#121 Poincare Conjecture Proof revisited in P-adics; no matter how hard the Jewish community tries to steal this proof; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards"
a_plutonium
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: "a_plutonium" <a_pluton...@hotmail.com>
Date: 11 Feb 2007 11:18:49 -0800
Local: Sun, Feb 11 2007 1:18 pm
Subject: #15# new book "Correcting Present Day Mathematics...." (19)
Proof of the Poincare Conjecture
(snipped)
Proof of the Poincare Conjecture
This proof was copyrighted to the early 1990s,
and especially of the use of infinite iteration
of roots of any
positive Real number always converges to the number 1.
Later on, circa 1993-1994 I would find out that p-adics also
have infinite iteration of roots that converges to both 0 and 1.
There are many reasons why PC is so easy to grasp as
a conjecture but
tremendously difficult to prove and why it was
outstanding for 100
years. Here to enumerate a few.
(1) Math definition of dimension has never been
understood nor resolved
to this date. In physics only the 3rd dimension makes
sense where
experimentation has shown that any dimension other
than 3rd leads to
the wrong physics of Newtonian Classical. That alone
should have
alerted the math community that there definition of
higher dimensions
were pure illusions, fire breathing dragons.
(snipped)
(2) The idea that the Euclidean plane can be infinite
in reach is not a
true idea. One must prove it first if it is true. I
believe it is false
by the following argument on Reals or the Complex
plane. The infinite
Euclidean Plane is a contradiction in terms. The
Euclidean Plane to
exist must exist as a finite plane. Proof. The
Euclidean Plane is
represented by Descartes coordinate system of Real
numbers. For an
Infinite Euclidean Plane implies that there exists at
least one Real
number which is both infinite string leftwards and
rightwards of the
decimal point. No individual Real number exists which
is an infinite
string both leftwards and rightwards simultaneously
of the decimal
point. Hence, no infinite Euclidean Plane. When
the Euclidean
Plane is made to be infinite, it automatically reverts
into a
Riemannian sphere because it is my claim that Adics =
Riem geometry and
that Reals are finite leftwards but Adics are infinite
leftwards.
POINCARE CONJECTURE (PC) PROVED
Brief description of proof. PC rests on the
fact that the
infinite iteration of roots of any positive Real
number always
converges to the number 1. And for ADICS the infinite
squaring of any
ADIC when converted to base 2 converges to 2 points,
both ...00. and
...01. These convergences are the SIMPLY CONNECTED.
NOTE: All topological objects of the sphere are
determinable as
Riemannian geom objects OR, as positive Real number
objects. In this
way the iteration of roots or the squaring of any Adic
in base 2 is the
simply connected.
The statement which I claim is not a
well-formulated statement
of the Poincare Conjecture1 is this. The 3-sphere, the
space obtained
by completing R3 by a point at infinity, is the only
closed
3-dimensional space whose fundamental group is
trivial. I assert this
Poincare Conjecture is not a well-formulated
conjecture, it is a fuzzy
idea, only the notion of a conjecture.
I give a well-formulated Poincare Conjecture
as follows:
Riemannian geometry is the only geometry which is
simply connected
where positive Reals forms a positive Gaussian
curvature or the Adics
are Riemannian geometry.
PROOF OF THE WELL-FORMULATED POINCARE
CONJECTURE.
All topological objects of the sphere are
determinable as
Riemannian geom objects or, as positive Real number
objects. In this
way the iteration of roots or the squaring of any Adic
in base 2 is the
simply connected. It is
easily proved that a function built on the infinite
iteration of roots
of any positive Real number always converges to the
number 1. For
example, you take any positive Real number, then you
take successive
square roots, successive cube roots, successive
quadratic roots and so
on, of that number, then the convergence of all of
these iterative
roots sequences, all of these iterative roots, is to
the number 1. But
the iterative roots function does not work with any
negative numbers,
since imaginary numbers come into action, and negative
numbers occur in
all geometries except Riem. Where Riem. geom is
positive gaussian
curvature and so no negative curvature (no negative
number) can occur
in Riem. geometry. Thus the iterative roots sequence
is the simply
connected concept of every loop shrunk to a point,
which means there
are no holes in the geometry. So for Riem. geom, every
loop can be shrunk
to the number 1. But every other geometry except
Riem. geom has negative
numbers and thus there exists loops in them which are
impossible to shrink
to a point. Q.E.D.
------------
The above was mostly posted in the 1990s, but now let me
make some comments on the above from the standpoint of
here and now in February of 2007. I really like the Poincare
Conjecture because of its beauty and elegance. It escapes
the Natural-Numbers = p-adics for the most part because
someone could have proven it prior to the Natural-Numbers
= p-adics revolution. They could have spotted that iterative
roots is the essence of the Poincare Conjecture and thence
have reformulated the conjecture. But I like it also because
the Poincare Conjecture leads into my best mathematics
that Riem Geom + Loba Geom = Eucl Geom.
*** end quoting from old post that was earlier this year and part of
a
different book ***
I want to include this Proof of the Poincare Conjecture in this book
on P-adics
because in that earlier book of January February 2007, I did not have
the OPERATIONS
on P-adics ironed out. Remember, the crux of this book is to make P-
adics accessible
to everyone who wants to learn about them. And to arrest the P-adics
from College Professors
who see them only as base dependent numbers. This book makes P-adics
base independent
and gives you the Decimal P-adics.
Think of how obnoxious it would be for our schools to have to teach
add subtract multiply and
divide in base 2 numbers and base 3 numbers. You would have a riot and
rebellion on your hands
not just from students and parents but from teachers since few people
in the world can function
in numbers other than decimal numbers.
Numbers that are not decimal base are as worthless as people insisting
on having to count
a 10 dollar bill as two 5 dollar bills. In other words, doing math and
arithmetic in one base of
Decimal base is all that is needed. And that any other base is simply
wasting time.
So that book in January February 2007 where I included the Poincare
Conjecture Proof did not
have the Decimal P-adics Operations well defined and so I should
revisit that proof in this book
and give it added meaning.
Also, I want to comment on a recent development of a Russian
mathematician who used a Ricci
Flow analysis on the Poincare Conjecture and where the Jewish
community is jumping up and
down over what they think and what they are calling the first proof of
the Poincare Conjecture.
I have news for them. The first proof of the Poincare Conjecture
belongs to Archimedes Plutonium
and I have it well documented in a newspaper print as well as being
posted for 14 years on the
Internet many times starting in 1993. So the Jewish community can do
all they want, but they
will never escape the fact that I beat Perelman by some 14 years in
proving Poincare Conjecture.
And what is Ricci Flow over a sphere surface, but a dumbed up
equivalency of Iterative Roots
that converge to the numbers 0 and 1.
So Ricci Flow is no more than Iterative Roots.
So try as hard as the Jewish Community wants to try, but it will not
steal the proof of the Poincare
Conjecture from Archimedes Plutonium.
In the next post, I shall make elaborations on the Poincare Conjecture
since I now know well
what Iterative Square Roots on P-adics is. Here I will be taking the
Iterative Square Root of
numbers such as ....999999999 or ......555555555 and according to the
definition of operations
those eventually converge to 1.
But perhaps even more important is that I have the world's finest
Model of Elliptic and Hyperbolic
geometry and I can thus reframe the Poincare Conjecture inside this
Model.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Pmb
news:1192461968.0...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> (1) Math definition of dimension has never been understood nor resolved to
> this date.
That tells me that you were not a math major in college. The term
"dimension" is well defined and has been for a very long time. The
definition is given here - http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dimension.html
> In physics only the 3rd dimension makes sense ...
I disagree. There are many kinds of manifolds which require more than 3
dimensions in Classical Newtonian Physics. As an example of an n-dimensional
manifold is one that is used to describe a system with n degrees of freedom.
Spacetime has 4 dimensions because an event requires information (3-d space
= 3 dimensions) and one of time (which tells the time in which the event
curved.
> ... where
> experimentation has shown that any dimension other
> than 3rd leads to
> the wrong physics of Newtonian Classical.
Incorrect for the reason stated above.
> That alone
> should have
> alerted the math community that there definition of
> higher dimensions
> were pure illusions, fire breathing dragons.
It only tells us how poor your understanding of higher levels of math (i.e.
Linear Algebra).
I get the felling that the rest of your post is filled with similar errors
so
[snip]
Pete
neilist
> "a_plutonium" <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1192461968.0...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > (1) Math definition of dimension has never been understood nor resolved to
> > this date.
>
> That tells me that you were not a math major in college.
No, he could have been a math major, and even (barely) received a math
degree with poor grades.
What it does tell people is that this crank Archimedes Plutonium is a
moron.
(as though you need more evidence piled on the rest of the compost
heap of crap that he writes)
And now he shows he hates Jews? tsk tsk
porky_...@my-deja.com
>
> news:1192461968.0...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > (1) Math definition of dimension has never been understood nor resolved to
> > this date.
>
> That tells me that you were not a math major in college.
The only college experience Archie Poo ever had was washing the dishes
at Darmouth's cafeteria. Not quite math major, but can be tought of as
'dish major'.
Proginoskes
> On Oct 15, 11:58 am, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> > "a_plutonium" <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1192461968.0...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > (1) Math definition of dimension has never been understood nor resolved to
> > > this date.
>
> > That tells me that you were not a math major in college.
>
> No, he could have been a math major, and even (barely) received a math
> degree with poor grades.
According to his biography, he got a Bachelor's of Arts degree in Math
at some college in Ohio. Not sure about his grades, though.
> What it does tell people is that this crank Archimedes Plutonium is a
> moron.
>
> (as though you need more evidence piled on the rest of the compost
> heap of crap that he writes)
>
> And now he shows he hates Jews? tsk tsk
This isn't new, actually. A few months ago, he posted about how the
number of Nobel Prize winners that were Jews was out of proportion
with the percentage of Jews in society.
--- Christopher Heckman
Tonico
***********************************************************************
Not, not now: he showed that already before. Try to find the thread
about the Nobel Prizes, the jews-giving-jews-prizes dellusion he has,
and other things.
The Nober Prize thing was in this NG some 4-5 months ago, I think.
Regards
Tonio
Pubkeybreaker
It is much much older than that....
Back in the days when he was a dishwasher at the Hanover
inn and a pest at the Dartmouth math department, he had
his Internet access taken from him for a lengthy diatribe
against what he called "The New Jew Times".
Archimedes Plutonium
> In the next post, I shall make elaborations on the Poincare Conjecture
> since I now know well
> what Iterative Square Roots on P-adics is. Here I will be taking the
> Iterative Square Root of
> numbers such as ....999999999 or ......555555555 and according to the
> definition of operations
> those eventually converge to 1.
>
> But perhaps even more important is that I have the world's finest
> Model of Elliptic and Hyperbolic
> geometry and I can thus reframe the Poincare Conjecture inside this
> Model.
>
Well the Iterative Square Roots is very easy in Decimal P-adics
operation defined
in this textbook. Where we define operations exactly the same as in
Reals, only
at the end our final answer is those digits that remain the same in
further computations.
So that we take the Iterative Square Root of ....999999997
We start first with 97
then we do iterative square root of 997
then we do iterative square root of 9997
and so on so on..
And this operation is very easy and can use my hand calculator and doing
it on 97 the first square root is 9.8 the second is 3.1 the third is 1.7
and so on so
on until it gets closer and closer to 1.0
The same thing happens to 997 as iterative square roots converges to 1.0
So the surface of a sphere that models Poincare Conjecture and where
that surface is
covered in lines of longitude and where these lines of longitude go from
0 as the North Pole
to .....99999 which is one unit short of the South Pole which we assign
a imaginary number
(pi), and where the 0 point is also imaginary. And where the antipodal
line of longitude is a repeat
of the same 1 to ....999999. Now pick any closed loop on this sphere and
they are all Simply
Connected to the point 1 under Iterative Square Root.
What is improved in this recount of the Proof is that 0 is eliminated
and the Simply Connected
is solely with the point 1.
Also, what is improved is that Poincare Conjecture is finally at home in
its native geometry of
Elliptic geometry with its native points and coordinate system of
P-adics. The Reals are alien
to the Elliptic geometry.
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
not all Jews are banker,
not all bankers are jews, but
you still don't have to like the Rothschilds,
that much?
a_plutonium
> In the next post, I shall make elaborations on the Poincare Conjecture
> since I now know well
> what Iterative Square Roots on P-adics is. Here I will be taking the
> Iterative Square Root of
> numbers such as ....999999999 or ......555555555 and according to the
> definition of operations
> those eventually converge to 1.
>
> But perhaps even more important is that I have the world's finest
> Model of Elliptic and Hyperbolic
> geometry and I can thus reframe the Poincare Conjecture inside this
> Model.
>
Well the Iterative Square Roots is very easy in Decimal P-adics
Archimedes Plutonium
hanson
Look at these soldiers from the Army of Light whining about Archie...
ahaha... ahahahaha.. Heroic!... AHAHAHAHA. and typical...
"Proginoskes" <CCHe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192484307....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> neilist <littora...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> > "a_plutonium" <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> This isn't new, actually. A few months ago, Archie posted about how
> the number of Nobel Prize winners that were Jews was out of
> proportion with the percentage of Jews in society.
> --- Christopher Heckman
>
> >news:1192486621....@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>Not, not now: he showed that already before. Try to find the thread
>about the Nobel Prizes, the jews-giving-jews-prizes dellusion he has,
>and other things.
>
"Pubkeybreaker" <pubkey...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192490027.3...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> It is much much older than that....
> his Internet access taken from him for a lengthy diatribe
> against what he called "The New Jew Times".
>
.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... Listen,
See, note and try to understand that Archie is simply the
product of your collective Jewish behavior.... because
*** "Nobody is born Anti-Semitic. But Jews are
great and the only good teachers for it" ****
:::::: Archie is a **VICTIM** of that process ::::::
Besides be grateful to Archie, guys. He does you a great favor.
Anti-Semitism is good! === Good Jews foster Anti-Semitism:
The ex-PM of Israel, Ariel Sharon, himself said so explicitly:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/be8452e683364a49
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/04/1003.shtml
::Sharon:: .... we might go wild and burn all the oil fields in the
::Sharon:: Middle East! We might start World War Three.
::Sharon:: We might use nuclear arms. We are **Judeo-Nazis**.
::Sharon:: I am disgrace to humanity, I don't mind, on the contrary.
::Sharon:: ** I will do all I can to increase Anti-Semitism **, and be
::Sharon:: prepared to absorb the Yids I will force to flee to this
::Sharon:: country and teach them to be a light unto the gentiles.
>
ahaha... & of course you guys just demonstrated your incandescence
splendidly .... ahahahaha.... More Jewish fun from/with Tom Potter
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/38653d2d7b707531
ahaha... and then, to boot, another problem is that you still must be
*** "perfected" *** in the way the blond Xian prophetess Ann Coulter
has been teaching you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/040e5c0f5e508ba4
Can't you see the hand-writing on the wall(s), you silly bastards?
Thanks for the laughs.... ahahaha....
ahahaha... ahahahanson
neilist
I didn't know of his old posts - I don't read them. You actually do?
I saw his subject line, and looked further. What a waste of time.
Why don't you just boycott cranky Archimedes P.?
Michael Moroney
>> > And now he shows he hates Jews? tsk tsk
>>
>> This isn't new, actually. A few months ago, he posted about how the
>> number of Nobel Prize winners that were Jews was out of proportion
>> with the percentage of Jews in society.
>It is much much older than that....
>Back in the days when he was a dishwasher at the Hanover
>inn and a pest at the Dartmouth math department, he had
>his Internet access taken from him for a lengthy diatribe
>against what he called "The New Jew Times".
I think it was "The Jew York Times".
Tom Potter
"Pubkeybreaker" <pubkey...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1192490027.3...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Of course if Archimedes P. is Anti-Semitic,
he in the great majority,
as Jews have come into conflict with all of their neighbors
throughout history,
and they are hated by most of the folks on the planet today.
Perhaps the reason that folks become Anti-Semitic
is because Jews institutionalized bigotry,
and they use institutional bigotry to
"Jimmy Carter" and "Mel Gibson"
anyone who makes a public statement
critical of the actions of a Jew,
or Jews in general.
The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his
own."
Or perhaps folks become anti-Semitic
because Jews have a long history
of instigating conflict and war for power and riches.
Note for example,
1. Jews have come into conflict with all of their neighbors throughout
history.
(Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, Persia, Spain, England, France,
Spain again Germany, recently Russia and Palestine again,
and in the process, America.)
2. Jews were central to the overthrow of the Russian government,
the slaughter of the Russian Royal Family,
and the instigation of the Class Wars of the 1900's.
3. Jews are central to the instigation of the Religious Wars of the
2000's, and are trying to con
American Blacks, Latinos and Rednecks
into sacrificing their lives, limbs, liberties, and fortunes,
to wage war on folks that played a nominal role in their lives,
and in the history of America.
4. Jews have played an active role in instigating, and profiting from,
many of the world's conflicts and wars.
(Including America's own Civil War, Spanish-American War,
and the Urban Rebellion of the 1960's that ruined America's cities.)
5. When the Jews tried to export their Class Wars all over the world,
a few nations, including Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, Turkey, etc..
tried to stop them, and Jews all over the world
began to :Jimmy Carter" (And assassinate) the leaders and nations,
who were trying to prevent their Class War instigations.
Note that the Nazi had to form a private police force
to protect themselves from Jews and their paid goons.
When the War-for-profit gang was unable to
exert their control over Spain by deadly force,
they turned their propaganda machine against Germany
who had helped Spain maintain its' independence.
6. As the Jews had Russia under control,
they bought and intimidated American and British leaders
to support their wicked agenda (Conquest of the world.).
If FDR had opposed the War-for-profit gang,
rather than sell out to them,
WWII would have lasted six months,
and there would have been no Cold War, no nuclear weapons,
no Korean War, no Vietnam War, no 911, no Religious Wars, etc.
Fortunately for America and the world FDR died,
and as the Jews had not had time to Swiftboat the new leaders,
(Truman, Nixon, Hoover, McCarthy, etc.),
and Americans were sick of conflict and war,
the new leaders managed to prevent the takeover of America
by the War-for-profit gang.
7. The War-for-profit gang has used a simple plan for over 3000 years.
a. They migrate to the most powerful nation.
b. They buy, con, or intimidate that nation's leaders
to promote their self-serving agenda.
c. After they rape and destroy the vitality of their host nation,
the native citizens demand new leaders, and the rejection of the gang.
d. The War-for-profit gang migrates to the new most powerful
nation, and the cycle starts all over again.
It is interesting to note that after their Class Wars were discredited,
and the Native Russians regained control of their government,
the War-for-profit gang instituted a phony "Free Jews" program in
Russia so they could migrate to America at the taxpayer's expense.
Note that the thousands of people who left Russia
were actually the elite of Russia,
and the leaders in the Class Wars,
and NOT oppressed Jews.
And of course, Archimedes P.'s comment about
the New York Times is not far off base,
as the New York Times, Time Magazine,
and the Washington Posts which were controlled by Jews
were active in brainwashing America to wage war against the German people,
who are probably the most intelligent, moral, productive folks
on the planet, and were trying to take a stand against the Jews
that had massacred the Russian Royal family,
co-opted the Russian government, and were
using Russia as a base from where to instigate
their Class Wars all over the world.
To read the stories of a few of the many folks
who have been victims of Jewish bigotry
visit the following web site.
<http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html>
The bottom line is:
If someone loves or hates something,
the rational, intelligent, civilized, MORAL
thing to do is examine the reasons the love or hate the thing,
and not to use institutionalized bigotry
to attack the messenger.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
Pmb
"neilist" <litto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192542546.8...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Actually I only know him from rumour and I don't make decisions about people
from rumour.
Pete
Phil Carmody
It morphs!
> Jews
*plonk*
It plonks too!
Phil
--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
Pubkeybreaker
Phil Carmody wrote:
> "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> writes:
>
> It morphs!
>
> > Jews
>
> *plonk*
>
> It plonks too!
How do people like Tom & Archie develop such viscious and unreasoned
hatred?
Tonico
*****************************************************************
Bitterness, inferiority complex, depression, self dellusion...and it
feels SOO good to put the blame on others...!
Regards
Tonio
Virgil
> Phil Carmody wrote:
> > "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> writes:
>
> > It morphs!
>
> > > Jews
>
> > *plonk*
>
> > It plonks too!
>
> How do people like Tom & Archie develop such viscious and unreasoned
> hatred?
Is that "viscious" supposed to be "viscous" or "vicious"?
Michael Press
<1192555385.3...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Pubkeybreaker <pubkey...@aol.com> wrote:
How do you get to Carnegie Hall?
--
Michael Press
Archimedes Plutonium
>
>
> Well the Iterative Square Roots is very easy in Decimal P-adics
> operation defined
> in this textbook. Where we define operations exactly the same as in
> Reals, only
> at the end our final answer is those digits that remain the same in
> further computations.
>
> So that we take the Iterative Square Root of ....999999997
>
> We start first with 97
> then we do iterative square root of 997
> then we do iterative square root of 9997
> and so on so on..
>
> And this operation is very easy and can use my hand calculator and
> doing
> it on 97 the first square root is 9.8 the second is 3.1 the third is
> 1.7 and so on so
> on until it gets closer and closer to 1.0
>
> The same thing happens to 997 as iterative square roots converges to
> 1.0
>
> So the surface of a sphere that models Poincare Conjecture and where
> that surface is
> covered in lines of longitude and where these lines of longitude go
> from 0 as the North Pole
So here is the superiorness of Iterative Roots versus Ricci Flow.
In Iterative Roots there is only one point on the total sphere
surface where all closed loops converge to that single point of 1.
This is accomplished because the North Pole and South Pole are imaginary
numbers in Elliptic Geometry where the North Pole is 360 degrees and
thus we replace 0 by 2pi which is a positive number and of course
the South Pole is pi which is also a positive number. Now, you have
the entire surface of the Sphere covered in numbers that are all
positive numbers and whose Iterative Roots all converge to the single
point that is .....000000001
The Ricci Flow that is bandied about in newspapers as a means of solving
the Poincare Conjecture and is more than 14 years after Iterative Roots
is not as powerful of a prove since it cannot have one point as the
convergence point. And because of that, I doubt the Ricci Flow as given
by Perelman and others is a legimate proof of Poincare Conjecture. I
suspect that Ricci Flow is not a suitable substitute for Iterative Roots
and thus ends as a flawed Poincare.
> to .....99999 which is one unit short of the South Pole which we
> assign a imaginary number
> (pi), and where the 0 point is also imaginary. And where the antipodal
> line of longitude is a repeat
> of the same 1 to ....999999. Now pick any closed loop on this sphere
> and they are all Simply
> Connected to the point 1 under Iterative Square Root.
>
> What is improved in this recount of the Proof is that 0 is eliminated
> and the Simply Connected
> is solely with the point 1.
>
> Also, what is improved is that Poincare Conjecture is finally at home
> in its native geometry of
> Elliptic geometry with its native points and coordinate system of P-
> adics. The Reals are alien
> to the Elliptic geometry.
I also want to express appreciation for the above, for it has been
several weeks now (at least in my mind's eye for I tend to lose track
of time when having so much fun) several weeks now that I was stuck on
where the Hyperbolic Geometry coordinate system was relative to the
fixed Elliptic Geometry where the Poles fix the Elliptic geometry and
fixes where ....000001 and ....999999 are located. Here my problem was
whether that fixed (-)....000001 and (-).....999999.
If you have forgotten this model: the negative P-adics are the inside
surface of this same sphere. So Hyperbolic Geometry is the inside
antipodal hemisphere of Elliptic Geometry.
So the above Poincare revisit answers me where the (-)....00001 and (-)
......99999 are. And they are fixed and they are so-to-speak-underground
from the positive P-adics. So where you have ....000001 as one unit
distance from the North Pole, directly underground you have on the
inside surface of that sphere the opposite concavity and you have
(-)....000001 + (pi). Likewise when you reach ....999999 directly
underground or the inside surface of the sphere you have the point (-)
....99999 + (pi).
Now the point one unit distance on the same line of longitude in
Positive P-adics you have the point (pi) + ....000001 and one unit
shy of the North Pole on this same line of longitude is (pi) +
....999999 and directly below ground of these two points is (-)
.....000001 and (-).....999999 respectively.
So thanks to the Poincare Conjecture revisited I am able to see
the full Elliptic and Hyperbolic intrinsic coordinate system.
porky_...@my-deja.com
wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So thanks to the Poincare Conjecture revisited I am able to see
> the full Elliptic and Hyperbolic intrinsic coordinate system.
>
Mazel Tov!
Proginoskes
Marvin
messages from Dartmouth Univ. Some people wrote to the
President of Dartmouth, who insisted that academic freedom
allowed AP to write what he wanted. that ended when AP
criticized Dartmouth's President, and was then fired from
his job at Dartmouth - working in a student cafeteria.
I block his rantings, but don't block every message with a
mention of his name. Perhaps I should.
Tom Potter
"Marvin" <phys...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:WgqRi.3631$GM2.2882@trndny02...
It is interesting to see that "Marvin" confesses
that he and Dartmouth's President are bigots
and attack messengers,
rather than address messages in a rational, intelligent,
civilized, moral way.
The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his
own."
If I were a bigot,
I'd let "morons" shoot themselves in the foot,
but I would bushwhack and smear smart guys
who made public statements I
don't want people exposed to.
What do you think of this approach Marvin"?
Your pal,
porky_...@my-deja.com
That's the academic freedom, Dartmouth interpretation. Being neo-nazi
bigot is acceptable. Criticizing the higher-ups is not.
Marvin
I respect most people's opinions, but not those who feel it
is OK to attack those who they don't even know.
Pubkeybreaker
> I respect most people's opinions, but not those who feel it
> is OK to attack those who they don't even know.
A request for clarification:
Is it possible to "know" someone through their public statements
or must "knowing" be face-to-face?
When someone repeatedly makes hateful remarks in public, or
repeatedly shows that he/she is a crank, it is certainly proper
to respond in kind.
Tonico
***************************************************************
If the above is true, and seeing AP's level in science in general and
maths in particular I don't doubt his greatest achievment in these
fields was washing dishes in some university's cafeteria, then that
Darmouth Univ's president is one lame and lousy example of intolerant
bigot (is there any other kind?) which deserves to rinse the dishes AP
washes and not being instead at the head of any serious university at
all.
I can understand someone can get fired if either he publishes stuff
that is contrary to the politics and /or people of the company he
works in, or if he publishes stuff that's contrary to the law.
But to claim AP can publish whatever he wants because of academic
freedom and then kick his ass because he attacks the Univ's president
seems hypocresy, intolerance and bigotry, and this seems very odd in
any serious university....unless that attack(s) were viciously carried
on (demeaning and/or libeling and/or threatening, etc.)
A matter to think....
Regards
Tonio
Marvin
You can judge the persona a person projects on the Web,
which can be quite different than the one he projects in
other settings. You can't judge anyone from one posting or
from a brief meeting. In either case, you might want to
keep your negative opinions to yourself. Trying to make
someone look bad doesn't make you look better. In some
religions, it is forbidden.
Marvin
boss or the top guy in public. There are too many ways they
can get you. That didn't mean that I liked every boss I
aver had. I learned how to "manage my boss".
Tom Potter
"Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rubrum-D84007....@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
"Michael Press" makes a good point when he points out
it takes "practice" to "get to Carnegie Hall",
and it took centuries of "practice" for Jews
to develop bigotry to the level it is today.
The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his
own."
The following web sites tells the stories
of a few of the many folks who have been
victims of institutionalized bigotry,
a "practice" that Jews have used for centuries
to silence and discredit folks
who make factual statements unflattering to Jews.
<http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html>
Tom Potter
> In article
> <1192555385.329529.292...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Phil Carmody wrote:
> > > "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> writes:
>
> > > It morphs!
>
> > > > Jews
>
> > > *plonk*
>
> > > It plonks too!
>
> > How do people like Tom & Archie develop such viscious and unreasoned
> > hatred?
>
> How do you get to Carnegie Hall?
>
> --
> Michael Press
"Michael Press" raises a good point when he suggests that
it takes "practice" to "get to Carnegie Hall",
and it took centuries of "practice" for Jews
to develop bigotry to the level it is today.
The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from
his
own."
The following web sites tells the stories
of a few of the many folks who have been
victims of institutionalized bigotry,
a "practice" that Jews have used for centuries
to silence and discredit folks
who make factual statements unflattering to Jews.
<http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html>
--
Tom Potter
"Marvin" makes a good point when he suggests
that some "religions" have institutionalized bigotry,
and use it to "Jimmy Carter" and "Mel Gibson"
and "Archimedes" anyone who makes factual public statements
unflattering to their "religion".
The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his
own."
The following web site tells the stories
of a few of the folks who have been victims
of Institutionalized Bigotry.
<http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html>
As "Marvin" suggests,
it would be smart for folks to note
what people, and what races, and what religions
use Institutionalized Bigotry and
"make hateful remarks in public",
and to reflect on why they do this,
( Greed and power. )
and how to stop this bigoted, immoral activity.
( Expose it when it happens. )
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Tom Potter
"Marvin" makes a good point when he points out
that some races, religions, and political parties
have institutionalized bigotry and use it to
"attack those who they don't even know."
The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his
own."
The following web sites tells the stories
of a few of the many folks who have been
victims of institutionalized bigotry.
<http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html>
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
--
Tom Potter
Regarding "Pubkeybreaker" question:
"Is it possible to "know" someone through their public statements
or must "knowing" be face-to-face?"
This is not an "ether/or" situation.
Rational, intelligent, moral folks
are concerned with the issues raised in "public statements",
rather than the messenger,
but when people make public statements"
attacking messengers, rather than addressing messages,
it is desirable to see where the bigotry is coming from,
and what the motives of the bigot is.
To paraphrase "Pubkeybreaker" comment:
"When someone repeatedly makes hateful remarks in public, or
repeatedly shows that he/she is a crank, it is certainly proper
to respond in kind."
"When a group repeatedly makes hateful remarks in public, or
repeatedly attack messengers, rather than address messages
in a rational, intelligent, moral way,
it is certainly proper to respond in kind."
As can be seen,
by the fact that they have "Jimmy Cartered"
folks who made factual, "public statements"
unflattering to Jews, Jews have institutionalized bigotry,
and use bigotry to control the public agenda and purse.
The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his
own."
The following web site tells the stories
of just a few of the numerous folks who have
been victims of Institutionalized Bigotry.
<http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html>
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
--
Archimedes Plutonium
inadequate because the intrinsic and native numbers of the points on a
sphere are AP-adics or the Counting Numbers where a fraction of Counting
Numbers do not form a continuum. When one tries to cut out a sheet of
metal and to fasten it to a sphere, you have to cut and crimp the metal
to get it to lie on the sphere surface. This is an example of trying to
attach a piece of Euclidean geometry to Elliptic Geometry. It simply
does not work. The same thing goes for Perelman trying to solve Poincare
Conjecture and using Reals, Complex.
The only numbers native and intrinsic to Elliptic Geometry where
Poincare Conjecture lies within, are these AP-adics or the Counting
Numbers from 1 to 999....999999 where in between each of these infinite-
integers is a finite rightward string called radix fraction so that
holes still remain in the sphere surface but it can be dense in
between two numbers. And that is what Ricci Flow can never address.
Here is an old post that addresses where a Iterative Roots solves
the Poincare Conjecture and not a Ricci Flow which uses Reals:
*** quoting old 1994 post on how Iterative Roots works for
Poincare Conjecture ***
Karl Heuer
View profile
More options Jan 4 1994, 7:13 am
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: k...@spdcc.com (Karl Heuer)
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 11:54:22 GMT
Local: Tues, Jan 4 1994 6:54 am
Subject: Re: ABIAN FACTORIAL and PLUTONIUM FACTORIAL
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author
Ludwig Plutonium <Ludwig.Pluton...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>If you look at all possible combinations of digits 0 and 1 having the
>form ...yz. Where ...001. is the familiar counting number 1 and ...010.
>is 2, and ...011. is 3, and so on. Question: Can you make all of these
>have successive roots that converge to ...001?
This works in the opposite direction: you need to repeatedly square, rather
than taking square roots. For example, starting with 13, you get:
...00001101, ...10101001, ...10010001, ...00100001, ...01000001,
...10000001,
...00000001 (converged to 8 binary places). Even numbers will converge
to 0,
and odd numbers will converge to 1.
In the Reals, successive square roots converge to 1 because sqrt(1+x) is
approximately 1+(x/2), and x -> x/2 converges to 0 in the Reals. In the
2-adic numbers, convergence works the other way around (x -> 2x converges
to 0), and so squaring provides the convergent sequence.
>Can Lobachevskian geometry be modelled by considering Euclidean
3-space and a
>sphere within (surface of the sphere being a Riemannian geom model),
then the
>Lobachevskian model is in the Euclidean 3-space--everything else what the
>surface of the sphere is not?
I don't think so.
*** end quoting old 1994 post ***
Since 1994, I have removed P-adics and replaced them with something
far better. The trouble with P-adics is they are base-dependent and
noone can visualize them as a geometrical object, plus, and most
important is that the P-adics are just a dressed up costumed acting
Real Numbers. In the old mathematics, there was no system of numbers
that rivaled the Reals, but instead, where everything is an extension
of the Reals.
The old math was stupid and blind to not realize that the world had a
number system that was totally different and independent of the Reals
and for which this number system was the intrinsic and native numbers
for Elliptic and Hyperbolic Geometry.
So in the old math of pre 1993, mathematicians knew that geometry had
3 independent geometries of Euclid, Riemannian and Lobachevskian, but
they stupidly and sillily ascribed one system of numbers to act as if
they could be at home within those different geoemetries. To act as if
Reals can be placed on a sphere surface and "be a point".
Some may say it took me a long time to get from P-adics to AP-adics
since 1993 was 14 years from 2007. But I did. And the AP-adics
are these rival numbers to Reals and are the intrinsic and native
numbers for points on a sphere or Hyperbolic geometry.
So as where in the above old post, that Iterative squaring is Iterative
Roots, is because that is P-adics, but in AP-adics, Iterative Roots
is the true answer because in AP-adics or Decimal AP-adics the
operations are the same operations as Reals. And that is how I manage
to get rid off and toss away the base dependency that occurred in
P-adics.
Archimedes Plutonium
(1) What is known about the points on a circle as to whether they
have any algebraic structure.
(2) What has been proven on this issue?
The reason I am interested is because the AP-adics are the points in
both Elliptic and Hyperbolic geometry and I suspect they have no
algebraic structure. And I suspect that Galois Group theory was so much
overhyped and overextended and overused, that much of 20th century math
is outright wrong. It reminds one of the economic and finance areas of
life where every decades have their boom and bubbles to be followed by
busts and corrections. So that mathematics has its cycles of overhype
which created large mistakes and errors in mathematics to be flushed
and cleaned out by future generations. So that Galois Group theory was a
overhyped mathematics and that it reached far into math creating swathes
of large mistakes.
What I am getting at is that only Euclidean geometry and its native
number system of the Reals and Complex have a Galois Group theory, but
that Counting Numbers, Primes, AP-adics have no Algebraic structure as
does the Reals and so Algebra on these numbers was misplaced.
So I am looking to see what has been proven in mathematics concerning
the points on a circle or sphere and what was thought of as their
algebraic structure.
*** quoting old 1994 post ***
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before
posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Karl Heuer
View profile
More options Jan 9 1994, 5:43 am
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: k...@spdcc.com (Karl Heuer)
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 1994 10:21:27 GMT
Local: Sun, Jan 9 1994 5:21 am
Subject: Re: ABIAN FACTORIAL and PLUTONIUM FACTORIAL
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author
>Riem model is the surface of the shere and the inside. Loba model is
>all of Eucl 3-space what the Riem shere and inside is not? Karl do you
>have an opinion on that? Is Loba model just Eucl 3-space with a hole in
>it?
No, that gives you the equivalent of a sphere with negative radius.
Surface curvature is a function of radius squared, so you need to use
an imaginary radius to get Loba.
Speaking of spheres and imaginary/complex coordinates: did you know that,
in complex coordinates, the sphere is a ruled surface (i.e. is composed of
straight lines)? For example, all points on the line {x=1, y=t+i, z=it-1}
lie on the unit sphere, since x^2+y^2+z^2 = 1^2+(t+i)^2+(it-1)^2 = 1.
*** end quoting old 1994 post ***
Archimedes Plutonium
Earle Jones
Pubkeybreaker <pubkey...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 5:38?pm, Proginoskes <CCHeck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 12:19 pm, neilist <littora...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And now he shows he hates Jews? tsk tsk
> >
> > This isn't new, actually. A few months ago, he posted about how the
> > number of Nobel Prize winners that were Jews was out of proportion
> > with the percentage of Jews in society.
>
> It is much much older than that....
>
> Back in the days when he was a dishwasher at the Hanover
> inn and a pest at the Dartmouth math department, he had
> his Internet access taken from him for a lengthy diatribe
> against what he called "The New Jew Times".
*
Archie once raised hell with a guy who called him a 'dishwasher'. He
made it clear that at Dartmouth (Hanover Hall) he was a 'potwasher'.
earle
*
Anagram: Archimedes Plutonium = Mr. Meticulous Pinhead
junoexpress
> Proof of the Poincare Conjecture
>
> This proof was copyrighted to the early 1990s,
> and especially of the use of infinite iteration
> of roots of any
> positive Real number always converges to the number 1.
How did you copyright the proof? I would imagine you would have to go
to an attorney, go through a legal process, etc. Is this how it is
done?
M
Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
even without the "Copyr. January 2008" notice,
although you might want to actually register it;
you don't need an attorney for that.
patenting, on the other hand, is quite involved.
trademark is mostly consistent, provable usage
of the trademark in a given area (it is not
an infringment, if used in a totally separate kind
of product or service or what ever).
> How did you copyright the proof? I would imagine you
what do you make of the fact that
your "isoceles triple" for 4, (2,1,1),
is a degenerate triangle with no area?
thus:
are you familiar with the proof, that
"all triangles are isoceles?"
thus:
p-adics have not been proven to have
any of the fuzzee math that you suppose,
nor have AP-adics; the run-on sentences that
you use do not convey any proof,
at any rate. you are saddled with your own,
exclusive nomenclature;
is their an AP-dictionary, yet?
we have no discernible meaning
for your infinitieth leftward digit, although
it might seem like a plausible notion; so,
What?... anyway, the only thing that is known
to be of real consequence is the digit-
*endings* of the p-adic integers,
the part next to the decimal point!,
which is mirrored in the analysis
of the ordinary decimals' digit-beginnings,
to the immediate left of the point. surely,
you've read of that, before.
what you failed to notice is that
one does not have to pretend to "do the math
to infinity" in actuality, since
the properties are the same as those
for the decimals; thus,
expressing the final digit is superfluous,
super-redundant, while having that last digit
to be different seems to be nonsequiter --
what can you plausibly mean?
yes, the only reason to list such digit, is
to perform some arithmetic upon it;
let us see, if you can!
how can we ever find the lid to the box, if
we don't even know what shape it is?... I mean,
your target audience of 6-year-olds is known
for a propensity to "read the encyclopedia"
-- too-often the British one, but --
you haven't provided such an entree for them; or,
really, for yourself. Shakespeare is laughing
at your attempted locution:
the Shakespeare that wrote Psalm 46 (unless,
taht was a set-up by the Oxfordians,
akin to the awful Bible Code).
(on the other hand,
reading is grossly overdone at such an early age,
mea culpa .-)
> > "They don't describe the set of numbers";
> > i.e., "the Peano Axioms model the wrong thing."
> I mean self contradictory as anyone else
> in mathematics means self contradictory
> but I also mean that the Peano Axioms
> do not model "finite integers",
> so in a *fuller sense* I mean both.
--The Lyyn Cheeny Factor: 25 Hours til the campus jihad!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/071107impeach_momentum.html
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/leidig_statement.pdf