the onus is on me-- fix dimension of Old Math
Archimedes Plutonium
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 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
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.
(snipped)
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.
(snipped)
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.
(snip)
Poincare Conjecture-- a 4th dimensional sphere is ....
Is no different than
(snip)
To ask for a proof about a sphere that noone can picture, noone can draw, noone can use in Real Life, is ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
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
On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 6:33:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
FLT proof and Poincare Conjecture proof help in removing the crazy idea of dimensions higher than 3rd
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, ,,,,,,,,
>
> 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
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
The math proof: 3 arbitrary noncollinear points in Space, determines a Unique Plane and the nonexistence of 4D // Math research
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: This book started in May 2023 with the focus of having a look at the proof of 3 arbitrary noncollinear points in Space forms a unique plane and how that proof was created and assembled. Also whether that proof can answer the question of whether 3rd dimension Space is the last and highest dimension. The result was rather fantastic, for it starts the major overhaul of Euclidean Geometry to be a discrete Space composed of Decimal Grid System Numbers. In this book I offer a new proof-- that is, a derived Theorem proof, and not a axiom of the statement of 3 arbitrary noncollinear points forming a unique plane. This book ends with a start of the total overhaul of Euclidean Plane Geometry because the true numbers of mathematics are discrete numbers-- the decimal grid numbers and also the start of straightening out the Euclid Axioms of geometry.
Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of this concept of 3 arbitrary points in Space forms a unique plane, and especially note the top rightward picture of multiple colored planes.
-----------------------------------
Table of Contents
-----------------------------------
1) My history for this book.
2) Some exercises in constructing unique ellipse from 3 arbitrary noncollinear points in space.
3) Two points in plane determine a unique circle.
4) Defining a Plane in Space without it being a axiom.
5) Polar, Cylindrical, Spherical Coordinate Systems.
6) Discrete geometry.
7) Resolving 3 arbitrary noncollinear points determines a unique plane in 3D geometry.
8) Hourglass figure is a unique ellipse.
9) Pencil Ellipses.
10) Exploring Right-Triangles at the Infinity borderline and its Algebraic completeness.
11) Return to the math-derived-theorem-proof of 3 arbitrary, noncollinear points in Space determines a unique plane.
12) Discrete Space and Euclidean Plane Geometry.
13) The Overhaul of Old Math's Euclidean Geometry.
14) Summary.
Archimedes Plutonium
Field
Geometric topology
Conjectured by
Henri Poincaré
Conjectured in
1904
First proof by
Grigori Perelman
First proof in
2002
Implied by
Generalizations
Generalized Poincaré conjecture
In the mathematical field of geometric topology, the Poincaré Theorem , earlier Poincaré conjecture (UK: /ˈpwæ̃kæreɪ/,[2] US: /ˌpwæ̃kɑːˈreɪ/,[3][4] French:[pwɛ̃kaʁe]) is a theorem about the characterization of the 3-sphere (the hypersphere that bounds the 4-ball in four-dimensional space).
Originally conjectured by Henri Poincaré in 1904, the theorem concerns spaces that locally look like ordinary three-dimensional Euclidean space but which are finite in extent. Poincaré hypothesized that if such a space has the additional property that each loop in the space can be continuously tightened to a point, then it is necessarily a three-dimensional sphere. Attempts to resolve the conjecture drove much progress in the field of geometric topology during the 20th century.
The eventual proof built upon Richard S. Hamilton's program of using the Ricci flow to solve the problem. By developing a number of new techniques and results in the theory of Ricci flow, Grigori Perelman modified and completed Hamilton's program. In papers posted to the arXiv repository in 2002 and 2003, Perelman presented his work proving the Poincaré conjecture (and the more powerful geometrization conjecture of William Thurston). Over the next several years, several mathematicians studied his papers and produced detailed formulations of his work.
Hamilton and Perelman's work on the conjecture is widely recognized as a milestone of mathematical research. Hamilton was recognized with the Shaw Prize in 2011 and the Leroy P. Steele Prize for Seminal Contribution to Research in 2009. The journal Science marked Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture as the scientific Breakthrough of the Year in 2006.[5] The Clay Mathematics Institute, having included the Poincaré conjecture in their well-known Millennium Prize Problem list, offered Perelman their prize of US$1 million in 2010 for the conjecture's resolution.[6] He declined the award, saying that Hamilton's contribution had been equal to his own.[7][8]