what is the practical application of FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM if a rigorous proof of it will be by 2999 AD?
martin...@mailcity.com
REDISCOVER the fatal logical flaw in Andrew Wiles' failed attempt, we
can boldly ask a relevant question:
What is the practical application of a future rigorous proof of FLT
in logic, mathematics, physics chemistry, medicine, economics and
military sciences? How could possibly the NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY?
(the mother of all promoters of mathematics ) benefit/profit from a
proven FLT?
LAGRANGE (FRANCE), the winner of the LEIBNIZ'S CENTURY PRIZE
OF THE PRUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, wasted a lifetime on FLT.
For him it was an intellectual challenge. Natural sciences of his age
were not advanced enough to benefit from FLT.
Are we now able to apply FLT to any serious real life problem in the
manner of PYTHAGORAS' THEOREM?
Should the answer be definitely negative, why should any gifted
person waste time on it?
It is useless to codemakers and codebreakers.
It is useless in medicine.
It is useless in chemistry.
It is useless in physics.
HOW WOULD IT ADVANCE PURE AND APPLIED MATHS?
A good example of a useful mathematical tool is the application of
FAST FOURIER TRANSFORMATION (FFT) in electroencephalography and
electromyography.
Another useless theorem is the 4-colors THEOREM.
Is it not true?
MARTIN LUTHER JNR.XXV
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Jim Ferry
>
> Now that a $1,000,000 prize has been offered for anyone who can
> REDISCOVER the fatal logical flaw in Andrew Wiles' failed attempt
Maybe you and James Harris should chat. I'm sure he'd be happy to
discover that his proof is the first valid one, and maybe he could
discuss the reasons he's put so much time into this endeavour.
> Should the answer be definitely negative, why should any gifted
> person waste time on it?
> HOW WOULD IT ADVANCE PURE AND APPLIED MATHS?
And for this, perhaps Archimedes (nee Ludwig) Plutonium could be
of some assistance. He has made a number of advances in pure,
applied, and several other branches of mathematics, some of which,
I believe, he invented himself. As for FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM,
he has disproven it, and although this amounts to a proof that
Wiles was wrong, it doesn't exactly find the fatal flaw in his
"failed attempt."
The disturbing part is that (oh, I admit that my knowledge of
logic is scanty and conventional) it would seem that either
James or Archimedes must be wrong. However, you could be the
ideal person to rule on which one is right.
Let me close by posing your original question again:
"what is the practical application of FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM if
a rigorous proof of it will be by 2999 AD?"
Yes. Hmm. Indeed. A question like that bears repeating.
| Jim Ferry | Center for Simulation |
+------------------------------------+ of Advanced Rockets |
| http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/jferry/ +------------------------+
| jferry@[delete_this]uiuc.edu | University of Illinois |
deja
martin...@mailcity.com wrote in message <7ldir4$jsl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Now that a $1,000,000 prize has been offered for anyone who can
>can boldly ask a relevant question:
Its in line 4326, now wheres my money?
>What is the practical application of a future rigorous proof of FLT
>in logic, mathematics, physics chemistry, medicine, economics and
>military sciences?
From what I've read on FLT, nothing.
> LAGRANGE (FRANCE), the winner of the LEIBNIZ'S CENTURY PRIZE
>OF THE PRUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, wasted a lifetime on FLT.
I wouldn't exactly use the word wasted...
>Should the answer be definitely negative, why should any gifted
>person waste time on it?
Because it is an intellectual challenge. And it MAY have practical
applications.
Why explore new universes?? Same answer.
>Another useless theorem is the 4-colors THEOREM.
noo...it was probably one of the first "computer" proofs.
YOu are just getting annoying now.
:P
Mok-Kong Shen
>
> Now that a $1,000,000 prize has been offered for anyone who can
> REDISCOVER the fatal logical flaw in Andrew Wiles' failed attempt, we
> can boldly ask a relevant question:
Who claims that Wiles' final proof is wrong? You can certainly very
safely offer a prize of any size for someone to discover flaws where
there is none.
M. K. Shen
lord_...@my-deja.com
if the proof has a flaw in it, then why doesn't the discoverer
PUBLISH it?
math isn't like an experimental science where i do an experiment,
publish my results, then wait for the scientific community to repeat the
experiment and confirm or refute my findings.
you can just point out the flaw(s) in a proof and explain the logic
behind them in a clear, concise way, and the mathematics community will
examine your expository and accept or refute it.
or is it that you stubbornly refuse to use anyone elses mathematical
findings, and persist in proving everything for yourself.
personally, when i write a paper, i don't bother proving the pythagorean
theorem every time i use it (or even once for that matter). this is
because i have examined numerous proofs of it, and feel confident that
it is correct. this is also the consensus of mathematicians in general.
is the prize offered because in addition to being a great mathematician,
(s)he is also a philanthropist and wants to just give money away?
if that is the case, you can just send me the check!
i'm not above accepting $$$ from philanthropists.
let me tell you what i would do with the money.
i would start a therapy group:
Mathematicians Against Usenet Cranks
actually, that name isn't very good, maybe i could offer a prize
for anyone who can prove (or better yet disprove) that a better name
exists for this group.
actually i hope to make it not be a group, i DON'T want to allow
inverses, which would allow regular sci.math readers / contributors to
become cranks.
you dont happen to have any aliases that are
(james harris, archimedes plutonium, nathan the great, etc...)
do you?
all hail martin.luther, leader of the mathematical reformation,
begun by nailing a sticky note to the margin of sci.math
which states:
"i have a wonderful disproof of Wiles proof, but unfortunately it is too
long to fit on the internet..."
share and enjoy
sean
Pertti Lounesto
> math isn't like an experimental science where i do an experiment,
> publish my results, then wait for the scientific community to repeat the
> experiment and confirm or refute my findings.
>
> you can just point out the flaw(s) in a proof and explain the logic
> behind them in a clear, concise way, and the mathematics community will
> examine your expository and accept or refute it.
Dialogues on flaws in proofs between mathematicians could be
carried out that way. But that is not what happens in practice,
most often. There are cases when a young mathematician has
found a proof of an established mathematician fishy, but was
unable to present a counterexample, and had to spend the rest
of his life in exile, in a far away country. But was rehabilitated,
when somebody found a counterexample to the theorem. A
counterexample satisfies all the assumptions of the theorem
without the conclusions being valid.
The validity of a conterexample should be easy to check: just
check whether it satisfies all the assumptions.
Even if a counterexample is presented, debates between
mathematicians could go on for months, for years, for
decades. Those, who presented the original theorem, often
have some cognitive bug, and learning new things takes time.
But more importantly, those who were mistaken at the
beginning, they are often emotianally involved in defending
their creation. People are tremendously inventive in trying
to get their life work not been thrown down the closet.
I have presented counterexamples to several theorems of
renowned mathematicians. See my www-page
http://www.math.hut.fi/~lounesto/counterexamples.htm
If you are interested, I can tell about the methods some
renowned mathematicians (I will not disclose their names)
used to save their life works, at the moment of catastrophe.
martin...@mailcity.com
Thank you Sir,
I should be much obliged if you would tell me about the mathematicians
you have in mind. Indeed, it would be a contribution to the history of
maths. I would look forward to it.
By the same token, I note that you did not mention where FLT has been
used in maths, physics chemistry and military sciences(code breaking!).
No one must be allowed to dictate to a mathematician what to discover.
But if I am asked, as an industrialist to spend money on finding a
rigorous proof of FLT, I would refuse. But I would not hesitate to
sponsor the discovery of an exact calculus so that I can explore
the microcosmos below 10^-35- the limit below which quantum mechanics
becomes speculative pseudoscience.
This has actually happened. Exact calculus has been invented and has
been used to express THE GRAND UNITED FIELDS LAW (GUFL):
<J^j=L>
I take it that you might not be familiar with Einstein's attempt
to formulate a GRAND UNIFIED FIELD THEORY (GUFT).
Neither he nor his successors including ROGER PENROSE & the boy wonder,
S. HAWKING, have succeeded.
The reason was that none of them has possessed the necessary
mathematical prowess nor was their Leibnizian calculus exact enough.
It was only when in rapid succession QUANTUMLOGIK (QL),
QUANTUMMATHEMATIK (QM), QUANTUMPHYSIK (QP) and QUANTUMCHEMIE (QC) were
discovered in Germany. I don't blame you for having not been made aware
of them before. Germany is once again the Mecca for fundamental
sciences. It is not in Germans'nature to self-market themselves as we
do.
Using QM the GUFL was formulated for UNITING (not unifying)7 fundamental
forces of nature. The 6th force and the 7th force have not been observed
in laboratory (neither are your beloved Higgs particles).
The idea of GUFT was simply wrong. There is no such MOTHER OF ALL
FUNDAMENTAL FORCES OF NATURE and there was no Hubblian/Biblical big
bang. Absolute random and <disorder in order=chaos> do not exist.
In plainest English, GUFT is theology and GUFL is true physics.
I am prepared to sponsor really useful maths.
We had some 362 years to find a good use for FLT. The likelihood that
we would use it in natural sciences before the year 3,000AD is remote.
Within the framework of formal logic scholars have churned out hundreds
branches of mathematics from Leibnizian calculus to cybernetics.
Did they succeeded in calculating the exact molecular configuration
of an effective retrovirucidal drug? No! Their maths was not up to it.
The problem was solved when J^j=L (GUFL) was applied to the task.
The conventional logic and mathematics are not able to satisfy the
demands of the Third Millennium.
FLT caused nearly a nervous breakdown in Lagrange and drove Andrew Wiles
to committing the most terrifying mathematical fraud ever known.
Was it really worth it?
That was the underlying reason for asking you to show me an application
for FLT.
I have taken the view that FERMAT was honest and had a marvelous proof
within the mathematics of 1637AD. I trust him more than I have ever
trusted Wiles. But my demand for rigorous proof of FLT has not been
satisfied yet. But I do not blame Fermat for it.
Best,
MARTIN LUTHER JNR.XXV
WASHINGTON D.C.
USA
For moderated discussion please write to <deja.comm.flt>.
========================================================================
n article <377B95DE...@hut.fi>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
martin...@mailcity.com
best,
MARTIN LUTHER JNR.xxv
WASHINGTON D.C.
USA
In article <377A63E3...@uiuc.edu>,
Jim Ferry <jfe...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> martin...@mailcity.com wrote:
> >
> > Now that a $1,000,000 prize has been offered for anyone who can
> > REDISCOVER the fatal logical flaw in Andrew Wiles' failed attempt
>
> Maybe you and James Harris should chat. I'm sure he'd be happy to
> discover that his proof is the first valid one, and maybe he could
> discuss the reasons he's put so much time into this endeavour.
>
> > Should the answer be definitely negative, why should any gifted
> > person waste time on it?
>
> > HOW WOULD IT ADVANCE PURE AND APPLIED MATHS?
>
> And for this, perhaps Archimedes (nee Ludwig) Plutonium could be
> of some assistance. He has made a number of advances in pure,
> applied, and several other branches of mathematics, some of which,
> I believe, he invented himself. As for FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM,
> he has disproven it, and although this amounts to a proof that
> Wiles was wrong, it doesn't exactly find the fatal flaw in his
> "failed attempt."
>
> The disturbing part is that (oh, I admit that my knowledge of
> logic is scanty and conventional) it would seem that either
> James or Archimedes must be wrong. However, you could be the
> ideal person to rule on which one is right.
>
> Let me close by posing your original question again:
>
> "what is the practical application of FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM if
> a rigorous proof of it will be by 2999 AD?"
>
> Yes. Hmm. Indeed. A question like that bears repeating.
>
> | Jim Ferry | Center for Simulation |
> +------------------------------------+ of Advanced Rockets |
> | http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/jferry/ +------------------------+
> | jferry@[delete_this]uiuc.edu | University of Illinois |
>
martin...@mailcity.com
Mok-Kong Shen <mok-ko...@stud.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
> martin...@mailcity.com wrote:
> >
> > Now that a $1,000,000 prize has been offered for anyone who can
we
> > can boldly ask a relevant question:
>
> Who claims that Wiles' final proof is wrong? You can certainly very
> safely offer a prize of any size for someone to discover flaws where
> there is none.
>
> M. K. Shen
Did you carefully examine Wiles work yourself before you posted this
message? I mean line-by-line?
Whilst you study in Germany (Munich?): For all that you are concerned
the German logician may be one of your teachers!
For all that you are concerned, he may read your message and find
it illogical. That is what happened to about 4,000 graduate
mathematicians.
In logic/ mathematics one is concerned only with true or false. Never
who, when and where. There is no place for emotions in maths/logic.
They are dealt with in theology and psychology.
Maths and logic transcend emotions.
I thank you for your view.
MARTIN LUTHER JNR.XXV
WASHINGTON D.C.
USA
>
martin...@mailcity.com
My friend,
You have misread my message:
It is about REDISCOVERING his discovery.
He pays YOU $1,000,000 for YOUR work if YOU succeed.
May the most logical genious deservedly win the Prize.
I trust that you have no objection to a logical genious
earning deservedly $1,000,000 for REDISCOVERING the fatal logical flaw
in Wiles' work.
One of his reasons is to dissuade others to imitate Wiles.
Another reason is that he does not wish to repeat LEIBNIZ's mistake
in dealing with NEWTON's plagiarism( re: calculus).
When you grow much older and wiser you will benefit from this advice.
In logic/math we always obey Pythagoras' code
of ethics: Only "true" or "false" matter. who, when and where are
irrelevant. AGE, COLOR AND CREED ARE EQUALLY IRRELEVANT.
We do not fraternize with those who violate the code.
I take it that you are not aware of any application for FLT in
natural sciences including medicine.
Your view has been noted.
MARTIN LUTHER JNR.XXV
WASHINGTON D.C.
USA
========================================================================
In article <7lftl0$eqf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
lord_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> why do you persist in advertising this (mythical) prize.
> if the proof has a flaw in it, then why doesn't the discoverer
> PUBLISH it?
>
> math isn't like an experimental science where i do an experiment,
> publish my results, then wait for the scientific community to repeat
the
> experiment and confirm or refute my findings.
>
> you can just point out the flaw(s) in a proof and explain the logic
> behind them in a clear, concise way, and the mathematics community
will
> examine your expository and accept or refute it.
>
Stuart Anderson
practical use of a baby. History will be the judge.
However from what little I understand of this topic I gather that proving
the Fermat's Last Theorem involved proving the Taniyama-Shimura
Conjecture, which has put a lot of recent mathematics which relied on
that conjecture on a more secure footing, which is a significant
achievement in itself. One could safely assume that mathematicians
working in areas where the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture is assumed would
be more willing to expand their work now. The expansion of mathematics
into new areas generally leads to new applications and practical uses
over time.
martin...@mailcity.com wrote:
> Now that a $1,000,000 prize has been offered for anyone who can
> REDISCOVER the fatal logical flaw in Andrew Wiles' failed attempt, we
> can boldly ask a relevant question:
>
> What is the practical application of a future rigorous proof of FLT
> in logic, mathematics, physics chemistry, medicine, economics and
> military sciences? How could possibly the NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY?
> (the mother of all promoters of mathematics ) benefit/profit from a
> proven FLT?
>
> LAGRANGE (FRANCE), the winner of the LEIBNIZ'S CENTURY PRIZE
> OF THE PRUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, wasted a lifetime on FLT.
>
> For him it was an intellectual challenge. Natural sciences of his age
> were not advanced enough to benefit from FLT.
>
> Are we now able to apply FLT to any serious real life problem in the
> manner of PYTHAGORAS' THEOREM?
>
> Should the answer be definitely negative, why should any gifted
> person waste time on it?
>
> It is useless to codemakers and codebreakers.
> It is useless in medicine.
> It is useless in chemistry.
> It is useless in physics.
> HOW WOULD IT ADVANCE PURE AND APPLIED MATHS?
>
> A good example of a useful mathematical tool is the application of
> FAST FOURIER TRANSFORMATION (FFT) in electroencephalography and
> electromyography.
>
> Another useless theorem is the 4-colors THEOREM.
> Is it not true?
>
> MARTIN LUTHER JNR.XXV
>
lord_...@my-deja.com
martin...@mailcity.com wrote:
>
========================================================================
>
> My friend,
>
> You have misread my message:
>
no, i believe i read your message correctly.
> It is about REDISCOVERING his discovery.
>
> He pays YOU $1,000,000 for YOUR work if YOU succeed.
>
why doesn't he just publish his work?
is it because believes that if someone (independently)
recreates his work that it will be more accepted.
> May the most logical genious deservedly win the Prize.
>
> I trust that you have no objection to a logical genious
> earning deservedly $1,000,000 for REDISCOVERING the fatal logical flaw
> in Wiles' work.
>
> One of his reasons is to dissuade others to imitate Wiles.
>
> Another reason is that he does not wish to repeat LEIBNIZ's mistake
> in dealing with NEWTON's plagiarism( re: calculus).
>
but by not publishing, and waiting around for someone else to repeat
work he has (allegedly) done, he is EXACTLY repeating Leibniz's mistake.
(although i don't believe that there is definite proof that Newton
plagiarized Leibniz, i don't discount the possibility)
> When you grow much older and wiser you will benefit from this advice.
what advice?
>
> In logic/math we always obey Pythagoras' code
> of ethics: Only "true" or "false" matter. who, when and where are
> irrelevant. AGE, COLOR AND CREED ARE EQUALLY IRRELEVANT.
>
if that is the case, and your German friend can show definitively that
Wiles proof of FLT is false, but is holding back his work, then he is
violating the code of the Pythagoreans by withholding truth from others.
(as an aside, you will note that the pythagoreans also did this when
they chose to not make public their discovery that sqrt(2) is
irrational.)
we can go on citing historical references ad nauseum, but it is not
going to resolve the validity of Wiles proof of FLT
> We do not fraternize with those who violate the code.
>
> I take it that you are not aware of any application for FLT in
> natural sciences including medicine.
>
i am also not aware of any application of the fundamental theorem of
algebra, but i AM aware of many results which have "practical"
application which rely on that theorem.
i would perhaps not be so pessimistic about this whole thing if you were
to produce the name of your German friend, and how we could contact him
directly.
John R Ramsden
>
> I take it that you are not aware of any application for FLT in
> natural sciences including medicine.
It may be a long time, if ever, before any practical use is found
for the basic fact of FLT itself. But over the last two or three
hundred years the efforts to solve it have been a major driving
force for many math advances that certainly do have applications
today.
As an example, relating to something you mentioned in another post,
certain points on elliptic functions have a group structure that was
discovered as a consequence of trying to solve problems similar to FLT.
These groups are used in some forms of prime factorization algorithms,
which in turn are useful in cryptography.
Also, the identification of modular groups with elliptic functions,
which is one of the main themes of Wiles's (correct!) proof is sure
to play a part one day in physicists' understanding of sub-atomic
particles and their interactions.
Martin, you seem to be stuck with this idea that the only math which
counts is what happens to be practical today. But it is precisely the
esoteric stuff, which you would doubtless consider utterly worthless
and frivolous, which will be needed in the theories of tomorrow!
Don't forget, non-Euclidean geometry and even calculus were once new
and perplexing in relation to established doctrines.
Cheers
John R Ramsden (j...@redmink.demon.co.uk)
John R Ramsden
wrote:
>
> If you are interested, I can tell about the methods some
> renowned mathematicians (I will not disclose their names)
> used to save their life works, at the moment of catastrophe.
You're just teasing now Pertti :-) You know we're interested,
so go for it! (And why not disclose their names, especially
if they're no longer with us?)
Pertti Lounesto
> Pertti Lounesto <Pertti....@hut.fi> wrote:
> >
> > If you are interested, I can tell about the methods some
> > renowned mathematicians (I will not disclose their names)
> > used to save their life works, at the moment of catastrophe.
>
> You're just teasing now Pertti :-) You know we're interested,
> so go for it! (And why not disclose their names, especially
> if they're no longer with us?)
When accused of having made a mistake, a poor defence is of
cours insisting that "I am right", because changes are in favour
of being wrong. But many mathematicians choose this strategy,
at first as an immediate reaction.
If a mathematician understands his mistake, then he might
propose a joint paper on the topic with the error detector.
Conforming to such a proposal is problematic, since then
the error detector becomes part of the cover up of a mistake.
One startegy is just to thank the error detector. But such letters
often reveal that the mistake maker does not yet understand his
mistake. Mere thanking, and nothing else, is also dubious.
One good strategy is to claim that "I found the mistake myself".
But here the mistake maker should be honest to himself, and use
this strategy only if he at least partially understands validity of the
counterexample.
One strategy is to ask more time, to understand the mistake.
This strategy is very good, but used rarely, unfortunately.
A mathematician at an established position might use his relations,
and launch on a counterattack: try to scare the error detector by a
flow of dishonoring letters from both sides of the Atlantic. Such
operative of course delays proper understanding of the mathematics
involved, and usually results in an information gap or distant relations.
As for the matter of releasing the names of the mathematicians
(now that many of them are deceased already), I have pondered
a lot (about classifying mathematicians I knew in the above classes).
I do not know, maybe in my memoirs, maybe not?