediately find a Shadowy FLT for A^x + B^y = C^z for 7, I thought of a barrier. But later I found 2^5 + 7^2 = 3^4. But there still maybe a internal barrier in Calculus, where you cannot get derivatives for a high rising polynomial function. Of course, you would not ask for a Y=x^500 in 10 Grid for you would have no derivatives. But in 10000 Grid, you have derivatives of x^500. So I am not talking about a Grid encumbrance, but a actual internal barrier in Calculus where derivatives fail. Where you cannot carve out a right triangle from the integral rectangle and place the right triangle atop the trapezoid as derivative reaching for the next successive coordinate point of function graph.

So I plug into my calculator in 100 Grid that of the function Y=x^7, I could do it in 10 Grid but want to be comfortable with lots of room. And I always chose a number for a cell of 1 to 1.01 in 100 Grid or 2 to 2.01 cell. I do not like the numbers between 0 and 1 for they can be deceptive to the mind.

So I calculate 1.01^7 is 1.0721... and see no problems there. But what if I had Y= x^70. Would I run into trouble in 100 Grid? And x^70 for 1.01 is 2.0067... But let me look to see what x^100 is for 1.01. And I get 2.7048... not in any trouble. But I suppose if I did the cell of 5 to 5.01 that my x^100 would be beyond the 100 mark of 100 Grid.

So is that the take away. That in Calculus in Decimal Grid Systems, the only limitation or barrier is one of the highest number in the grid system such as 10 in 10 Grid, may have no numbers in that Grid System if the exponent is high. For example Y=x^2 so that we have a number for 3.1 that is within 10 Grid, but not for 3.2 which is outside 10 Grid and would have to borrow from 100 Grid to continue beyond 3.1.

So in Grid Systems, I have always believed we can borrow all the way to 10^604, and if that is the case, we never have a Calculus barrier. So maybe that is the answer. Our ability to borrow higher grids eliminates any barrier to calculus.

AP, King of Science

[Michael Moroney]

🐒 of Math and 🦍 of Physics Archimedes "AnalButtfuckManure" Plutonium
<plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:


> So, we can accept

Your diseased cats also accept that crap?

> the idea that in Shadowy FLT, we can have either a condensed rectan

The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium" can be rearranged to spell "Hi, I
pound male rectums!"

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Far easier for a con-artist fraud Andrew Wiles of Math to hire a stalker, than to ever have to confront the gaping holes of his fake and fraud proof Fermat's Last Theorem--- Andrew, do you pay these stalkers???? With your prize money???? For certainly Andrew, you never confront listed mistakes of gaping holes in your con-art proof.

(1) Could not even see Euler had no FLT proof in exponent 3.
(2) Has a wacko understanding of Logic and the true logic connectors where Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a valid proof method of mathematics, even the Intuitionist logic school rejects RAA, but not con-artists of math.
(3) So dumb in math, Andrew Wiles could not be bothered for 5 minutes to place a Kerr lid inside a homemade paper cone and see the Oval is the slant cut, never the Ellipse, and the fool Andrew uses elliptic curves in his nonsense FLT.
(4) So failed in math, Andrew never realized Calculus was geometry, with his "limit analysis" of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and so confused in math, that Andrew never realized the onus was upon him to "have" a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (see below of AP's proofs).


On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:28:29 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"stalking shitwit"
> "AnalButtfuckManure"

> fails at math and science:

> "Hi, I
> pound male rectums!"

Instead of Andrew Wiles discussing why he missed Euler's gaping hole of a proof in exp3 of FLT, or why Andrew never had a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus or why Andrew never had the Logic connectors correct-- to see that Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a valid math proof method. Rather than face questions of his Fermat's Last Theorem, Andrew choses to run and hide from math reality. And I would bet Andrew delights in a foghorn spitting spewing swearing Kibo Parry M to do Andrew's talking.


Andrew, is this all part of the con-art of fake math that dupes the world general public? You failed Mathematics Andrew-- you could not even detect that Euler had a fake proof in exp 3 of FLT, for Euler forgot he had to prove when A,B,C all three are evens A^3+B^3= C^3.

Of course you would miss that gaping hole Andrew because you never had 2 marbles of logic in your entire life in math, for you still believe to this very day that 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, believing that Either..Or..Or..Both is logically sound giving OR truth table as TTTF, when AND truth table is really TTTF, not the Boole hypocrisy of TFFF. No, Andrew, you even failed Logic, not realizing that Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a valid proof method of mathematics, and RAA is your entire fake con-artist Fermat's Last Theorem.

And even worse, Andrew, you were so so dumb in geometry, you could not even see that slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. And a failure like you Andrew thinks he proved Fermat's Last Theorem.

Are you paying Kibo Parry M. to stalk Andrew? Are your prize money's going to fund Kibo to stalk for another 28 years.

Andrew, is it easier to never have to do -- true math and hire and pay a 24-7 stalker rather than engage in the math that you con-arted away with?

Be silent Andrew about a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, be silent Andrew as your dummy stalker screams and hollers obscenities so you never have to do math when math is needed. Yes, Andrew, Calculus is geometry, yet you never understood that idea, for your "limit analysis" is never a geometry proof, but is a spineless excuse of a fake proof of FTC.

This thread needs to be on the 1st page of a Google Search of "Andrew Wiles" not 5 million hits all saying Andrew Wiles is a math genius, for Andrew is not that at all, but a cowardly con-artist of mathematics, who refuses to ever talk about the gaping holes of his nonsense FLT, or any of the math topics of this post.

11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)


#8-4, 28th published book

World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.

Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.
Length: 29 pages

File Size: 1183 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 23, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PZ2Y5RV
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



#8-5, 6th published book

World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.

Preface:
Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.

Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.

Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.

As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
Length: 156 pages

File Size: 1503 KB
Print Length: 156 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQKGW4M
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 


5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.


Length: 72 pages

File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 




#6-2, 27th published book

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not                    
T = T  =  T                      
T = ~F = T                      
F = ~T = T
F = F   = T   

If--> then                  
T --> T  = T
T --> F  = F
F --> T  = U  (unknown or uncertain)           
F --> F  = U  (unknown or uncertain)

And
T  &  T = T                       
T  &  F = T                      
F  &  T = T                      
F  &  F = F                      


Or
T  or  T  = F
T  or  F  = T
F  or  T  = T
F  or  F  = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

|    | ~p
|    |---
|    | .
|    | .
|    | q
|    | .
|    | .
|    | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Length: 86 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•

[Van Croft]

Michael Moroney wrote:

> 🐒 of Math and 🦍 of Physics Archimedes "AnalButtfuckManure" Plutonium
> <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>> So, we can accept
>
> Your diseased cats also accept that crap?

gavi, criminal private organization, with 100% diplomatic immunity around
the globe, cooking covid-19 genocide depopulation through mass global
vaccination before 2019, selling *covid-19_test_kits* already 2017.

(Tedros came to WHO directly from GAVI (!!))

(when the fake "pandemic" hit january 2020, they already had covid-19
test kits ready to go. You are not paying attention: they knew the RNA
sequences those PCR kits are made to test for, before the "virus" hit!!
All countries! Got it now?)

Among countries govt donor contributions, your tax money, guess who else
are interested in having you vaccinated and chipped like cattle:

google.org, MasterCard, the VISA foundation, UPS, TikTok, Shell
international etc. They are all in this together.

start boycott now, use yandex.com. 31:20 mark for the table.

W.H.O. WHISTLEBLOWER CONNECTS THE DOTS
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HZ94izRdfvnW/

[Mostowski Collapse]

Archimedes Plutonium schrieb:
>> I cannot decide which wheelchair. Help!
>>
>> This one:
>>
>> |__
>> |__|
>> * *
>>
>> Or this one:
>>
>> |__
>> |__|
>> o o

[Archimedes Plutonium]

How much is Jan Burse holding back ETH Zurich in confirming real electron of atoms is the Muon, not the 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole.

Just wheeling Jan Burse around ETH takes the entire staff of physics department at ETH, Zurich.

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:44:30 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> >> I cannot decide which wheelchair. Help!
> >>
> >> This one:
> >> |__
> >> |__|

> >> o o

On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 1:58:30 PM UTC-6, abu.ku...@gmail.com wrote:
> s.p.a.m , wonderful s.p.a.m

Jan Burse needs to be barred from all science newsgroups as a hyper attacking miscreant.

One of the reasons that ETH Zurich has never confirmed real proton is 840MeV, real electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a proton torus doing the Faraday law and the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole, is that it takes all the staff at ETH, just to make sure Jan Burse does not wreck the place and ongoing experiments, for Burse continues to try to tear down AP's Wikipedia page.

ETH's_Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner,
Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, is Jan Burse violent-stalker the reason you not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV, real electron=105MeV and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole


On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 2:46:23 PM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> Was that you,

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 6:59:05 PM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> brain farto, do we have some primes:

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 7:14:02 PM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> brain farto claims 22699 is a Sierpiński number.
>

On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 4:43:20 PM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> Spamming dumb fuck, will your wheelchair
> have hexadecimal or decimal wheels?

>
> This one:
>
> |__
> |__|
> * *
>
> Or this one:
>
> |__
> |__|
> o o

Jan Burse is a different type of bully stalker for he tore down AP's Wikipedia page in 2017 and then participated in condoning the forgery of AP to Math Stack Exchange in 2017 along with Dan Christensen, and then has continued to post graphic pictures of bodily violence on AP and then Burse has posted the real-estate near AP in order to incite violence upon AP. Burse is a new type of bully stalker with overt violence in his posts and I recommend that he be permanently banned from sci.math and sci.physics before someone gets hurt from all his over-testosterone bullying and violence association.

o-:^>___?
`~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: Jan Burse, --- brain in the sewer, never any math or science, just a sewer kook

Joel Mesot,Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger,Sarah M. Springman

Joel Mesot, President
Sarah M. Springman, Rector


Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland,
Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin,
Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel,
Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home,
Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner,
Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff,
Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg


HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-4, 105th published book

Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.

Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
Length: 39 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : March 24, 2020
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• ASIN : B086BGSNXN
• Print Length : 39 pages
• File Size : 935 KB
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
#315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)



#1-5, 112th published book

New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5

Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.

Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
Length: 20 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B0875SVDC7
• Publication date : April 15, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 1134 KB

• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled

• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)

#1-6, 135th published book

QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron = muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 

Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.

Cover Picture: Is a imitation of the 8 ring proton torus, with my fingers holding on the proton ring that has the muon ring perpendicular and in the equatorial plane of the proton rings, thrusting through. This muon ring is the same size as the 8 proton rings making 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV of energy. The muon ring has to be perpendicular and lie on the equator of the proton torus. Surrounding the proton-torus would be neutrons as skin or coating cover and act as capacitors in storing the electricity produced by the proton+muon.


Product details
• ASIN : B08K47K5BB
• Publication date : September 25, 2020
• Language : English
• File size : 587 KB

• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled

• Print length : 25 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #291,001 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #52 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #334 in General Chemistry



#1-7, 138th published book
The true NUCLEUS of Atoms are inner toruses moving around in circles of a larger outer torus// Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden Experiment revisited // Atom Totality Series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The geometry of Atoms of the Table of Chemical Elements is torus geometry. We know this to be true for the torus geometry forms the maximum electricity production when using the Faraday Law. We see this in Old Physics with their tokamak toruses attempting to make fusion, by accelerating particles of the highest possible acceleration for the torus is that geometry. But the torus is the geometry not only of maximum acceleration but of maximum electrical generation by having a speeding bar magnet go around and around inside a torus== the Faraday law, where the torus rings are the copper closed wire loop. The protons of atoms are 8 loops of rings in a torus geometry, and the electron of atoms is the muon as bar magnet, almost the same size as the proton loops but small enough to fit inside proton loops. It is torus geometry that we investigate the geometry of all atoms.
Length: 41 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : October 9, 2020
• File Size : 828 KB
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print Length : 41 pages
• ASIN : B08KZT5TCD
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-8, 1st published book

Atom Totality Universe, 8th edition, 2017// A history log book: Atom Totality Series book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


Last revision 7Apr2021. This was AP's first published science book.

Advisory: This is a difficult book to read and is AP's research log book of the Atom Totality in 2016-2017. I want to keep it for its history value. AP advises all readers wanting to know the Plutonium Atom Totality theory to go to the 9th edition that is the latest up to date account of this theory. The reason AP wants to keep the 8th edition is because of Historical Value, for in this book, while writing it, caused the discovery of the real electron is the muon of atoms. The real proton of atoms is 840MeV and not the 938MeV that most books claim. The particle discovered by JJ Thomson in 1897 thinking he discovered the electron of atoms was actually the Dirac magnetic monopole at 0.5MeV. This discovery changes every, every science that uses atoms and electricity and magnetism, in other words, every science.

Foreward:
I wrote the 8th edition of Atom Totality and near the end of writing it in 2017, I had my second greatest physics discovery. I learned the real electron of atoms was the muon at 105MeV and not the tiny 0.5MeV particle that J.J.Thomson found in 1897. So I desperately tried to include that discovery in my 8th edition and it is quite plain to see for I tried to write paragraphs after each chapter saying as much. I knew in 2017, that it was a great discovery, changing all the hard sciences, and reframing and restructuring all the hard sciences.
Length: 632 pages


Product details
File Size: 1132 KB
Print Length: 632 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019

Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English

ASIN: B07PLP9NDR

Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  


Word Wise: Enabled

Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#8526 in Physics (Books)
#18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)



#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#2-2, 145th published book


TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2

Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.

Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB

• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled

• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3

Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Books in this series are.
Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School junior year, book 2
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School senior year, book 3
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS 1st year college, book 4
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Sophomore college, book 5
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Junior college, book 6
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Senior college, book 7

Preface: I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook.

Product details
• ASIN : B08RK33T8V
• Publication date : December 28, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 917 KB

• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled

• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 114 pages
• Lending : Enabled


#3-1, 2nd published book

True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.

Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.

Length: 1150 pages


Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

[Archimedes Plutonium]

How much of a con-art collusion was there between Ken Ribet AMS and Andrew Wiles to pass his mindless FLT, when neither Ribet or Wiles saw that Euler had no proof in exp3 of FLT. Such is what happens when mathematicians have no logical marbles in their head to ever do any worthwhile mathematics.

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:10:36 AM UTC-5, burs...@gmail.com wrote:
> Young student reporters from the

AP writes: I did not know Dan Christensen was so young, for I thought his body was as infirm as his mind.

Re: 2-Jill does not have to be a geometry failure like Ken Ribet Re: 1- AMS, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Robert L. Bryant, David Vogan, Eric M. Friedlander, why not go for the truth of mathematics-- the slant cut in cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
By Dan Christensen Nov 15, 2019, 11:01:13 AM

Far easier for a con-artist fraud Andrew Wiles of Math to hire a stalker, than to ever have to confront the gaping holes of his fake and fraud proof Fermat's Last Theorem--- Andrew, do you pay these stalkers???? With your prize money???? For certainly Andrew, you never confront listed mistakes of gaping holes in your con-art proof.

(1) Could not even see Euler had no FLT proof in exponent 3.
(2) Has a wacko understanding of Logic and the true logic connectors where Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a valid proof method of mathematics, even the Intuitionist logic school rejects RAA, but not con-artists of math.
(3) So dumb in math, Andrew Wiles could not be bothered for 5 minutes to place a Kerr lid inside a homemade paper cone and see the Oval is the slant cut, never the Ellipse, and the fool Andrew uses elliptic curves in his nonsense FLT.
(4) So failed in math, Andrew never realized Calculus was geometry, with his "limit analysis" of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and so confused in math, that Andrew never realized the onus was upon him to "have" a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (see below of AP's proofs).


On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:28:29 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"stalking shitwit"
> "AnalButtfuckManure"

> fails at math and science:

> "Hi, I
> pound male rectums!"

Instead of Andrew Wiles discussing why he missed Euler's gaping hole of a proof in exp3 of FLT, or why Andrew never had a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus or why Andrew never had the Logic connectors correct-- to see that Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a valid math proof method. Rather than face questions of his Fermat's Last Theorem, Andrew choses to run and hide from math reality. And I would bet Andrew delights in a foghorn spitting spewing swearing Kibo Parry M to do Andrew's talking.


Andrew, is this all part of the con-art of fake math that dupes the world general public? You failed Mathematics Andrew-- you could not even detect that Euler had a fake proof in exp 3 of FLT, for Euler forgot he had to prove when A,B,C all three are evens A^3+B^3= C^3.

Of course you would miss that gaping hole Andrew because you never had 2 marbles of logic in your entire life in math, for you still believe to this very day that 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, believing that Either..Or..Or..Both is logically sound giving OR truth table as TTTF, when AND truth table is really TTTF, not the Boole hypocrisy of TFFF. No, Andrew, you even failed Logic, not realizing that Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a valid proof method of mathematics, and RAA is your entire fake con-artist Fermat's Last Theorem.

And even worse, Andrew, you were so so dumb in geometry, you could not even see that slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. And a failure like you Andrew thinks he proved Fermat's Last Theorem.

Are you paying Kibo Parry M. to stalk Andrew? Are your prize money's going to fund Kibo to stalk for another 28 years.

Andrew, is it easier to never have to do -- true math and hire and pay a 24-7 stalker rather than engage in the math that you con-arted away with?

Be silent Andrew about a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, be silent Andrew as your dummy stalker screams and hollers obscenities so you never have to do math when math is needed. Yes, Andrew, Calculus is geometry, yet you never understood that idea, for your "limit analysis" is never a geometry proof, but is a spineless excuse of a fake proof of FTC.

This thread needs to be on the 1st page of a Google Search of "Andrew Wiles" not 5 million hits all saying Andrew Wiles is a math genius, for Andrew is not that at all, but a cowardly con-artist of mathematics, who refuses to ever talk about the gaping holes of his nonsense FLT, or any of the math topics of this post.

11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English

File size : 1307 KB

Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled

Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)


#8-4, 28th published book

World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.

Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.
Length: 29 pages

File Size: 1183 KB
Print Length: 29 pages

Publication Date: March 23, 2019

Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English

ASIN: B07PZ2Y5RV

Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  


Word Wise: Not Enabled

Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



#8-5, 6th published book

World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.

Preface:
Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.

Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.

Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.

As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
Length: 156 pages

File Size: 1503 KB
Print Length: 156 pages

Publication Date: March 12, 2019

Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English

ASIN: B07PQKGW4M

Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 


5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Length: 72 pages

File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019

Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English

ASIN: B07PMB69F5

Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  


Word Wise: Not Enabled

Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



#6-2, 27th published book

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled

• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled

• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)

◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•


AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages

Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English

ASIN: B07PLSDQWC

Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 5:44:23 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>TOTAL FAILURE

AP writes: well, Wiles is not a total failure in math, but a stir-up-the-excitement, even though he never authored a correct and valid math proof. I mean, he could not even see that ellipse is not a conic, for that is a oval on the slant inside a single cone. And there he is in Princeton in 1990s, with this failed grasp of geometry, thinking he proved FLT. Why even Kin Chung, a student at Princeton in the 1990s had a firmer grasp of geometry in his question to me, for which Berkeley's Roland Dreier beat me to the draw in a answer of how 2+2=2x2=2^2 = 4 generates Pythagorean theorem solutions and because there is no n+n+n = nxnxn means no FLT solutions in exp3. So, in total hindsight, we see a Princeton student Kin Chung have more math brains than Andrew Wiles, and we see Roland Dreier of Berkeley made more of a contribution to a valid proof of FLT than ever did Andrew Wiles, in fact Wiles probably held the math community backwards of the past 25 years and math would have been better if Andrew had been a salesman, never a mathematician.

---quoting old 1993 post---

Answering Roland Dreier FLT post of 1993, and why 2+2 = 2*2 as AdditiveMultiplicative Identity AMI proves FLT overall 

From: dre...@durban.berkeley.edu  (Roland Dreier) 
Newsgroups: sci.math 
Subject: Re: 1 page proof of FLT 
Date: 18 Aug 93 14:55:02 
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department. 
Lines: 42 
Message-ID: (DREIER.93A...@durban.berkeley.edu> 
References: (CBxp0...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
(24s7de$c...@outage.efi.com> 
(CByoq...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
(1993Aug18.1...@Princeton.EDU> 

In article (1993Aug18.1...@Princeton.EDU> 
kin...@fine.princeton.edu (Kin Chung) writes: 
In article (CByoq...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes: 
LP     Hardy in Math..Apology said words to the effect that the 
LP  understanding of any math proof is like pointing out a peak in the 
LP  fog of a mtn range and you can only point so long and do other 
LP  helps and hope the other person will see it and say Oh yes now I 
LP  see it. But you can not exchange eyeballs. Again I repeat the 
LP  arithmetic equivalent of FLT is that for exp2 there exists a 
LP  number equal under add & multiply i.e. 2+2=2x2=4. Immediately a 
LP  smallest P triple is constructible for exp2 i.e. (3,4,5>. But no 
LP  number exists like 2 for exp3 or higher in order to construct P- 
LP  triples for these higher exp. I am very sorry that I cannot make it 
LP  any clearer than that. Time to take a break and reread Hardy Math 
LP  Apology. 

KC   You also say that a smallest P-triple is constructible for exp2   
KC   immediately from the existence of a number N such that 
KC   N+N=NxN, namely N=2. How do you construct a P-triple given N 
KC   with this property? Please note that I am not asking how you do 
KC    it for exp3, but for exp2. 

Before I continue, let me say that this post does not in any way constitute 
an endorsement of LvP's "proof"; what I am about to explain does not 
extend to exponent 3 in the least. However, things are rather easy for 
exponent two.  (Not to be critical, but you really could have figured this 
out yourself :-) 

So suppose we have an N with 2xN=N+N=NxN. Set a=N+1, b=N+N=NxN. 
Then we get 
                     a^2 = (N+1)^2 = N^2+2xN+1 = 2xN^2+1 
also 
                     b^2 = (N+N)^2 = 4xN^2. 
So 
                     a^2+b^2 = 6xN^2+1. 
Now set c=2xN+1.  Then 
                     c^2 = (2xN+1)^2 = 4xN^2 + 4xN + 1 = 4xN^2 + 2xN^2 + 1       
                      = 6xN^2+1. 
So magically a^2+b^2=c^2, just as desired! ! 

If you can figure out how to do that for exponent 3, make yourself famous. 

Roland 
-- 
Roland "Mr. Excitement" Dreier                 dre...@math.berkeley.edu 

--- end quoting old 1993 post ---


Wiles proof is invalid, just on the fact it is Reductio Ad Absurdum.
Jan Burse, you spent some time in logic but seemed not to grow much, so how many RAA was in Wiles FLT and did the Ribet theorem have RAA method?


> Who wants to bet? Bet that the Ribet theorem "epsilon conjecture" is a Reductio Ad Absurdum.
>
> Because con-art math in the time frame of 1800s to 2021 was virtually all built on Reductio Ad Absurdum. Starting with Alfred Kempe in 1879 not shown to be a fake until Percy Heawood in 1890.
>
> So that in modern times, the length of endurance of the Wiles fake FLT had outstripped that of Kempe's fake. This is probably because of how remote are the concepts of elliptic curves applied to the Natural Counting Numbers.
>
> But what is not obscure, is the fact that every Fake Math proof of modern times is a Reductio Ad Absurdum.
>
> Is Ken Ribet's theorem another Reductio Ad Absurdum b.s. fakery? Or is Ken in hiding along with Andrew Wiles and only sends out a barrage of stalker hate mongers of Kibo Parry M. Dan Christensen and Jan Burse.
>
> So, what is it Ken, is your alleged proof a Reductio Ad Absurdum, or, do you even know what that is?

So , Jan Burse, reporter at ETH Zurich, which of these math (fake) proofs, contain the largest number of RAA, overall RAA and use of other proofs that are RAA?
1) Wiles FLT
2) Appel & Haken 4 Color mapping
3) Hales Kepler Packing
4) Green & Tao lengths of prime intervals
5) Ribet theorem
6) Poincare conjecture alleged proof

So, Jan, are all 6 a RAA, and which has the most RAA using other RAA inside the larger RAA?

Does your computer find that data Jan??

Say hello to the library at ETH where in 1999, I used to post to sci.math and sci.physics.

I no longer recall if I posted out of Univ Bern on my Europe trip of 1999.


ETH Zurich

Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski, Urs Lang, Rahul Pandharipande, Richard Pink, Tristan Riviere, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, Michael Struwe, Benjamin Sudakov, Alain Sznitman, Josef Teichmann
Wendelin Werner, Thomas Willwacher

Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland,
Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin,
Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel,
Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home,
Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner,
Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff,
Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg

University Bern
Christian Leumann, Walter Benjamin, Emil Theodor Kocher, Kurt Wuthrich, Friedrich Durrenmatt, Daniel Vassella, Rene Fasel, Mani Matter

   /\-------/\
   \::O:::O::/
  (::_  ^  _::)
   \_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Switzerland?
And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better.

Yes, there Jan Burse, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

What answer did they give? Burse?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

quoting Google search---
Sir Andrew John Wiles KBE FRS is an English mathematician and a Royal Society Research Professor at the University of Oxford, specializing in number theory. He is best known for proving Fermat's Last Theorem, for which he was awarded the 2016 Abel Prize and the 2017 Copley Medal by the Royal Society. Wikipedia
--- end quote ---

I do not know what happens to Andrew Wiles awards once the world realizes and acknowledges Wiles has no proof.

Does he lose his "Sir" title? I suppose he keeps that even though he had no math.

Is he removed from prizes and medals lists? Is he required to return any money?

I do not know. I suspect when Kempe was around in the late 1800s with his fake 4 Color Mapping, that the world had no prizes for mathematics, so no embarrassement.

In modern times the Nobel prize is a major award and recently there was talk of removing An San Suu Kyi. But that was in Peace prize, not science.

So I do not know what happens when a scientists gets awards, and years later it is seen as a total joke fake. I suppose everyone lets him keep the ill-gotten gains, and suffers enough from embarrassement and outcast.

But the greatest scar, will be the fact that Abel Prize and Copley Medal no longer have esteem or praise, but seen as rumdummy.

But a greater blight will be in the end of the 21st century, when it is fully realized that the true electron of atoms is not the 0.5MeV particle but is the muon. And so many of the Nobel physics and chemistry prizes were given for dolt-views of the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle. By this standard, 50% of physics and 50% of chemistry Nobel prizes were awards for error filled science. But a big acclaim is given to Anderson and Neddermeyer who discovered the muon in 1936. Which until recently was seen as "not so big" and now seen as hugely important.

And what are we to say of JJ Thomson awarded a Nobel Prize for discovery of the 0.5MeV particle which he mistakenly thought was the electron of atoms, and won the 1906 for "for his theoretical and experimental investigations on the conduction of electricity by gases". Are we to say the discovery of a particle that would turn out to be the Dirac magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms, for the muon is the true electron of atoms.

In this trip down memory lane, we see how fragile and error prone are science awards. And that most scientists should look upon awards and prizes with much skepticism and doubt.

AP

[Michael Moroney]

💀 of Math and ☠️ of Physics Archimedes "Putin's Stooge" Plutonium
<plutonium....@gmail.com> tarded:

> quoting Google search---
> Sir Andrew John Wiles KBE FRS is an English mathematician and a Royal Society Research Professor at the University of Oxford, specializing in number theory. He is best known for proving Fermat's Last Theorem, for which he was awarded the 2016 Abel Prize and the 2017 Copley Medal by the Royal Society. Wikipedia
> --- end quote ---
>
> I do not know what happens to Andrew Wiles awards once the world realizes and acknowledges Wiles has no proof.

[snip silliness]

Since Wiles' proof has been validated by many expert mathematicians
worldwide, there's no chance of that. But do continue living in your
fantasy world.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Sci.math used to be a discussion newsgroup, as this 1993 thread exemplifies before the 2016 posts start appearing in this thread and you can see the frenzy of stalking had taken hold by 2016. For around 1995-6, the NSF govt stepped in and started paying for paid stalkers to ad hominem 24-7-365 as indicated by the Wikipedia reference below, which destroyed the science Usenet newsgroups, for no scientist is going to stay around and watch redneck bigots bully their way each and every day. And so, slowly sci.math became a dead newsgroup with the likes of Kibo Parry, Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez probably paid a salary just to stalk, probably more than the wages of a college professor actually teaching math calculus in classrooms. The NSF made stalking a lucrative career. But in so doing, ruined, destroyed sci.math and sci.physics. If anyone cares to peek at the sci.chem newsgroup it is nothing but a bombed out shell govt police drag net spam covering all 4 walls. Probably the NSF, since it destroyed science newsgroups with stalkers, likely, when this post reaches the desk of Dr. Panchanathan, his likely solution is to pay for and hire people to pretend to discuss chemistry in sci.chem just to make it appear as a normal functioning newsgroup, for which NSF had thoroughly bombed out.


---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. Panchanathan , present day
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua


Kibo Parry M list of shit for brains in physics, and Kibo's list in math is still under construction

On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 1:28:29 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"AnalButtfuckManure"
> fails at math and science:

Kibo Parry M list of Shit for Brains Physicists who cannot tell apart real electron = muon and Dirac magnetic monopole = 0.5MeV

Kibo Parry Moroney says// tarded Steven Weinberg who cannot even ask if real electron of atoms is the Muon stuck inside a Proton torus, and 0.5MeV was Dirac's monopole//Weinberg is too stupid to ask

Re: Steven Weinberg flunked physics lifelong-generation test
2/8/18
By Michael Moroney 37 posts 427 views updated 2:04 PM

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 10:52:43 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>Stooge"
> tarded:

Kibo Parry Moroney has been a 28 year nonstop stalker. Probably paid more to stalk than college professors paid to actually teach physics in classrooms.

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.


Re: Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, CalTech never does correct Logic, why an unpaid Archimedes Plutonium is doing their work
by
Michael Moroney

Oct 28, 2017, 11:55:50 PM


Cornell a sicko school? Re: Cornell Univ like Christensen, an education parasite //with their 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both
by
Michael Moroney
Jan 18, 2019, 4:59:49 PM

Re: Drs.Benedict Gross, Joseph Harris of Harvard, are you as dumb as Moroney never realizing the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV,monopole=.5MeV // 12 proofs below
by
Michael Moroney
Jan 2, 2018, 11:15:07 AM



Re: Drs.Hugh Woodin,Horng-Tzer Yau of Harvard, never a Picture of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus//are you as dumb as Moroney//your students deserve better
by
Michael Moroney
Dec 29, 2017, 9:04:44 AM

Re: the most stupid poster of logic in sci.math for decade-- Dan Christensen, that insane Canadian stalker
by
Michael Moroney
Dec 24, 2017, 1:15:41 AM


Re: chemistry cannot exist with electron .5 to 938 MeV Re: Drs.Thomas Rosenbaum John Schwarz Kip Thorne of CalTech/never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac monopole
by
Michael Moroney
Jan 25, 2018, 11:36:09 AM

Re: Jeff Relf, Seattle offtopic shithead spammer says Democrats value tortured South Korean Moon Bears at trillions of dollars, while Republicans rather have rats than Moon Bears
By
Michael Moroney May 10, 2021

Re: South Korea frees Moon Bears, due to Ayaz apology. Glory to God Almighty, South Korea finally freeing their tortured Moon Bears
I happened to see a video of a moon bear that was freed from a bile farm (in Vietnam). Nice to see,
By Michael Moroney May 9, 2021, 9:48 PM

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
1/23/18
By Michael Moroney

Moroney says autism // Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins//never realizing Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
3/4/18
By Michael Moroney

Re: unpaid AP doing the world's finest logic, while Cambridge, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton teach dunce Logic
10/28/17
By Michael Moroney


Re: MIT's Dr.Martin Bazant, Harvard's Dr.Dennis Gaitsgory-- time you take your full responsibilities as science educator and deal with science failures Michael Moroney
8 posts by 2 authors
12/4/17
By Michael Moroney

Drs.L. Reif, Victor Kac, Irwin Pless of MIT, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
20 posts by 3 authors
By Michael Moroney

Re: 8Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
20 posts by 2 authors
4/9/18
By Michael Moroney

[Archimedes Plutonium]

That is right, for the era in which math proofs are checked by a few crazed "other mathematicians" seeking a payout is over with for the most part. In 1989, there was a news report that fusion energy was obtained in a test tube coming out of Utah. Physics does not have truth dependent on other crazed minds, but rather, has truth dependent on "actually doing experiments". In the 1800s there was a flood of fake proofs and also in the 1900s for math is not decided by experiments, by an impartial judge, rather, math is decided by cronies getting together, brown nosing one another, and thinking ahead of "what is in it for me" such as Simon Singh with his obnoxious fake book of math on Wiles.

What the Internet did, by 1993, was open up Science and Math to a "Deeper View and Cross Examination". And the Wiles FLT is a con art fakery designed to glean fame and fortune, but never the solid truth of mathematics.



> That is right- Andrew, to keep your con-art FLT going as long as possible, keep your keeper of Kibo Parry M. with his 938 is 12% short of 945, when the real question you have to answer is why you missed spotting the error and gaping hole in Euler's exponent 3 proof of FLT.
>
> Run and hide, Andrew and let your henchmen like Kibo scream their way on your behalf.
>
> As I said earlier, back in 1993, Kin Chung of Princeton had more knowledge of FLT with his question of how 2+2=2x2 forms a Algebraic Basis for solutions and Berkeley's Roland Dreier offering the proof for exp 2.
>
> So Andrew, run, hide, never address FLT because you have no FLT, and all you have is a Fake Con-Art Work. Once you start engaging in real questions of your work-- you end up with the realization you have no proof.
>
> Andrew, do you pay Kibo Parry Moroney and Dan Christensen and Jan Burse, to attack, while you run and hide.
>
> Why, Andrew, in your lifetime in math, why were you never able to see that calculus is geometry, and thus, you needed to do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Is it because you have no real math abilities other than hoodwink others into thinking you know math.
>
> Why did you fail to see Euler needed to prove A, B, C were not all three even numbers for A^3 + B^3= C^3, is it because, Andrew, you have no logical marbles to think mathematically. So you assumed that in A^2+B^2= C^2, that in exp 2 they are no primitive solutions of all three evens, not all three evens for you divide out the evens by 2. So you assumed what happened in exp2 and carried that over to exp3 and made the same mistake as Euler. So you failed on that as did Euler. It is a tricky piece of logic. A logic that is above your head Andrew for here is a solution in Shadowy FLT where all three A,B,C are evens 2^3 +2^3 = 2^4. So, Euler missed that had a gaping hole. Wiles missed that but was never cognizant of it.
>
> So you can have solutions where all three A,B,C are evens. You cannot be a dunce idiot like Andrew Wiles and say-- because in Pythagorean theorem we divide out the evens and end up with 2 odds and 1 even.
>
> So, Andrew, you were so dumb in FLT that you missed correcting Euler, and Euler was a powerhouse in math, but you missed Euler's mistake, yet you went ahead on your Con Art FLT.
>
> How many more years are you going to hold-back on the truth behind FLT, leaving the math community in a cesspool of error that you larger was a contributing factor.
>
> Your whole life, Andrew was not about chasing math truth, no, it was about fame and fortune at all cost.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

In one of Andrew Wiles interviews or written statements he is quoted as saying that all the conventional means of attack in proving FLT were exhausted and that something totally new, such as using elliptic curves was needed.

That was the evaluation of Andrew Wiles, a failed mathematician, a failed person of logic.

Because well, to Andrew Wiles, if he sees tea leaves form a pattern of x^3 + y^3 cannot be z^3, then the dullard mind of Andrew Wiles thinks there is a connection of tea-leaves and Fermat's Last Theorem.

No, a oaf of logic and math such as Andrew Wiles cannot begin to tackle FLT by saying something Logical.

By saying A^3 + B^3 = C^3 has no solutions in {1,2,3,4,5,.....} because it has no Triples as a Building Block. A^2+B^2 = C^2 has a building block of 2+2=2x2 = 4 as seen in 3,4,5 where 1+2, 2+2, 2+2+1 is a Pythagorean Triple built from the Basis Vector of where add is the same as multiply 2+2=2x2=2^2 = 4

When you have exponent 3 or higher, you destroy the ability to have a number that is the same to add as to multiply. There is no n+n+n = nxnxn and hence no solutions for exponent 3 in FLT.

But when you leave math and logic to ignorant goofball minds like Andrew Wiles, well, you leave math with the insane con-art of Elliptic Curves that has nothing to do with Counting Numbers {1,2,3,4,5,....} And you are left with a insane crank Andrew Wiles spewing out that Arithmetic and Algebra had exhausted all means of a true proof of FLT.

Kin Chung at Princeton in 1993 was smarter in math than Andrew Wiles would ever be in math. And then Berkeley's Roland Dreier gave a key proof for which he deserves the fame and fortune that con-artist Andrew Wiles stole away.

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 21:32:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: My 1993 basis vector pure algebra proof of Regular FLT Re: AP's 2014
 proof of Generalized FLT Fermat's Last Theorem and proof of Regular FLT as a
 corollary thereof//updated 2019 for more clarity
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 05:32:47 +0000

Andrew Wiles did not prove FLT. Elliptic Curves do not relate to the Counting Numbers. Andrew Wiles is a con artist of mathematics and uses what a con-artist has to use-- the Reductio Ad Absurdum.

AP's proof of FLT is a pure CONSTRUCTION proof and Roland Dreier beat me to the draw by constructing the 2+2=2x2 in exponent 2.

There is no n+n+n = nxnxn for that alone is a proof of FLT.

Really, FLT was one of math's most simple of all proofs. That one sentence above, is a full proof of FLT.

Yet when mathematics has mindless logic bozos running around like Andrew Wiles con artist extraordinare with his mindless statements of == math had exhausted all methods of proof. Then, what you end up with is a con-artist with cesspool math being touted as true.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 23, 2021, 5:46 PM
to sci.physics because sci.math has limits

So, let us step through the logic, of where Euler had a gaping hole of his exp3 FLT proof. Turns out, Euler missed the proof of all three evens A,B,C in A^3 + B^3 = C^3. And of course, a barren of logic oaf like Andrew Wiles would never catch that flaw, nor Ken Ribet with his mindless Ribet theorem. Ken, is your theorem based on Reductio Ad Absurdum for you are awfully quiet on important questions of math, only talking when it furthers your con art math.

So let us step through step by step why Euler needed to prove A,B,C not all even are solutions in exp3. And of course, well, to prove not all three A,B,C makes a proof of exp3 by Euler's method impossible. Now whether the other alleged proofs exp4, exp5 etc have the same flaws as Euler is not of interest to me. For it is safe to say that if you cannot prove exp3 FLT, then the other offerings have internal flaws.

So, what is the Euler Gap and the Wiles Idiocy of exp3 FLT?

We have two axioms of mathematics at play here. We have the axiom of two odds added together is a even and the axiom that of exponents in equality such as 6^2 + 8^2 = 10^2 is a axiom of arithmetic that you can divide out by 2 that is a factor in common and still be equal. So we have 3^2 +4^2 = 5^2.

So we have two axioms of Arithmetic in play.

Now take the example of 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4. So we multiply by 2 and according to axiom of arithmetic we should have equality maintained 2^4+2^4 = 2^5, we multiply again by 2 and have equality maintained 2^5+2^5 = 2^6.

Now we go backwards from 2^3 + 2^3= 2^4 by dividing by 2, and sure enough 2^2 + 2^2 = 2^3

And further backwards we have 2^1 +2^1 = 2^2.

But now we divide out the factors of 2 and have 1 + 1 =1^2 and that is not true.

Euler never ran that picture through his mind to see if he had to prove A,B,C all three evens is a proof of exp3 FLT. And of course a logic oaf like Andrew Wiles would argue that a exp3 solution of FLT would not end up as 1+1 =1. No, a logic oaf like Andrew Wiles would argue that exp3 solution set has to come down to being like <6,8,10> comes down to <3,4,5>.

What fallacy of logic did Euler and Wiles commit? I suppose the name of the fallacy is that they Irrelevantly saw the pattern of exp2 and attached that pattern to exp3. The fallacy called Irrelevant fact. The fallacy of thinking what works in exp2 is what works in exp3.

The reason Euler never had a proof in exp3 is for that fact that he missed proving no three A,B,C all evens provides a solution set.

And of course, Andrew Wiles and his logic deficient cadets of Ken Ribet, Simon Singh, and many others would not know logic from a tree in a forest.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

--- Quoting SCIENCE, 16Jul2021 page 265 titled "Large survey finds questionable research practices are common" ---

Dutch survey finds 8% of scientists have committed fraud.

More than half of Dutch scientists regularly engage in questionable research practices, according to new study results that are likely to apply to other countries. And one in 12 admitted to committing a more serious form of research misconduct within the past 3 years: fabrication or falsification of research results. At 8% that is more than double the rate reported in previous studies.

--- end quote ---

On Andrew Wiles, I am not talking about his con-artist fake proof of FLT as a deliberate attempt by Andrew Wiles to screw the world public, but rather as a deluded crank fraud. Andrew is deluded and cannot stand to reason or analyze in the manner of a "rational person".

So for instance, him being the editor in chief of a math journal publishing his fake proof is likely to be considered as the above 8% fraud of science.

Or Andrew's announced failure in this post thread that he found a gaping hole, but then went ahead with a Princeton graduate student to claim they patched the hole, a Richard Taylor, which in the 1990s it was seen as a Wiles-Taylor proof but Andrew wants none of that sharing and has since then deleted Taylor from any accounts of his con-art fake proof. Is that misconduct on the part of Wiles? Probably. For the Taylor patch of Wiles gaping hole never really remedied the hole. For the gigantic hole of Wiles's FLT for which there is no patch, is the fact that his proof method of Reductio Ad Absurdum is an invalid proof method in mathematics.

Construction proofs are valid proofs in math, not indirect by contradiction.

And Andrew Wiles uses the Taniyama-Shimura modularity theorem.

So, previously I asked which of these modern times math proofs were Reductio Ad Absurdum? Which?

1) Wiles's FLT, yes, RAA
2) Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping, yes RAA
3) Hales Kepler Packing, yes, RAA
4) Green & Tao theorem on prime intervals, yes, RAA
5) Poincare conjecture by Perelman, yes, RAA
6) Ribet theorem, is it RAA?
7) Taniyama-Shimura theorem, is it RAA?

So that if we can list all the theorems proven in modern times in math and find that 8% of them are RAA, would heavily indicate that that recent study of Fraud in science extends over to mathematics. Not that Wiles, Appel&Haken, Hales, Green& Tao were deliberately trying to foist a fraud onto the general public. But that they just could not help themselves in trying to become famous and rich with a math fraud. Sort of Delusion sets the path for self denial that they are committing science fraud.

But I suspect if a list of modern day math proofs accepted in the past 200 years, and all the RAA proofs counted, that the fraud in math is well over 8%, perhaps even as high as 50%. For true proofs in mathematics are construction proofs such as AP's FLT of 2+2=2x2=4 is a proof of FLT and finding such construction proofs can be extremely difficult. So the few marbles of most mathematicians seek a RAA because they just cannot navigate mathematics in a construction proof endeavor.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:17:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> --- Quoting SCIENCE, 16Jul2021 page 265 titled "Large survey finds questionable research practices are common" ---
>
> Dutch survey finds 8% of scientists have committed fraud.
>
> More than half of Dutch scientists regularly engage in questionable research practices, according to new study results that are likely to apply to other countries. And one in 12 admitted to committing a more serious form of research misconduct within the past 3 years: fabrication or falsification of research results. At 8% that is more than double the rate reported in previous studies.
>
> --- end quote ---

Andrew Wiles alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem does not make him a fraud, for then every deluded crank individual would be a fraud. It is not their intent on being a fraud, that is just their make-up and personality.

However, if Andrew Wiles keeps ignoring serious issues about his alleged proof, such as ignoring this thread started by Andrew Wiles, and never wants to engage in questions over his proof-- such as why he missed the gap of Euler's FLT in exp3 or why he cannot understand that Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a valid math proof method, then, Andrew Wiles is a fraudster. For he simply cannot ignore errors pointed out to him.

>
> On Andrew Wiles, I am not talking about his con-artist fake proof of FLT as a deliberate attempt by Andrew Wiles to screw the world public, but rather as a deluded crank fraud. Andrew is deluded and cannot stand to reason or analyze in the manner of a "rational person".
>
> So for instance, him being the editor in chief of a math journal publishing his fake proof is likely to be considered as the above 8% fraud of science.
>
> Or Andrew's announced failure in this post thread that he found a gaping hole, but then went ahead with a Princeton graduate student to claim they patched the hole, a Richard Taylor, which in the 1990s it was seen as a Wiles-Taylor proof but Andrew wants none of that sharing and has since then deleted Taylor from any accounts of his con-art fake proof. Is that misconduct on the part of Wiles? Probably. For the Taylor patch of Wiles gaping hole never really remedied the hole. For the gigantic hole of Wiles's FLT for which there is no patch, is the fact that his proof method of Reductio Ad Absurdum is an invalid proof method in mathematics.
>
> Construction proofs are valid proofs in math, not indirect by contradiction.
>
> And Andrew Wiles uses the Taniyama-Shimura modularity theorem.
>
> So, previously I asked which of these modern times math proofs were Reductio Ad Absurdum? Which?
>
> 1) Wiles's FLT, yes, RAA
> 2) Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping, yes RAA
> 3) Hales Kepler Packing, yes, RAA
> 4) Green & Tao theorem on prime intervals, yes, RAA
> 5) Poincare conjecture by Perelman, yes, RAA
> 6) Ribet theorem, is it RAA?
> 7) Taniyama-Shimura theorem, is it RAA?
>
> So that if we can list all the theorems proven in modern times in math and find that 8% of them are RAA, would heavily indicate that that recent study of Fraud in science extends over to mathematics. Not that Wiles, Appel&Haken, Hales, Green& Tao were deliberately trying to foist a fraud onto the general public. But that they just could not help themselves in trying to become famous and rich with a math fraud. Sort of Delusion sets the path for self denial that they are committing science fraud.
>
> But I suspect if a list of modern day math proofs accepted in the past 200 years, and all the RAA proofs counted, that the fraud in math is well over 8%, perhaps even as high as 50%. For true proofs in mathematics are construction proofs such as AP's FLT of 2+2=2x2=4 is a proof of FLT and finding such construction proofs can be extremely difficult. So the few marbles of most mathematicians seek a RAA because they just cannot navigate mathematics in a construction proof endeavor.

A scientist is a fraud, if he hides and ignores discussion of serious issues of his work, and so far, Andrew Wiles has run and hided, making him a fraud.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 12:02:06 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:17:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > --- Quoting SCIENCE, 16Jul2021 page 265 titled "Large survey finds questionable research practices are common" ---
> >
> > Dutch survey finds 8% of scientists have committed fraud.
> >
> > More than half of Dutch scientists regularly engage in questionable research practices, according to new study results that are likely to apply to other countries. And one in 12 admitted to committing a more serious form of research misconduct within the past 3 years: fabrication or falsification of research results. At 8% that is more than double the rate reported in previous studies.
> >
> > --- end quote ---
> Andrew Wiles alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem does not make him a fraud, for then every deluded crank individual would be a fraud. It is not their intent on being a fraud, that is just their make-up and personality.
>
> However, if Andrew Wiles keeps ignoring serious issues about his alleged proof, such as ignoring this thread started by Andrew Wiles, and never wants to engage in questions over his proof-- such as why he missed the gap of Euler's FLT in exp3 or why he cannot understand that Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a valid math proof method, then, Andrew Wiles is a fraudster. For he simply cannot ignore errors pointed out to him.
> >
> > On Andrew Wiles, I am not talking about his con-artist fake proof of FLT as a deliberate attempt by Andrew Wiles to screw the world public, but rather as a deluded crank fraud. Andrew is deluded and cannot stand to reason or analyze in the manner of a "rational person".
> >
> > So for instance, him being the editor in chief of a math journal publishing his fake proof is likely to be considered as the above 8% fraud of science.
> >
> > Or Andrew's announced failure in this post thread that he found a gaping hole, but then went ahead with a Princeton graduate student to claim they patched the hole, a Richard Taylor, which in the 1990s it was seen as a Wiles-Taylor proof but Andrew wants none of that sharing and has since then deleted Taylor from any accounts of his con-art fake proof. Is that misconduct on the part of Wiles? Probably. For the Taylor patch of Wiles gaping hole never really remedied the hole. For the gigantic hole of Wiles's FLT for which there is no patch, is the fact that his proof method of Reductio Ad Absurdum is an invalid proof method in mathematics.
> >
> > Construction proofs are valid proofs in math, not indirect by contradiction.
> >
> > And Andrew Wiles uses the Taniyama-Shimura modularity theorem.
> >
> > So, previously I asked which of these modern times math proofs were Reductio Ad Absurdum? Which?
> >
> > 1) Wiles's FLT, yes, RAA
> > 2) Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping, yes RAA
> > 3) Hales Kepler Packing, yes, RAA
> > 4) Green & Tao theorem on prime intervals, yes, RAA
> > 5) Poincare conjecture by Perelman, yes, RAA
> > 6) Ribet theorem, is it RAA?
> > 7) Taniyama-Shimura theorem, is it RAA?

Sad that mathematicians cannot even write their proofs clear and logical order. For they should always state at the beginning what their Proof Method is going to be. In the 20th and 21st century, they thought the Reductio Ad Absurdum (proof by contradiction) was a valid proof method along with Construction proofs. So at the beginning of their proof, much fanfare should be stated as to what sort of proof method they are using-- is it geometrical proof, is it construction proof, is it RAA?

Well searching the Web we see the Taniyama-Shimura or Modular theorem is RAA.

--- quoting the web on this proof from redalyc.org ---
with a mathematical object called a modular. If the UTF is false, then there would be an elliptic curve such that can’t be associated with any modular form, and therefore the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture would be false. I.e., Taniyama-Shimura conjecture solution would demonstrate the UTF.
--- end quote ---

AP

[Michael Moroney]

🪱 of Math and 🪰 of Physics Archimedes "Drag Queen of Science"
Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> tarded:

> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:17:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> --- Quoting SCIENCE, 16Jul2021 page 265 titled "Large survey finds questionable research practices are common" ---
>>
>> Dutch survey finds 8% of scientists have committed fraud.
>>
>> More than half of Dutch scientists regularly engage in questionable research practices, according to new study results that are likely to apply to other countries. And one in 12 admitted to committing a more serious form of research misconduct within the past 3 years: fabrication or falsification of research results. At 8% that is more than double the rate reported in previous studies.
>>
>> --- end quote ---

I wonder if this explains StupidPlutonium.

On the one hand, he's definitely not a scientist, which would simply
mean 'Not applicable'. On the other hand, he tries to pass himself off
as a scientist and mathematician, despite being unable to perform any
science and math, and that is most definitely a fraud.

> Andrew Wiles alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem does not make him a fraud, for then every deluded crank individual would be a fraud. It is not their intent on being a fraud, that is just their make-up and personality.

Since Plutonium is a crank individual who pretends to be a scientist
does that make him not a fraud since he's just deluded and not
deliberately a fraud? I say no, since he's been told his 'science' is
bogus yet he persists. He has started a Cult of Failure which is evil,
especially since he tries to recruit children as young as five into his
evil cult. He apparently gets assistance from Russia since he appealed
to Russian Robots to help him destroy math education. That is deliberate
fraud.

>
> However, if Andrew Wiles keeps ignoring serious issues about his alleged proof, such as ignoring this thread started by Andrew Wiles, and never wants to engage in questions over his proof-- such as why he missed the gap of Euler's FLT in exp3 or why he cannot understand that Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a valid math proof method, then, Andrew Wiles is a fraudster. For he simply cannot ignore errors pointed out to him.

As StupidPlutonium keeps ignoring serious issues about his alleged
'proofs', and never wants to engage in questions over his 'proofs', then
Archimedes Plutonium, is a fraud since he simply cannot ignore errors
pointed out to him.

> A scientist is a fraud, if he hides and ignores discussion of serious issues of his work, and so far, Archimedes Plutonium has run and hid, making him a fraud.
But Plutonium is no scientist and he doesn't hide, but instead attacks
anyone pointing out his many, many flaws.

Since Plutonium has started an evil Cult of Failure and apparently gets
assistance from Russia, I'd say 'definitely Fraud'.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

The Fallacy of Ribet's Theorem.

I been checking on Ribet's Theorem-- very complex and very, how should I say it hypothetical on cloud 9.

I have not spotted a Reductio Ad Absurdum in Ribets phony proof.

But listening to a lecture on YouTube by Benedict Gross on Serre conjecture and Ribet theorem, I am convinced that what went wrong here is typified by another phony proof, but of the 1800s, whereas Ribet is late 1900s. The phony proof I speak of is Dandelin 1822 spheres inside a cone and assumed ellipse.

Turns out that there is no Dandelin proof, because the slant cut of the cone is a Oval and a Oval has no two symmetrical focal points that one can rest two spheres upon.

So the mistake of Dandelin is a "false assumption". And in logic, when you assume a falsehood as true, it has been said that you can prove 1+1 = 1, if you assume a falsehood.

Did Dandelin use Reductio Ad Absurdum? Did they use RAA on top of a false assumption? Checking to see, well, no, they needed no RAA, and that a false assumption was plenty enough to make a false proof.

And I am convinced that in the Serre-- Ribet theorem, that false assumptions are pervasive. Not just one false assumption as in Dandelin, but many many false assumptions, for we are dealing in geometry that is not tangible. We are dealing in geometry of elliptic curves that cannot even be drawn. Although Benedict Gross mentioned the torus in his blackboard lecture.

AP

[Michael Moroney]

🪲 of Math and 🪳 of Physics Archimedes "Village Idiot of Meckling SD"
Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> And in logic, when you assume a falsehood as true, it has been said that you can prove 1+1 = 1, if you assume a falsehood.

And here is an excellent example of a false "proof" by Plutonium by
assuming a falsehood, using the 1822 Dandelin Spheres proof.

> Turns out that there is no Dandelin proof, because the slant cut of the cone is a Oval and a Oval has no two symmetrical focal points that one can rest two spheres upon.
>

Plutonium assumes the slant cut of the cone is an Oval and an Oval has

no two symmetrical focal points that one can rest two spheres upon. So

Plutonium "concludes" the Dandelin Spheres doesn't produce an ellipse
because he assumes the initial curve is an "oval" and not an ellipse.

Logicians call Plutonium's mistake "assuming your conclusion", a major
logical fallacy.

[Michael Moroney]

🪲 of Math and 🪳 of Physics Archimedes "Village Idiot of Meckling SD"
Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> And in logic, when you assume a falsehood as true, it has been said that you can prove 1+1 = 1, if you assume a falsehood.

And here is an excellent example of a false proof by Plutonium by
assuming a falsehood, using the 1822 Dandelin Spheres proof.

> Turns out that there is no Dandelin proof, because the slant cut of the cone is a Oval and a Oval has no two symmetrical focal points that one can rest two spheres upon.
>

Plutonium assumes the slant cut of the cone is an Oval and an Oval has

no two symmetrical focal points that one can rest two spheres upon. So

Plutonium "concludes" the Dandelin Spheres doesn't produce an ellipse
because he assumes the initial curve is an "oval" and not an ellipse.

Logicians call Plutonium's mistake "assuming your conclusion", a major
logical fallacy.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Actually watching Benedict Gross on blackboard on Ribet Theorem on YouTube, we can easily see how modern day math professors have descended into a Twilight Zone of memorized insanity.

Let me model that lecture of Gross's lecture on Ribet Theorem, and not pick on Gross too much for if Ribet was at the blackboard or Wiles at the blackboard, we have the same "realization of math in the weeds of the twilight zone of craziness"

Math Professor: So if we had Bigfoot in France and crossed the channel on a raft to look for Loch Ness monster rho eigenvalue Galois group.

Then Puff the Magic Dragon on pink eyes white scales, fire breathing, helmet or no helmet.

And a weight of level qN, ramified finite flat. Then Bigfoot with conductor of Fourier coefficients sells elliptic curve to Loch Ness for higher dimension leveling conductor at mod 7 lower level to meet up with Puff the Magic Dragon and Loch Nessy.

However if newform is level lower mod p Galois then newform is duke, duke, duke, duke of Earl.

This is of course the stupid ridiculousness of someone thinking that elliptic equations can masquerade for the Counting Numbers. So jerks of mathematics can never figure out the solution to FLT is 2+2=2x2=4, so they run on insane crazy ideas of dressing up elliptic curves that reach into cloud 9 stratosphere of goofball crazy,--- when, when all they needed to do was have a Logical brain and look at 2+2= 2x2 as a basis vector for all solutions in A^x + B^y = C^z.

No, Andrew Wiles at the blackboard, or Ken Ribet at the blackboard doing elliptic curves is not a sign of brilliance in mathematics but a asylum crazyhouse at the blackboard.

As I said earlier in a post, there are two competing axioms involved in solutions to A^x + B^y = C^z. There is the axiom of arithmetic that two odds make a even and the axiom of arithmetic algebra that to maintain a equation of equality, you must multiply or divide factors in common. So the smallest of these solutions is not 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, for we cannot divide out and still retain counting numbers. The smallest solution is 2^2 + 2^2 = 2^3 which can divide out as 2^1 + 2^1 = 2^2 which can divide out as 1+1 = 2.

That is the SMALLEST SOLUTIONS in Counting Numbers of A^x + B^y = C^z. And if you look at those last two solutions of 2+2 = 2^2 is that of 2+2 = 2x2 as the basis vector, and the smaller solution of 1+1= 2.

So, that is where FLT teaching should begin. We have the equation we want solved in Counting Numbers A^x + B^y = C^z. We look for the Absolute Smallest Solution and it is 1+1=2, next smallest is 2+2=2^2. We use 2+2=2x2 as Basis Vector and build all the other solution sets of A^x + B^y = C^z. When we reach exponent 3 or higher, we cease having solutions to where all the exponents are of the same number. This is because there is no N+N+N = NxNxN in exp3 or analogously higher.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So what the world of mathematics needs now, is not a Benedict Gross or Andrew Wiles or Ken Ribet tooting their horns on how fantastic are elliptic curves in modeling the Counting Numbers {1, 2, 3, 4, ...}. But rather what we really need is the math community to come forth and tell how pathetically stupid it all was to think that elliptic curves have much of anything at all to say about the counting numbers.

This is as mindless as thinking the Circle equation says much if anything about the Counting Numbers.

Because both the circle and ellipse are steeped full of the number pi and not counting numbers. So it must have been a sort of goonclod of the past math history to ever think that a adventure into ellipses would reveal anything about Counting Numbers.

What really does say something about the Counting Numbers are right-triangles, and then in Generalized FLT, those right triangles are replaced by rectangles.

So one can form a conjecture here about Dull Stupid Mindless Lacking in Logic math professors who think that a Elliptic Curve can say anything about Counting Numbers, deserves to be booted out of math rather than have thousands others follow their mindless trek into the twilight zone of math.

Conjecture: when old and in math and not famous in math-- watch out-- these clowns and bozos will carve a path into the twilight zone of mathematics.

Now in the Dandelin fake proof of two spheres resting on foci of ellipse inside a cone. There was 1 False Assumption, and it only take one false assumption to have a math catastrophe. The false assumption is the slant cut in cone is not the ellipse but a oval.

So how many False Assumptions were in Serre and Ribet modeling of elliptic curves as integers?

Having listened to Benedict Gross blackboard lecture on YouTube, I think I spotted the Big False Assumption. And there are likely many other false assumptions in Serre and Ribet elliptic curves.

The big one is that you can even assign counting numbers to elliptic curves. I say that is the big false assumption. I say every elliptic curve as every circle curve, every number point is irrational based on pi. There are only two rational numbers for trig values, not counting 0. And those two are 1 and 1/2, which reduces to 1 and 2 as Counting Numbers.

So the Big False Assumption of Serre, Ribet, Taniyama-Shimura, Wiles, the big false assumption is that you can even model the Counting Numbers with elliptical curves.

If you can never model the counting numbers with circles, hells bells, you cannot model the counting numbers with ellipse.

So, what Serre, Ribet, Taniyama-Shimura, Wiles built was nothing but a mountain of fakery mathematics.

Would anyone build a elliptic curve or a circle curve for Pythagorean theorem? Of course not for it is the right triangle that directly relates to Counting Numbers.

Would anyone build a elliptic curve for A^n+B^n=C^n? Only if you are crazy. Because the FLT is begot as a corollary of A^x+B^y=C^z where x,y,z are 3 or larger. And in this Generalized FLT the geometry that solves it is never the elliptic curve but rather the Rectangle, as I called them in my proof-- Condensed Rectangles.

So, the fools that were desperate for fame and fortune in math, those fools could not think logically and being old fools went and sought for elliptic curves when in reality, it was rectangles that matches the Geometry proof, not ellipses.

But when you are old and desperate for fame and fortune and lack a logical mind, well, you stoop to that stupidity of elliptic curves for FLT.

So, Wiles used a RAA, on top of a Ribet fake proof of False Assumption. But there are likely several false assumptions, perhaps more than 3 false assumptions from Serre to Ribet. And so Wiles has a RAA on invalid proofs of Ribet full of 3 or more false assumptions. Shame on the rest of the math community that they are so quiet while they are being pandered to by such con-artist fakery.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Conjecture: the only geometry figures that can model the Counting Numbers are straightline figures such as right triangles or rectangles. And only a fool would attempt to model the Counting Numbers from a elliptic curve.

Possible Proof: Curves at most have just two rational numbers involved 1, and 1/2 from trigonometry.

So what the world of mathematics needs now, is not a Benedict Gross or Andrew Wiles or Ken Ribet tooting their horns on how fantastic are elliptic curves in modeling the Counting Numbers {1, 2, 3, 4, ...}. But rather what we really need is the math community to come forth and tell how pathetically stupid it all was to think that elliptic curves have much of anything at all to say about the counting numbers.

This is as mindless as thinking the Circle equation says much if anything about the Counting Numbers.

Because both the circle and ellipse are steeped full of the number pi and not counting numbers. So it must have been a sort of goonclod of the past math history to ever think that a adventure into ellipses would reveal anything about Counting Numbers.

What really does say something about the Counting Numbers are right-triangles, and then in Generalized FLT, those right triangles are replaced by rectangles.

So one can form a conjecture here about Dull Stupid Mindless Lacking in Logic math professors who think that a Elliptic Curve can say anything about Counting Numbers, deserves to be booted out of math rather than have thousands others follow their mindless trek into the twilight zone of math.

Conjecture: when old and in math and not famous in math-- watch out-- these clowns and bozos will carve a path into the twilight zone of mathematics.

Now in the Dandelin fake proof of two spheres resting on foci of ellipse inside a cone. There was 1 False Assumption, and it only takes one false assumption to have a math catastrophe. The false assumption is the slant cut in cone is not the ellipse but a oval.

So how many False Assumptions were in Serre and Ribet modeling of elliptic curves as integers?

Having listened to Benedict Gross blackboard lecture on YouTube, I think I spotted the Big False Assumption. And there are likely many other false assumptions in Serre and Ribet elliptic curves.

The big one is that you can even assign counting numbers to elliptic curves. I say that is the big false assumption. I say every elliptic curve as every circle curve, every number point is irrational based on pi. There are only two rational numbers for trig values, not counting 0. And those two are 1 and 1/2, which reduces to 1 and 2 as Counting Numbers.

So the Big False Assumption of Serre, Ribet, Taniyama-Shimura, Wiles, the big false assumption is that you can even model the Counting Numbers with elliptical curves. You cannot. And I had read of many math professors, especially Germany studying why trig and circles have just two counting numbers. Yet, on the other side of the math spectrum we have Ribet and Wiles modeling all the Counting numbers on curves.

If you can never model the counting numbers with circles, hells bells, you cannot model the counting numbers with ellipse.

So, what Serre, Ribet, Taniyama-Shimura, Wiles built was nothing but a mountain of fakery mathematics.

Would anyone build a elliptic curve or a circle curve for Pythagorean theorem? Of course not for it is the right triangle that directly relates to Counting Numbers.

And perhaps we should make a Conjecture here that totally annihilates Serre, Ribet, Taniyama-Shimura, Wiles.

Conjecture: only straightline figures can model the Counting number, never a curve.

[Mostowski Collapse]

Why so restrictive? You are starting to restrict academic freedom, by
judging other peoples ventured as foolish. What about your own

Alzheimer venture of 30 years not a single line of math.
You are a fucking nazi, with your facist hate posts.

[Mostowski Collapse]

Whats the immigration story behind the name Ludwig Plutonium.
Were his parents Auschwitz personell that slipped the Nurnberg trials.

Was archimedes plutonium born in a concentration camp?
All he can do is fabricate literate pests, like here:

Plutonium Totality Discredits Supercollider, Montgomery Fellow
https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/1994/05/plutonium-totality-discredits-supercollider-montgomery-fellow

Just pile of nazi gobbledygook thats isn't funny.
Only sad and disgusting. Nothing has changed since.

[Mostowski Collapse]

Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.

It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

[Michael Moroney]

Look at this autistic meltdown by poor Arky. He's still upset over being
25 years too late for the FLT solution party and it being plain that
Wiles' proof is widely accepted. He goes on a nice long rant lashing
out with ad hominem after ad hominem against mathematicians. No actual
math, of course, just attack after attack.

It didn't help that I pointed out his attack on the Dandelin Spheres
ellipse proof was a typical "assume the conclusion" fallacy.

> math professors have descended into a Twilight Zone of memorized insanity.
>

> we have the same "realization of math in the weeds of the twilight zone of craziness"
>

> Then Puff the Magic Dragon on pink eyes white scales, fire breathing, helmet or no helmet.
>

> Then Bigfoot with conductor

> Loch Ness

> Puff the Magic Dragon and Loch Nessy.
>

> newform is duke, duke, duke, duke of Earl.
>

> jerks of mathematics

> they run on insane crazy ideas of dressing up elliptic curves that reach into cloud 9 stratosphere of goofball crazy,
>

> a asylum crazyhouse at the blackboard.
>

> how pathetically stupid it all was
>

> This is as mindless

>
> goonclod of the past math history
>

> Dull Stupid Mindless Lacking in Logic math professors

> their mindless trek into the twilight zone of math.
>

> these clowns and bozos will carve a path into the twilight zone of mathematics.
>

> the fools that were desperate

> those fools could not think logically

[Archimedes Plutonium]

The AP program destroys the Serre-Ribet-Wiles and Langlands program Re: Fermat status.

I should have a proof of this by the end of the day. Anyway, it is for sure that Modern day math sweeps under the rug of shame the Serre, Taniyama-Shimura, Ribet, Wiles nonsense fakery of elliptic curves and including the Langlands program b.s., solid b.s..

What AP works on are the True Numbers of mathematics, the Decimal Grid Numbers and notice this special feature of the Decimal Grid Numbers. Starting with 10 Grid that all then numbers in 10 Grid between 0 and 1 are a immediate corresponding reflection of the Counting Numbers.

This set {0, .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, 1.0} So the Counting Numbers are the first numbers between 0 and 1 in a specific Grid system. If we started with 100 Grid we have the counting numbers modeled by those numbers between 0 and 1 and hence 0 to 100 of counting numbers.

Now, what that does, as the true numbers of mathematics is destroy the mindless Serre through Wiles program of elliptic curves. Also destroying the Langland program. Those programs were built upon shoddy logic and a fake numbers of math-- the Reals.

NOTICE these specialties of real true numbers of mathematics-- Decimal Grid Number Systems.

1) That the set {0, .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, 1.0} completely models the Counting numbers 1 to 10. If we wanted the Counting numbers 1 to 1000 we use 1000 Grid system of all numbers 0 to 1.

So, whereas the dullard dunce oafs of Serre, Ribet, Wiles want to model Counting Numbers by elliptic curves-- in which trigonometry alone tells us that the only rational numbers in a ellipse or circle are 1 and 0.5 (not counting 0). Yet dunce oafs with only two rational numbers want to pretend these two numbers model all the Counting Numbers.

AP takes the opposite approach-- the numbers between 0 and 1 in Decimal Grid Systems perfectly Model the Counting Numbers.

2) Notice that multiplication of Grid Numbers between 0 and 1, that multiplication never gets outside and higher than 1 itself. So that .9x.9 = .81 and we borrow from 100 Grid for 0.81. However, notice that addition can get outside and beyond 1 barrier, easily, in that 0.5+0.6 = 1.1.

3) So, what we do in the AP Program, now that we have exactly Modeled the Counting Numbers perfectly, what we do is restrict ourselves even further to no numbers above and beyond 0.5 in addition or multiplication. And this is no hardship at all to math in general.

4) A few days ago I was speaking of a Natural Barrier in Calculus. Thinking that at some exponent there is a derivative that rises so rapidly that the Calculus could not handle it. To my surprise here in AP Program, it looks like the Integral, not the derivative is a natural forming barrier in Calculus. As I impose a 0.5 as the limit barrier to addition.

5) So, what we do is focus our attention on all the numbers from 0 to 1 as Representations of the Counting numbers, and further restrict our attention to 0 to 0.5. And this framework of Representation of all the Counting Numbers from 0 to 0.5, allows me to easily prove that No Geometry Figures other than right triangles and rectangles can represent the Counting Numbers, i.e. Straightline figures.

6) The AP program destroys completely the Serre, Taniyama-Shimura, Ribet, Wiles program and destroys completely the Langlands program. They never had the correct numbers of mathematics to start with, and they had no two marbles of logic to ever engage in mathematics at this level of math.

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 4:08:53 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
1> Conjecture: the only geometry figures that can model the Counting Numbers are straightline figures such as right triangles or rectangles. And only a fool would attempt to model the Counting Numbers from a elliptic curve.
>
2> Possible Proof: Curves at most have just two rational numbers involved 1, and 1/2 from trigonometry.

[Earle Jones]

On Mon Jul 19 03:44:17 2021 Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> ATOM TOTAL FAILURE
>
> LoL
>
> Ludwig Plutonium schrieb am Montag, 6. Dezember 1993 um 11:02:50 UTC+1:
> > In article <1993Dec4.0...@Princeton.EDU>
> > wi...@rugola.Princeton.EDU (Andrew Wiles) writes:
> > > In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
> > > Taniyama-Shimura conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem I will give a
> > > brief account of the situation. During the review process a number of
> > > problems emerged, most of which have been resolved, but one in
> > > particular I have not yet settled. The key reduction of (most cases
> > > of ) the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture to the calculation of the Selmer
> > > group is correct.
> > Roughly, how many persons are there in the world now who have a
> > Masters degree or higher in mathematics? Perhaps 100,000? Of those, how
> > many believe they will prove a famous outstanding math problem? My
> > guess of the above is 50%. I believe 50% of mathematicians are arrogant
> > and self-deluded enough to believe they were "chosen" to do a famous
> > outstanding math problem. This guess-estimate of 50,000 if true is in
> > my opinion a good thing because if all persons entering mathematics
> > were realistic from the start, then the number of people who end up
> > majoring in mathematics would diminish to perhaps a mere thousand.
> > There is safety in numbers.
> > Since I believe the universe is superdeterministic then it follows
> > by this line of thinking that math problems become "famous" because of
> > our Maker. It was our Maker who made Fermat write his margin note. It
> > was our Maker who forced Riemann to conjecture 1/2, the only number
> > which the electron spin "M sub s" can have. And it is our Maker, 231Pu,
> > who has superdetermined already before the person is even born what
> > person will prove the outstanding problem. The proof of a very famous
> > outstanding math problem Riemann Hypothesis, Poincare Conjecture,
> > Fermat's Last Theorem, and others will use "new techniques" and yield
> > "new mathematical knowledge." That is the reason these problems are
> > long outstanding. In this sense, a proof of FLT from the regular old
> > math is what Hardy and Dirac would have called "ugly mathematics."
> > Wiles's proof attempt uses the old math, nothing new. Just the length
> > of his alleged proof is testimony of "ugly mathematics."
> > The person superdetermined to prove RH,PC, and FLT will have done
> > so incidentally to something else--Atom Totality. In a thousand years
> > from now, historians will pick through these postings, not for the sake
> > of FLT but because of a beautiful and simple idea which can be
> > described in two words, ATOM TOTALITY.

*
Our MAKER made you a potwasher at Hanover Inn at Dartmouth.

The rest is your doing.

earle
*

[Archimedes Plutonium]

1- MATHOPEDIA-- Listing of 72 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. AP's 174th book.

Last revision was 24Jul2021.



Preface: I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds question of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Some of these can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series, but the entries keep changing and added on new, means I need to have a separate book for these fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for ages 18-19 Freshperson College, math textbook series, book 3
Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
Listing the Errors of Old Math, list of 1 to 50.

Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak, the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science because it has this "peak of calculus", unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete to its peak of calculus understanding. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes because the peak of math is going nowhere. And even though Physics will find new science such as how the proton toruses inside of atoms are configured in geometry, the geometry and calculus used in that configuration, that new science does not change nor does it create or require a new math peak/summit to handle the new physics.

Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.

Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.

The listings in Mathopedia of errors, mistakes and fakes is based on the idea that Calculus is the supreme achievement of all of mathematics for it is the essential math of doing Physics electricity and magnetism. And in order to have a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we must clean up and clean out all the mistakes, fakes and errors of Old Math, erst, we have no Calculus. So calculus is the consistency maker for the rest of all of mathematics.

1) Calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, a proof that derivative and integral are inverses of one another, just as addition and subtraction are inverses, or, multiplication and division are inverses. The only way to obtain a geometry proof is to clean up and clean out all the fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math, such as their fake numbers-- the Reals. Their fake definition of function allowing anything be a function. Their fakery of a continuum when even physics by 1900 with Planck onwards in Quantum Mechanics proving the Universe is discrete Space not a continuum, yet by 1900 onwards those in mathematics following the idiotic continuum in the Continuum Hypothesis with even more avid interest, when they should have thrown the continuum on a trashpile of shame.

2) The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers, because you have to need and apply one mechanism only to obtain the true numbers of mathematics-- Mathematical Induction. In Old Math they had just a tiny few intelligent mathematicians, Kronecker, who emerged from the gaggle crowd of kooks to notice that Naturals all come from one single mechanism-- Mathematical Induction. But Old Math never had a crowd of mathematicians with logical brains to say-- all our numbers need to come from the one mechanism of Mathematical Induction.

3) The true numbers of math have empty space between successor and predecessor numbers. For example the 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . . , 9.8, 9.9, 10.0. Where no numbers exist between .1 and .2, etc. Only discrete numbers allow us to give a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

4) All functions of mathematics must be a polynomial, and if not a polynomial, convert the offering to a polynomial over a specific interval.

5) Space is discrete and all lines in space are strings of attached straight lines.

6) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
We can still keep the name "curve" as long as we know it is a string of fine tiny straightline segments strung together in what looks like a smooth curve. If curves exist, then the Calculus in Fundamental Theorem of Calculus cannot be proven and thus Calculus does not exist. We all know that we have to have Calculus, and so we throw out onto the trash pile the curve of Old Math. And this is reasonable because starting in 1900 in physics there arose the Quantum Mechanics of Space being discrete. And a discrete space has no continuum, has no curve of Old Math.


7) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.

8) Limit analysis was an insane fakery in Old Math, concocted because Old Math needed the excuse of some proof, so they invented the monster con-artist trick that a limit analysis would divert the fact it is no proof at all, but a Non Sequitur argument. Limit analysis is juju totem witchcraft dance around a desire to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Just as idiotic as dancing around a sick person of a virus is going to cure the person.

9) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.

10) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.

11) Calculus needed a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but Old Math never provided such, instead they provided some stupid Limit argument. The reason for the creation of the Limit disaster was that the French mathematician Cauchy got sick and tired of hearing his smartest students complain that the width of rectangles in the integral are 0 width, and those smart students could not, for the life of them understand how a rectangle with 0 width has any interior area. So instead of the math community denouncing the limit, instead they elevated the fakery.

12) Further in Calculus, they knew you could do a transform of coordinate points to turn any function into a polynomial function, a method of Lagrange. However, they in Old Math were too stupid to take this transform to its highest form-- all functions are polynomial functions and only polynomial functions. When you learn that-- the derivative and integral of any and every function of math is a snap breeze simple and easy.

13) With the error filled 4 quadrants, when it should be 1st Quadrant Only, we have Trigonometry's sine and cosine with the fakery of sinusoid wave when it never was that. The sine and cosine are semicircle waves, and no sinusoid wave exists.

14) There is only one Geometry-- Euclidean, and there is not three distinct geometries of elliptical Riemannian or hyperbolic Lobachevsky. Those two are just duals that make up Euclidean.

15) Torus, volume and surface area formulas in Old Math are all screwed up and in error because they imagined bending a cylinder to form a torus. This brings back memories, for I had to do a percentage formula, since I could not follow the fake way of bending a cylinder. Where 78.5% of Disc Torus (pi)R^2h - (pi)r^2h is the volume of Circle Torus, and 78.5% of Disc Torus 2(pi)Rh + 2(pi)rh + 2 ((pi)R^2 - (pi)r^2) is the surface area of Circle Torus.

16) Ellipse is never a single cone slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut. Although you do get an ellipse from double cones of this configuration <> which in Old Math was the hyperbola, but two hyperbolas joined together to form a ellipse.

17) All Parallelepipeds reduced to a Rectangular Box by making 2 cuts and pastes. Volume of the original Parallelepiped is simply a*b*c of the Rectangular Box length*width*depth formed. Old Math never understood that a precise definition of Parallelepiped has two kinds, the parallelepiped that has 90 degree angles and the parallelepiped that has no 90 degree angle.

18) All of Old Logic such as the textbooks by Copi and Boole and Jevons with their messed up operators -- their logic connectors of AND, OR, If->Then, Equal+Not, Boole went insane with logic for he never lived a logical life as he even thought cold bathes and a wet bed would cure him of pneumonia, so insane was Boole he taught class shivering in rain soaked clothes and so when it came time to decide for Boole what AND should be, he thought its table was TFFF, not realizing that if just one statement among many statements is true, then the entire collection is true and thus the true truth table of AND must be TTTF and now in modern day computer making times of 1990s onward we see clearer the Boole error of logic for the computers are expressing the thoroughly wrong and muddle headed Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction of 2 AND 1 = either 1 or 2 as in subtraction of the other. And the Boole mistake of AND and OR is easily fixed as we correct AND to be TTTF and we accept only a OR truth table of FTTF.


19) Set theory is thrown out completely, although we can use the word "set" to mean collection, group. All of Cantor set theory is phony baloney, not worth reading. There never was anything to set theory and was seen as the "part of math inhabited by those crippled in mind to doing regular math" as they played around with Venn diagrams when they should be learning true math of calculus.

20) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely because the only true numbers are Decimal Grid Numbers. Some would complain, why AP throws out Rationals? And the answer is simple, that numbers must be free of operations, for Rationals are unresolved divisions. Numbers are free and clear of any operator. Numbers have to be formed purely from mathematical-induction and having no unfinished operator. The Smallest set of Grid numbers is the 10 Grid System with its infinitesimal being .1, and the entire collection of 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . , 9.9, 10.0 where .1 is microinfinity and 10 is macroinfinity. In 100 Grid the infinitesimal is .01, in 1000 Grid the infinitesimal is .001, etc etc. In such a true system of numbers, all the numbers are built by mathematical-induction. Not just one group of numbers-- counting, but all numbers from mathematical-induction.

21) Irrationals thrown out completely (ditto to Rationals and Negative numbers).

22) Reals thrown out completely (ditto).

23) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely.

24) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus. Only real use of trigonometry is when you have an angle and side, you can figure out the rest of the right triangle. But no, when you give true math to a gaggle of kooks, it is not long before they stretch true math way way out of its "zone of truth". And even fill up by 50% of calculus, when trig should never be in calculus.

25) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery (in fact the Quantum Mechanic Physics of early 1900s had a better handle on the truth and reality of math with discrete space).

26) Topology is junk and a waste of time for many reasons such as continuum does not exist, and the fact that the idea of "bending" is not really ever a mathematical concept.

27) Prime numbers are fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place. The real true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers and they do not have a concept of "prime". The key evidence that primes were silly stupid error, was the fact that there never existed a "pattern for primes". And all of mathematics is a science of "pattern". If any part of mathematics has no pattern, is indication that such was a phony fake concept to start with. Below begins a write-up of Math topics all have pattern, if not, then not math. Now some may worry about the idea that no primes ever existed for they worry about the Unique Prime Factorization Theorem of Old Math. But here again, there is no worry. For "Factors exist" just not prime factors.

28) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery, built by lowly idiots of math who wanted to get away from the smart students asking them-- stupid professor, come back here,-- how does a zero width rectangle even have interior area.

29) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time. Many math professors want to spice up their boring math, so they ventured way way off into the twilight-zone of math with NonEuclidean geometry, like eating the hottest peppers in the world for breakfast.

30) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes; one colossal error was their insane 10 OR 4 = 14. Boole was a monumental idiot of logic that he went to college to teach in a rainstorm without umbrella and when he got there, shivering, and no commonsense to switch into dry clothes, taught in rain soaked clothes with his students laughing at the fool he was for catching pneumonia. Boole was so logically insane that he ordered his wife to give him cold bathes and wet his bed in order to fight pneumonia, and western culture, now, elevates this insane logical fool, and puts such a logical misfit as the Father- of- logic. And modern day schools of 2020 are as insanely crazy as was Boole for they continue to teach that 4 OR 1 = 5, when even a village idiot society knows better with 4 AND 1 = 5.

31) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time.

32) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.

33) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.

34) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a tiny minor concept.

35) Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations are now seen as superfluous when all functions are polynomials and need only the Power Rule. In Old Math we throw out all the insane ridiculous myriad of fake rules-- the Chain Rule, Simpson's Rule, Trapezoidal Rule, all because math has only one type of function-- polynomials and that makes for only one rule-- Power Rule.

36) Parametric Equations thrown out-- for what need is there of a sack of dung when all functions are polynomials. Interchanging equation with function.

37) Graph theory-- 90% worthless for it is based on the fakery of continuum.

38) Probability and Statistics theory now becomes a part of Sigma Error in New Math, the Old Math Probability and Statistics theory were wastrel and thrown out for it is based on a continuum and they had no proper definition of "probability" that fits with statistics. We keep Probability and Statistics in new math but revise and overhaul it completely.

39) We definitely throw out all Old Math Calculus textbooks as mostly propaganda, based on the silly Limit and the Continuum.

40) We throw out the Euclidean Axioms of Geometry and start anew, with axioms based on Physics as geometry truth.

41) Fractal theory totally junk and a waste-- uses ill-defined infinity.

42) Multivariable Calculus, Line Integrals, div, curl, Vector Calculus, Chaos theory, Complex Analysis, utter junk and waste of time since polynomial theory covers all functions.

43) Differential geometry, Measure theory fakery since they never had the correct numbers of math, and they had the fakery continuum.

44) We throw out all the Apollonius conic sections because he misidentified the ellipse. The ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section and the oval is the slant cut of the cone, never the ellipse. We replace the entire conic sections by the AP theory of axes of symmetry using Decimal Grid Numbers for algebra and strip-wavelength-geometry axioms.

45) Most of Algebra, starting with Linear Algebra is esoteric minutiae, or, just cute tools for specialized math, just as the Binomial Theorem and the Pascal triangle, all cute esoteric minutiae. Certainly none of which is appropriate in school math education. These topics are for those interested in sideline math, but does not belong in mainstream math. Algebra reaches its pinnacle of importance with the Polynomial Function transform. Anything else in Algebra is sideline esoteric minutiae. These are not wrong or false math, just not important enough math to be mainstream worthy of math education.

46) Gaussian Curvature is esoteric exotica, perhaps even fakery. It is a fallacy of "idealism". There has never been any physics application for now 200 years. But most damaging is the fact that Euclidean is the only geometry, and that elliptic and hyperbolic are just dualities for which if you compound them together is Euclidean geometry.

47) Manifolds in Old Math were fakery, since topology is fake with its "bending" and math cannot define "bending" which belongs to physics and chemistry. Bending is a physics phenomenon, not something that ever belonged in mathematics. Topology with its continuum and ill-defined infinity is fakery, then also is its manifold. In New Math, all 2-Dimensional figures are handled by polynomial transforms, so also all 3-Dimensional figures. How so much easier is it, that doing a Polynomial Transform, rather than the silly fakery and obfuscation of manifolds.

48) Fourier, Laplace and other transforms, all of them thrown out the window because the only valid transforms are polynomial transforms. Polynomials are the only valid functions, hence, polynomials are the only valid transforms. And here in mathematics we begin to see that Polynomial transform is the mirror image of physics wanting a unification of the 4 forces of Old Physics, where the EM unification of physics, is like the Polynomial transform of mathematics that unifies all so-called-functions.

49) Principle of Logic, that Physics is king of sciences, and that means math is but a tiny subset. But in 20th and 21st century, we still have goons and kooks of math that think math is bigger than physics. These goons and kooks think that the Universe is a mathematical equation. They belong in an asylum, not the sciences.

50) There are many Principles of Logic which were unknown or ignored in Old Math. One of those principles caused the horrendous failure of sine and cosine trigonometry. The failure that a graph of a function in 2D or 3D, where the axes, all have to be the same numbers. You cannot have the x-axis as angles and the other axis as numbers. You abandon mathematics when you enact such a policy. You may as well have bar graphs and pie-charts and call them foundation mathematics, when you do sine and cosine with different representations of axes.

51) Principle of Logic-- follow your definitions exactly. When you do not follow your definitions you end up with the craziness of thinking sine is a sinusoidal wave when in truth it is a semicircle wave. You defined sine as opposite/hypotenuse of right triangles in a circle. That means, it is impossible from the definition for sine and cosine to be anything other than a semicircle wave.

52) Principle of Reality in a Equation-- You formed equations in mathematics where one side is the same as the other side. This is the algebra axiom of where the rightside can only be a positive nonzero decimal Grid Number. Equations must have "reality" on the rightside of the equation, in order for the equation to even exist. We cannot put negative numbers, or zero, or imaginary numbers on the right side of an equation and expect there to even be an "equation of mathematics". Math like physics deals with "reality". And that means a equation of mathematics must have a true substantive reality on the rightside of the equation all by itself. You can clutter up the leftside of the equation and solve for unknowns, but the rightside of the equation has all by itself a positive, nonzero Decimal Grid Number. Anything else is not mathematics.

53) The Reductio Ad Absurdum, RAA, or some call it proof by contradiction is not a valid proof argument in mathematics. RAA at best is a strong hypothetical, but not a guarantee of truth or proof. The trouble with RAA is the trouble with the IF-->Then connector of Logic which has a truth table of True, False, Unknown, Unknown. Old Logic had this connector of If-->Then as TFTT. It is the unknowns in F--> T and F--> F that neither has a true conclusion but an unknown conclusion that renders RAA as non workable in math.

54) The primal axiom of Physics-- All is Atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism reigns not only over physics but mathematics as well. Most of the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series books have physics experiments involving electricity and magnetism.

55) Geometry is discrete with not only discrete numbers but empty space in between numbers as coordinate points of a graph and with a discrete angle. No continuum exists in either algebra or geometry.

56) True geometry cannot have all volumes by stacking 2D figures, for example the torus, where the circles near the donut hole would be spaced too close together versus the circles near the rim of the circumference have wide empty space gaps. Stacking to achieve volume is not a universal method.

57) Mathematics has a peak, a pinnacle, a climax of understanding with Calculus, the motion of physics and the energy of physics. This is expressed in the 2D and 3D calculus. It closes the subject of mathematics. And once we learn how to transform polynomials, and apply the power rule in High School, all the rest of mathematics we learn in life is just mere details of our teachings that took place in High School. Math is a closed subject beyond Calculus.

58) Mathematics is a closed subject, meaning it has a summit, a peak and that peak mirrors the Physics of motion. It is called calculus. Once you learn calculus, and it is very easy for it is just the Power Rule upon Polynomials. Once you learn this in High School, all the rest of mathematics is just details concerning motion. Mathematics is a tiny tiny subset of Physics. Everything of mathematics comes from physics. The reason the world has numbers is because physics has atoms and atoms are numerous. The reason the world has geometry is because atoms come in various shapes and sizes.


59) Math is a closed subject, a tiny subset of physics, and ever since 2019, the writing of this Calculus Guide, all the important topics of mathematics can be taught in junior and senior year High School. Any mathematics beyond High School is mere details of that junior and senior year teaching-- namely polynomial transform and Power Rules for derivative and integral of calculus.

60) The AP-EM equations of physics and mathematics. They replace the error ridden Maxwell Equations.

If you desire, you can replace E, electric field with L, angular momentum. Where V is voltage, i or A is current, B is magnetic field, E is electric field, kg is kilogram mass, m is meters, s is seconds, C=quantity of current A*s.

a) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
b) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
c) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
d) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
e) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
f) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force


PHYSICS LAWS
a) Facts of chemistry and physics
b) Voltage V = kg*m^2/(A*s^3)
c) Amount of current C = A*s = magnetic monopoles
d) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /(A*s^2)
e) Electric Field E = kg m^2/(A*s)
f) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
g) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
h) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
i) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
j) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force


61) Research into what I call "pencil ellipses" that are ellipses of enormous semimajor axis and tiny tiny semiminor axis, whose importance to physics is ultra important.

62) Light waves are not straightline arrows, open ended arrows but rather instead are pencil ellipses always connected as a closed loop circuit with the source of that light.

63) Old Math in its fakery and stupidity never had a 3rd Dimension Calculus, for theirs was only 2nd dimension. Their colossal mistake of never a geometry proof of Calculus for the idiots believed in "limit analysis of 0 width rectangles for integral", that those Old Math idiots could never understand there exists 3rd dimension calculus.

64) Apollonius geometry corrected, especially the two cones put base to base <> and not the error filled apex to apex >< and the ellipse = 2 hyperbolas and the oval = 2 parabolas.

65) A well defined oval as being two parabolas joined at their widest width circle.

66) Their minor error of listing pi as 3.14... when using radius in formulas when they should list pi as 6.28... whenever using radius, because area of circle is really 1/2 pi*r^2 to match the prefix factor of 1/2 mv^2 as kinetic energy. Old Math never had a full brain of logic when they did Old Math, but always puttering around with a 1/10 tank of logic.

67) The single biggest fake and error of Old Math is their Calculus, with no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. It is the biggest mistake because providing a geometry proof alerts the mathematician that they are mistaken about a "limit" mistaken about what are the true numbers of math (Decimal Grid Numbers, not the Reals), they are mistaken about infinity without a borderline. So fixing their calculus forces them to fix so many other ills of Old Math.

68) AP is reinventing Multivariable Calculus because the AP-EM Equations of physics demand it. See AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS 1st year College for details. And this revision ends up throwing out Old Math's Gradient theorem, Green's theorem, Stokes theorem, Divergence theorem, manifolds, ugly and difficult and incomprehensible Old Math. Apparently in Old Math, they rather have kook math that no-one ever understood than no math at all. In AP's reinvention of Multivariable Calculus we throw out all of the above and able to teach Multivariable Calculus to bright seniors of High School. So that AP throws on the trash pile the Green's theorem, Gradient theorem, Stokes theorem, Divergence theorem, manifolds, throws them all out and replaces all of Multivariable Calculus with a technique of volume of box versus surface area of ellipsoid. All of which was invented or discovered to deal with Electromagnetism starting with the Maxwell Equations of 1860s.

69) When all functions and equations of physics are polynomial then the calculus is another polynomial function as the solution to the original polynomial. Thus, no multivariable calculus is needed.

70) Since the polynomial dispenses the Multivariable Calculus, it also dispenses the vector of mathematics. Seeing the vector concept is really just "painting the legs on a snake".

71) The Serre, Taniyama-Shimura, Ribet, Wiles Programs of representing Counting Numbers as elliptic curves is all a pile of illogical and worthless garbage. When you have the true numbers of mathematics-- Decimal Grid Numbers, the proper Representation of Counting Numbers is the numbers from 0 to 0.5 between 0 and 1.

72) The Langlands program of Old Math is a gigantic sack of worthless garbage, using fake numbers of Reals and stupid outdated Galois group theory. AP replaces the Langlands program with the AP program.


Truth in all sciences, is you know the truth, if you can teach it in High School. In Old Math, you could never even teach calculus in high school because of their mindless "limit concept-- which is fakery". Let alone teach Multivariable Calculus. Most of the history of mathematics for the 20th century was where "kooks of math" got a hold of math, and had their suppression and hold on math. Looks like the 21st century is where Math is made free from kooks stranglehold, and math able once again to be taught, all of it, in High School.

True mathematics is a subject that is always easy, clear, and comprehensible. Old Math never had a program of "let us make the subject easy and clear and accessible to all". Old Math was about fame and fortune for a grubby few arrogant and ignorant fame seekers to those seeking fame and fortune by adding fake math, incomprehensible, hard, worthless, at the expense of torturing young students who all they wanted was a foundation understanding of true mathematics.

Old Math cared more about having a few kooks run out and about, getting fame and fortune by piling incomprehensible trash onto mathematics, than it ever cared about going into a classroom and teaching math that everyone can understand. Of the four hard sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, there is no reason in the entire world, that math is the easiest of those 4 sciences. The only reason today, that math is not the easiest of those four sciences, is because after Descartes for 5 centuries now, mathematics was given over to kooks of math who sought for fame and fortune at the expense of keeping math simple and easy. Kooks of math filling up math so that math is now in 2020 a gaggle of kook ridden incomprehensible garbage. Ask your local kook math professor why he/she holds onto Boole logic with his 10 OR 4 = 14 when you know well that 10 AND 4 = 14. Ask your local kook math professor why he keeps teaching ellipse is a conic when you can show him on the spot with a paper cone and a lid that the slant cut is a oval, never a ellipse. And ask your local kook math professor why he/she never is able to give you a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And the answer is always-- they are kooks of math, not mathematicians.

This list is ongoing, and is a bulletin-board of errors of Old Math and useful for Teaching True Mathematics. I insert this list as a guide. To show students what math to avoid, to steer away from, as a total fake and waste of time.


AP
King of Science

y  z
|  /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.  And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 1:31:23 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> The AP program destroys the Serre-Ribet-Wiles and Langlands program Re: Fermat status.
>
> I should have a proof of this by the end of the day. Anyway, it is for sure that Modern day math sweeps under the rug of shame the Serre, Taniyama-Shimura, Ribet, Wiles nonsense fakery of elliptic curves and including the Langlands program b.s., solid b.s..
>

Alright the proof that destroys the Serre-Ribet-Taniyama-Shimura-Wiles elliptic curves as representative of Counting Numbers is rather an easy proof.

The first lines of skepticism raised against the Serre-Wiles Program is just a quick glance at trigonometry and we see that sine and cosine have only two rational numbers exposed in sine30=0.5 and cos0 = 1. All other numbers in a curve of circle or ellipse are coming from irrational numbers. And it is easy to see in circumference = pi*diameter that all the numbers involved are from the root of pi basis vector. In this environment, no mathematician of sound mind would think of relating the counting numbers to a elliptic curve. But the proof follows from solutions to A^x+B^y=C^z where A,B,C are 1 or higher and x,y,z are 2 or higher.

Conjecture: the only geometry representation of Counting Numbers can be a straightline in a straightline figure such as triangles or squares or rectangles for A^x+B^y=C^z where A,B,C are 1 or higher and x,y,z are 2 or higher.

Proof:
All solutions to A^x+B^y=C^z where A,B,C are 1 or higher and x,y,z are 2 or higher are straightline figures for A^2+B^2=C^2 it is three squares sitting atop the 3 sides of a right triangle. No curved figure can represent Counting numbers in this equation A^2+B^2=C^2 because all curved geometry figures depend on pi and pi causes the numbers of the curve to all be irrational. For all other exponents with solutions to A^x+B^y=C^z, those solutions are all rectangles with rectangle A attached to side of rectangle B equals rectangle C. Here are a few early solutions 1^3 + 2^3 = 3^2 which is a rectangle of 1 by1 attached to the side of rectangle 1by8 forming rectangle 1by9. Another example is 2^3+2^3= 2^4 is a rectangle of 2by4 attached to rectangle 2by4 forming rectangle 2by8. Every solution not a Pythagorean theorem solution is the joining of two rectangles to form a new rectangle. All solutions are either right triangles or rectangles and all triangles and rectangles are represented by Counting number side lengths. There exists no curves that can represent length without the injection of pi, and to work with only two Counting Numbers 1, and 2 as in 1, 0.5, is barren of geometry representation.

This destroys the Serre, Taniyama-Shimura, Ribet, Wiles program, and really those mathematicians should have had more common sense in ever thinking that a curve represents counting numbers. For the Pythagorean theorem has been around since antiquity and no-one has found a curve to represent counting numbers in the Pythagorean theorem-- only right triangles. So the logic for Serre to Wiles was to ask-- can I represent the Pythagorean theorem as curves, as elliptic curves? And the answer is preposterously no. If you cannot do it with Pythagorean theorem, the logic dictates you cannot transfer elliptic curves to FLT.

Earlier this morning I brought up the issue of the counting numbers represented by Decimal Grid Numbers from 0 to 1 and limiting it to 0 to 0.5 because addition tends to go beyond 1 and we want to confine all the Counting Numbers in the interval 0 to 0.5. And in this confinement we see the Representation of Counting Numbers is governed by addition, not multiplication for example 0.9x0.9 remains below 1 but 0.9+0.9 zooms above 1. This tells us by logic, that a geometry solution of FLT is a union or joining together of common-factor; belonging to straightline geometry, not belonging to any curves of mathematics.

And we easily see why Serre, Ribet, Taniyama-Shimura, Wiles fell victims to wanting curves represent Counting Numbers, for at a particular age in a mathematicians life, they want fame and fortune at the expense of the truth of mathematics, and do almost anything to crank-with a error filled idea.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Yes, this is a proof that you cannot represent the Counting Numbers by any curve of geometry, only by right triangles, rectangles and other straightline geometry. I have a more expedious proof below, better than my earlier one.

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 7:13:19 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> Conjecture: the only geometry representation of Counting Numbers can be a straightline in a straightline figure such as triangles or squares or rectangles for A^x+B^y=C^z where A,B,C are 1 or higher and x,y,z are 2 or higher.
>
> Proof:
> All solutions to A^x+B^y=C^z where A,B,C are 1 or higher and x,y,z are 2 or higher are straightline figures for A^2+B^2=C^2 it is three squares sitting atop the 3 sides of a right triangle. No curved figure can represent Counting numbers in this equation A^2+B^2=C^2 because all curved geometry figures depend on pi and pi causes the numbers of the curve to all be irrational. For all other exponents with solutions to A^x+B^y=C^z, those solutions are all rectangles with rectangle A attached to side of rectangle B equals rectangle C. Here are a few early solutions 1^3 + 2^3 = 3^2 which is a rectangle of 1 by1 attached to the side of rectangle 1by8 forming rectangle 1by9. Another example is 2^3+2^3= 2^4 is a rectangle of 2by4 attached to rectangle 2by4 forming rectangle 2by8. Every solution not a Pythagorean theorem solution is the joining of two rectangles to form a new rectangle. All solutions are either right triangles or rectangles and all triangles and rectangles are represented by Counting number side lengths. There exists no curves that can represent length without the injection of pi, and to work with only two Counting Numbers 1, and 2 as in 1, 0.5, is barren of geometry representation.
>
> This destroys the Serre, Taniyama-Shimura, Ribet, Wiles program, and really those mathematicians should have had more common sense in ever thinking that a curve represents counting numbers. For the Pythagorean theorem has been around since antiquity and no-one has found a curve to represent counting numbers in the Pythagorean theorem-- only right triangles. So the logic for Serre to Wiles was to ask-- can I represent the Pythagorean theorem as curves, as elliptic curves? And the answer is preposterously no. If you cannot do it with Pythagorean theorem, the logic dictates you cannot transfer elliptic curves to FLT.
>
> Earlier this morning I brought up the issue of the counting numbers represented by Decimal Grid Numbers from 0 to 1 and limiting it to 0 to 0.5 because addition tends to go beyond 1 and we want to confine all the Counting Numbers in the interval 0 to 0.5. And in this confinement we see the Representation of Counting Numbers is governed by addition, not multiplication for example 0.9x0.9 remains below 1 but 0.9+0.9 zooms above 1. This tells us by logic, that a geometry solution of FLT is a union or joining together of common-factor; belonging to straightline geometry, not belonging to any curves of mathematics.
>
> And we easily see why Serre, Ribet, Taniyama-Shimura, Wiles fell victims to wanting curves represent Counting Numbers, for at a particular age in a mathematicians life, they want fame and fortune at the expense of the truth of mathematics, and do almost anything to crank-with a error filled idea.

A better proof:
The true numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Number Systems starting with 10 Grid. These are discrete numbers. And they have holes in between one number to the next. The Counting Numbers are a subset of these Grid Systems. The only geometry you can draw in a Coordinate System of Grid Numbers are straightlines from one point to another point. Hence, no curve lines exist. Hence you cannot represent Counting Numbers with curves of Old Math. And this proof is borne out from the fact that the solutions to the Generalized FLT are all the joining of rectangle A to rectangle B that forms rectangle C, where A+B= C, unless the solution is in the Pythagorean theorem domain, and there the solution is 3 squares sitting atop the 3 legs of a right triangle. All solutions coming from straightline geometry. QED

So not only is the Wiles FLT a con-art trick due to Reductio Ad Absurdum nonsense method, but the entire idea that elliptic curves Model or Represent the Counting Numbers {1,2,3,4, ... } was an absurd and mindless proposition. And the key indicator it was mindless adventure, is a common fact that Serre, Ribet, Taniyama-Shimura, Wiles all should have seen before they went on their mindless adventure-- the fact that all curves of Old Math are governed by a irrational number pi and hence, no representation or modeling for Counting Numbers.

This is why I constantly say, thousands and thousands of math professors are good at calculation, but only a rare 1 or 2 or 3 has a brain of logical reasoning.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Proof that the entire Langlands Program is math b.s. spelled with capitals B.S. Re: Fermat status

On 24Jul2021, I proved that the Serre-Ribet-Wiles Program of elliptic curves via Galois theory is b.s.

Now I show that the entire Langlands Program is b.s. See below.

On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
> Taniyama-Shimura conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem I will give a
> brief account of the situation. During the review process a number of
> problems emerged, most of which have been resolved, but one in
> particular I have not yet settled. The key reduction of (most cases
> of ) the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture to the calculation of the Selmer

> group is correct. However the final calculation of a precise upper
> bound for the Selmer group in the semistable case (of the symmetric
> square representation associated to a modular form) is not yet
> complete as it stands. I believe that I will be able to finish this
> in the near future using the ideas explained in my Cambridge
> lectures.
> The fact that a lot of work remains to be done on the
> manuscript makes it still unsuitable for release as a preprint . In
> my course in Princeton beginning in February I will give a full
> account of this work.
>
> Andrew Wiles.

When you do not have the true numbers of mathematics, instead you have the pitiful Reals and Complex with their continuity and no holes or gaps in between one number and the next, then your numbers are flawed. For Physics proved by 1900 that Space and Time were discrete called Quantum Mechanics. This fell on deaf ears to everyone in math and they ploughed forward with Cohen-- more continuity. And they ploughed forward with Galois algebra.

Trouble is, with Reals, you cannot ever have a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and that is why a geometry proof of FTC was the prime, essential number 1 problem in all of mathematics for the 20th century. For by doing a geometry FTC proof, you have to so to speak clean total house of mathematics of all the filth and crude build up of fake math. You have to throw out the Reals and replace with Decimal Grid Numbers, a discrete system. You have to have a correct and proper definition of a function-- only polynomials will do. But along with the clean up is a major major axiom of algebra that was never seen until AP posted it some decades back. The algebra axiom that a Valid Equation of math only exists if there is a positive decimal grid number on the right-side of the equation at all times. In other words, what lead Galois to his solving the quintic was a joke. For if the history of mathematics had always seen a Valid equation of math as having a positive grid number on the right side of the equation at all times, the clown business of writing algebraic solutions for polynomials was a worthless chase into nonsense.

For there are solutions by a technique to all Valid Equations of math, especially Polynomials. In this sense the history of Tartaglia, Cardan, and others was a waste of time for they thought a equation like this was valid x^2 + 2x +1 = 0. That is not a valid math equation for it has a 0 or a negative number on the right-side.

So, if in the time of Tartaglia, Cardan, if they had known and accepted this Algebra axiom, the chase for solution equations leading up the quintic would have never occurred, and hence the leading up to Galois centuries later to solve why no quintic would have never occurred.

In other words, Galois Algebra is make-believe-empty-nonsense because of a violation and nonrecognition of a essential Axiom at the heart of Algebra-- a Valid equation of math always has a positive decimal Grid Number on the right side of the equation at all times.

So, when dealing with Valid Equations of math, you never ever need a Solution Equation such as the Quadratic equation. You easily can find all solutions without a formula, for you can trial and error and immediately spot in which interval of integers the solution lies. And there is but one solution to every Valid equation of math, not this mindless game of solutions equaling the number of the exponent power.

So, in true math, there is no Quintic problem. There is no Galois Algebra. And since there is no Galois Algebra, there is no rumdummy Langlands Program. We just gutted out the Galois Algebra so that Robert Langlands has no feet or legs to even stand on to make his pitiful program.

This is what I constantly observe in math, there are thousands and thousands of good calculators of math professors, but they are not happy in calculating, instead they want to be famous and rich, and they go far out on the limb in trying to make new math, but they have no logical brains to be doing such a thing.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Andrew Wiles fraud of math//SCIENCE 16July2021 "Dutch study finds 8% of scientists have committed fraud//You are not a fraud if dumb and ignorant about math, but you are a fraud as you Run, Hide, away from data and facts.

Andrew continues to run and hide from Kin Chung questions, from Roland Dreier evidence and from AP's 2+2=2x2=2^2=4 proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Andrew knows he cannot engage with AP, because Andrew knows his FLT is all fakery con-art. And this makes Andrew Wiles a fraud of math and science.


World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.

Preface:
Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.

Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.

Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.

As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
Length: 156 pages





File Size: 1503 KB
Print Length: 156 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQKGW4M
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 




Frauds of Physics-- being dumb and stupid and ignorant in physics is not fraud. But, by never engaging in the discussion of which is actually the true electron of atoms-- the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. When physicist run and hide from that question, then, they are frauds of physics and do not belong in physics at all.

You are not a fraud of physics because you are ignorant about physics, no, but you are a fraud when you continue to ignore, run and hide from the most assailant ideas in current ongoing physics.

All of these people on this list are Frauds of Physics as they chose to "run and hide and ignore" the great question of our times-- which in fact is the true electron of atoms-- the muon or 0.5MeV particle?


Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
.
.
little fishes
.
.
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV

Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
.
.
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Edward Witten



74th published book

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-4, 105th published book

Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.

Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
Length: 39 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : March 24, 2020
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• ASIN : B086BGSNXN
• Print Length : 39 pages
• File Size : 935 KB
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
#315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)



#1-5, 112th published book

New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.

Cover Picture: a photograph taken of me in 1993, after the discovery of Plutonium Atom Totality, and I was 43 years old then, on a wintery hill of New Hampshire. It is nice that Feynman wrote a physics textbook series, for I am very much benefitting from his wisdom. If he had not done that, getting organized in physics by writing textbooks, I would not be writing this book. And I would not have discovered the true meaning of the Fine Structure Constant, for it was Feynman who showed us that FSC is really 0.0854, not that of 0.0072. All because 0.0854 is Psi, and Psi^2 is 0.0072.
Length: 20 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B0875SVDC7
• Publication date : April 15, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 1134 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #240,066 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #65 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #481 in Physics (Kindle Store)

#1-6, 135th published book

QED in Atom Totality theory where proton is a 8 ring torus and electron = muon inside proton doing Faraday Law// Atom Totality series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) 

Since the real true electron of atoms is the muon and is a one ring bar magnet thrusting through the 8 ring torus of a proton, we need a whole entire new model of the hydrogen atom. Because the Bohr model with the 0.5MeV particle jumping orbitals as the explanation of Spectral Lines is all wrong. In this vacuum of explaining spectral line physics, comes the AP Model which simply states that the hydrogen atom creates Spectral lines because at any one instant of time 4 of the 8 proton rings is "in view" and the electricity coming from those 4 view rings creates spectral line physics.

Cover Picture: Is a imitation of the 8 ring proton torus, with my fingers holding on the proton ring that has the muon ring perpendicular and in the equatorial plane of the proton rings, thrusting through. This muon ring is the same size as the 8 proton rings making 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV of energy. The muon ring has to be perpendicular and lie on the equator of the proton torus. Surrounding the proton-torus would be neutrons as skin or coating cover and act as capacitors in storing the electricity produced by the proton+muon.


Product details
• ASIN : B08K47K5BB
• Publication date : September 25, 2020
• Language : English
• File size : 587 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 25 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #291,001 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #52 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #334 in General Chemistry



#1-7, 138th published book
The true NUCLEUS of Atoms are inner toruses moving around in circles of a larger outer torus// Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden Experiment revisited // Atom Totality Series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The geometry of Atoms of the Table of Chemical Elements is torus geometry. We know this to be true for the torus geometry forms the maximum electricity production when using the Faraday Law. We see this in Old Physics with their tokamak toruses attempting to make fusion, by accelerating particles of the highest possible acceleration for the torus is that geometry. But the torus is the geometry not only of maximum acceleration but of maximum electrical generation by having a speeding bar magnet go around and around inside a torus== the Faraday law, where the torus rings are the copper closed wire loop. The protons of atoms are 8 loops of rings in a torus geometry, and the electron of atoms is the muon as bar magnet, almost the same size as the proton loops but small enough to fit inside proton loops. It is torus geometry that we investigate the geometry of all atoms.
Length: 41 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : October 9, 2020
• File Size : 828 KB
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print Length : 41 pages
• ASIN : B08KZT5TCD
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-8, 1st published book

Atom Totality Universe, 8th edition, 2017// A history log book: Atom Totality Series book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


Last revision 7Apr2021. This was AP's first published science book.

Advisory: This is a difficult book to read and is AP's research log book of the Atom Totality in 2016-2017. I want to keep it for its history value. AP advises all readers wanting to know the Plutonium Atom Totality theory to go to the 9th edition that is the latest up to date account of this theory. The reason AP wants to keep the 8th edition is because of Historical Value, for in this book, while writing it, caused the discovery of the real electron is the muon of atoms. The real proton of atoms is 840MeV and not the 938MeV that most books claim. The particle discovered by JJ Thomson in 1897 thinking he discovered the electron of atoms was actually the Dirac magnetic monopole at 0.5MeV. This discovery changes every, every science that uses atoms and electricity and magnetism, in other words, every science.

Foreward:
I wrote the 8th edition of Atom Totality and near the end of writing it in 2017, I had my second greatest physics discovery. I learned the real electron of atoms was the muon at 105MeV and not the tiny 0.5MeV particle that J.J.Thomson found in 1897. So I desperately tried to include that discovery in my 8th edition and it is quite plain to see for I tried to write paragraphs after each chapter saying as much. I knew in 2017, that it was a great discovery, changing all the hard sciences, and reframing and restructuring all the hard sciences.
Length: 632 pages


Product details
File Size: 1132 KB
Print Length: 632 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLP9NDR
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
 Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
                #1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
                #8526 in Physics (Books)
                #18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)



#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#2-2, 145th published book


TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.

Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Books in this series are.
Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School junior year, book 2
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School senior year, book 3
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS 1st year college, book 4
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Sophomore college, book 5
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Junior college, book 6
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Senior college, book 7

Preface: I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook.

Product details
• ASIN : B08RK33T8V
• Publication date : December 28, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 917 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 114 pages
• Lending : Enabled


#3-1, 2nd published book

True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.

Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.

Length: 1150 pages


Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

[Archimedes Plutonium]

All scientists have to answer to serious questions of their work-- if they run and hide-- they are frauds. Just like the recent report in SCIENCE magazine. All scientists are obliged to answer to any serious questions of their work. If they run and hide, then, they are fraudsters.

Andrew Wiles is not a mathematician but a fraudster as per the Dutch study.