FLT proof and Poincare Conjecture proof help in removing the crazy idea of dimensions higher than 3rd

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 04:34:32 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: World's first valid proof of Poincare Conjecture -- a disproof//
using Conservation Principle
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 11:34:32 +0000


World's first valid proof of Poincare Conjecture -- a disproof// using Conservation Principle

Alright i sort of forgot the Poincare conjecture ever since finding the infinity borderline at 1*10^604.

But Poincare shares one thing in common with Riemann Hypothesis, both are false and only a disproof of each exists

Statement:: every closed loop on a sphere surface can be shrunk to a single point.

Proof:; due to infinity borderline no continuum exists so in 10 Grid the closed loop of the (0,0) (.1,0) (.1.1) (0,.1) has no interior point on which to shrink.

Old Math's Poincare conjecture depended on the existence of a continuum.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 20:37:13 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: World's first valid proof of Poincare Conjecture -- a disproof//
using Conservation Principle
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 03:37:13 +0000


Alright, the only real wonderment about the Poincare Conjecture of 1904 is why Poincare did not prove it immediately. Was the Jordan Curve theorem around?

Jordan Closed Curve Theorem-- any continuous simple closed curve in the plane, separates the plane into two disjoint regions, the inside and the outside.

Poincare Conjecture-- For compact 2-dimensional surfaces without boundary, if every loop can be continuously tightened to a point, then the surface is topologically homeomorphic to a 2-sphere (usually just called a sphere).

So all one needs is the idea of a Continuum and that was blithering, pathetically assumed.

So what was stopping Poincare in Old Math to prove his conjecture.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 21:03:31 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Poincare Conjecture proven to be false, and world's first valid PC//
putting to rest the 3rd D as last and largest dimension
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 04:03:31 +0000


Poincare Conjecture proven to be false, and world's first valid PC// putting to rest the 3rd D as last and largest dimension

Now I recall why I withdrew the Poincare Conjecture in the past several years from my textbook Correcting Math. It is a false conjecture for Space and Geometry are not a continuum but a discrete gap ridden system. In between points of geometry are empty space. So a conjecture about space as a continuum is going to be false immediately.

But, I want to carry on this conversation about Poincare Conjecture because I believe I can alleviate this huge other error of geometry and topology. By the way, topology is one of the lesser, lesser and minor math subjects and has been totally inflated as something big when it is something tiny.

What I hope to achieve from PC is a modern day, a New Math way of talking about higher dimensions, since 3rd D is the last and largest dimension. Can we deal with say 4th or 5th or any higher dimension than 3rd, can we deal with those higher numbers as sort of like extra-3rd-D. For example a x^4 is treated like a x^3 times x, for x^4 is that of x^3*x. Can we treat x^4 as though it were a x^3 times a x in 3rd D. So that when someone calls x^4, it is not 4th D, but rather something extra in 3rd D.

So not only do I want to set straight the PC, for it is a false conjecture and the recent alleged proof is all just phony baloney. But I want to get out of PC a means of dealing with these higher fictitious dimensions. I am having the exact same burden in doing FLT at the moment where a^3 + b^3 = c^3 proof in 3rd D, will cover all higher exponents.

AP











END

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 03:33:47 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: the onus is on me-- fix dimension of Old Math Re: World's first valid
proof of Poincare Conjecture -- a disproof// using Conservation Principle
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 10:33:48 +0000


the onus is on me-- fix dimension of Old Math Re: World's first valid proof of Poincare Conjecture -- a disproof// using Conservation Principle

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 3:06:45 AM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
> On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 8:37:19 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 6:34:42 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Alright i sort of forgot the Poincare conjecture ever since finding the infinity borderline at 1*10^604.
> > >
> > > But Poincare shares one thing in common with Riemann Hypothesis, both are false and only a disproof of each exists
> > >
> > > Statement:: every closed loop on a sphere surface can be shrunk to a single point.
> > >
> > > Proof:; due to infinity borderline no continuum exists so in 10 Grid the closed loop of the (0,0) (.1,0) (.1.1) (0,.1) has no interior point on which to shrink.
> > >
> > > Old Math's Poincare conjecture depended on the existence of a continuum.
> > >
> > > AP
> >
> > Alright, the only real wonderment about the Poincare Conjecture of 1904 is why Poincare did not prove it immediately.
>
> Because it's a difficult question to resolve.
>
> > Was the Jordan Curve theorem around?
> >
> > Jordan Closed Curve Theorem-- any continuous simple closed curve in the plane, separates the plane into two disjoint regions, the inside and the outside.
> >
> > Poincare Conjecture-- For compact 2-dimensional surfaces without boundary, if every loop can be continuously tightened to a point, then the surface is topologically homeomorphic to a 2-sphere (usually just called a sphere).
>
> No, that's not the Poincare conjecture. What you wrote above is not very difficult to prove.
> The Poincare conjecture is about THREE-dimensional manifolds.
>

So, Jan believes in spheres that are 4th dimensional, and this is probably the most kooky ideas in Old Math.

Anyone, have a look in Google under images for a 4th dimension sphere. And I defy anyone to say those are 4th dimension, to believe that geometry can draw, describe to materialize 4th dimension.

Dimensions beyond 3rd is the greatest foolery of Old Math, for they could not have exceeded that craziness than 4th dimension or higher.

A lot of posters to sci.math are constantly complaining of the skullduggery of imaginary numbers, transcendental numbers, 1 = .9999... sqrt-1, i, j, k and the list goes on of fakery. But oddly enough, the greatest fakery in all of Old Math is dimensions beyond 3rd.

It is as if kindergarten kids took over mathematics in Old Math.


> > So all one needs is the idea of a Continuum and that was blithering, pathetically assumed.
> >
> > So what was stopping Poincare in Old Math to prove his conjecture.
>
> It's a difficult problem. Poincare originally was investigating Betti numbers of 3-dimensional
> manifolds and asked whether a 3-dim. manifold with Betti numbers zero was necessarily
> a 3-sphere. He quickly found a counterexample (called Poincare homology sphere today).
> So then he asked whether a 3-dim. manifold with the fundamental group zero was
> necessarily a sphere. He probably expected this question not to be significantly more
> difficult than the previous one but that turned out not to be the case.
>
> --
> Jan

Poincare was brilliant in many things, but also he was a failure in many things of science and math. For one he started the crazy notion of gravity wave. But his greatest failure in mathematics was his pushing of 4th dimension and higher.

Now many in sci.math complain about Cantor with his crazy infinities, and rightfully they should. But sadly, not many if any have I seen step forward and start to bring down this awful horrible house of delusions of higher dimensions.

Here is a satire on Jan Bielawski and his stupid belief in and acceptance of higher dimensions than 3rd.

Jan Bielawski Topology Conjecture that the n-sphere is topologically fish ears

Proof: When we take the cohomology of the nth surd to the logarithm in a Lissajou function of the Taniyama-Shimura Wiles elliptic we have a Mean Value differential. Upon Integration of the differential in 5th dimension surjection on a p-adic plane , and using the Fundamental theorem of Manifolds in r-dimensional coprime triples we have a Sieve of the fish ear. Now taking a Christensen vertex derivative of the Sieve and extrapolating unto the Gabriel Extreme Mean Value theorem over a interval of limits as s, s' s'" approaches the tartar sauce with bun that the cohomology changes from distributive to axial radius of sine times incompressible velocity field over x-z axis.


Sadly the state of condition of Old Math is really pitiful. The science that is supposed to be precision and truth has become the science of entrenched garbage.

Now I think I can wrestle out a pretty definition of dimension higher than 3rd. Where it is just a fancy 3rd dimension. So that the 4th dimension sphere is just a fancy 3rd dimension sphere.

One of the pictures shown in Google images is a sphere that has inside itself circles. Of course that is a 3rd dimension object, not a 4th, but then how do we treat something with exponent 4 such as x^4 with y^4. How do we treat that so that it is clearly still 3rd dimension but it has some extras.

And what I propose is that when we write x^4, let us not think of that as some geometry object in 4th dimension but rather think of it as x^3 times x in which both are in 3rd dimension and that we have a sphere in 3rd dimension with a line in 3rd dimension and that the x^3*x is just a fancy sphere in 3rd dimension.

Of course Jan can never drink any of this, for his mind has been completely brainwashed by Old Math.

He could never see that sleeping at night and having a nightmare in your dreams that the nightmare took place is true, but to draw up that nightmare as mathematics--

Poincare Conjecture-- a 4th dimensional sphere is ....

Is no different than

Jan Conjecture-- the demon in my dream nightmare last night had red eyes and was poncing up and down.

To ask for a proof about a sphere that noone can picture, noone can draw, noone can use in Real Life, is worse than asking for mathematicians to prove Jan's demon has red eyes.

With the Poincare Conjecture of a 4th dimensional sphere is the lowest of low that mathematics has fallen.

Now I hope I can fix this worst corner in mathematics. I need to shift all 4th dimension and higher, need to shift all of that crap to being 3rd dimension.

AP



FLT helping in fixing dimensions Re: the onus is on me-- fix dimension of Old Math

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 5:33:53 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
>
> To ask for a proof about a sphere that noone can picture, noone can draw, noone can use in Real Life, is worse than asking for mathematicians to prove Jan's demon has red eyes.
>
> With the Poincare Conjecture of a 4th dimensional sphere is the lowest of low that mathematics has fallen.
>
> Now I hope I can fix this worst corner in mathematics. I need to shift all 4th dimension and higher, need to shift all of that crap to being 3rd dimension.
>
> AP

Now luckily for me, I am working on the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem at this very same time.

And in that proof comes out the spectacular new revelation, that there is such a thing in Algebra called a additive-multiplicative-identity.

We are accustomed to a additive identity being 0 and a multiplicative identity being 1, but we are not accustomed to a combined additive and multiplicative identity packaged into one. It is the number, of course, the number 2 (0 is irrational and does not count). For in the number 2 we have 2+2 = 2*2 = 4.

That is the only number in the entire world that is this combined add and multiply identity.

Now, why is that important-- for it is extremely important. It is the reason that there are solutions to integers in a^2 + b^2 = c^2. It is the reason that the Pythagorean theorem exists. And it is the reason that FLT, Fermat's Last theorem has no integer solutions in a^3 + b^3 = c^3.

If 2+2+2 = 2^3 there would exist integer solutions for a^3 + b^3 = c^3

So, what has this to do with 3rd and 4th dimension?

The fact that exp2 has a add-multiply identity would confer that exp3 is the last and largest dimension and that any dimension suggested beyond 3rd is just a fancy 3rd dimension.

Algebra stops existing at the dimension one higher from where the add-multiply identity exists.

So now, does anyone know if there is a triple of numbers a,b,c that are near misses in FLT for exp4 and higher that miss by just 1 unit. In exp3 we have 6^3 + 8^3 = 9^3 -1. A near miss by only 1.

What I need to know is there a near miss of only 1 in exp4 or higher.

AP