In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
Taniyama-Shimura conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem I will give a
brief account of the situation. During the review process a number of
problems emerged, most of which have been resolved, but one in
particular I have not yet settled. The key reduction of (most cases
of ) the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture to the calculation of the Selmer
group is correct. However the final calculation of a precise upper
bound for the Selmer group in the semistable case (of the symmetric
square representation associated to a modular form) is not yet
complete as it stands. I believe that I will be able to finish this
in the near future using the ideas explained in my Cambridge
lectures.
The fact that a lot of work remains to be done on the
manuscript makes it still unsuitable for release as a preprint . In
my course in Princeton beginning in February I will give a full
account of this work.
Andrew Wiles.
Andrew, your FLT is junk and a sham proof. So dumb on FLT are you, Andrew, that you never spotted the error of Euler in his exponent 3 of FLT, the error that Euler could never prove the case of when all three A,B,C are even, A^3 + B^3 = C^3. You never spotted that error of Euler and yet you are so pompous that you think you found a proof of all of FLT. No, Andrew, actually you are a math failure for you never recognized that the pressing problem in all of mathematics of our generation is to give a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (see below at end). Instead, you, Andrew chased after fame and fortune, but never the "truth of mathematics".
5-Andrew Wiles and his fake FLT proof, so dumb on FLT he could not even spot Euler's flaw of exp 3 FLT, and so dumb as a mathematician, he never could do a geometry proof of calculus, FTC.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 7, 2021, 11:10:15 PM
to sci.math
For thirty years, 30 years, AP has been at it on Fermat's Last Theorem. It was 1991, that I saw that 2+2=2x2=4 was the heart and crux of the proof of FLT. And it was a hard and bumpy ride in those 30 years, with much fanfare and intrigue. And where the fame and fortune of proving FLT by AP was stolen from him, stolen by Andrew Wiles. But I am not sorry of that stealing because in the meantime, I had far far more important work and discoveries to do, than to claim back my proof and success of FLT. But now, here in 2021, some 30 years later, I am not so generous, not so lenient, and now I want my proof to have its rightful historical place mark. FLT was never proven by Andrew Wiles and his alleged proof is a massive joke. And a measure of how dumb and a joke that Wiles offering was, is easily seen in asking Wiles, how his offering proves that exponent 2 has solutions. Ask Wiles how his technique or mechanism of elliptic curves shows A^2+B^2=C^2 has solutions but not A^3+B^3=C^3 with no solutions. You see, Andrew Wiles has few logical marbles to ever be doing a mathematics proof, let alone FLT. Let alone asking Andrew to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP reclaims his "world's first valid proof of Fermat's Last Theorem".
More to add to AP's 6th book//World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author). A scientist, when he does a math proof or a physics theory, none of them.
More to add to AP's 6th book//World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author).
A scientist, when he does a math proof or a physics theory, none of them leave you, none leaves you alone after a while. All of them continually nag you and the nagging never goes away. Such is the case of doing science. And sometimes in this nagging a new twist enters the picture. I have found this to be the case of nearly all my science work. Every time I write something on those discoveries, it is as if a new twist is bursting to come forth.
So on FLT which I proved in early 1990s, as early as 1991, my argument was that of a Basis Vector of Algebra is the reason no exponent 3 or higher has a solution. Of course, there are ample solutions in exponent 2 and more so in exponent 1.
But the new twist that dawned on me, is that a proof of FLT, should involve exp 1 and exp 2 and then exp3 and higher, as a mathematical induction proof.
Maybe we need not start at exp 1, for that is arithmetic A + B = C. Then exp 2 is the Pythagorean Theorem. So we have two starting true cases of the General FLT. For exp 2 we have the basis vector 2+2 = 2x2 =4, where we have a number that is equal under add and multiply. Now for exponent 1 we could say the basis vector is all of Arithmetic. Now for exponent 3, we can have no n+n+n = nxnxn = m, same for higher exponents.
So what I missed in my book was to emphatically suggest that a proof of FLT has to fully incorporate the exponents that do have solutions. Every mathematician before AP , looks at FLT in isolation of exponent 2, and by doing so, cut off their chances of finding a valid proof of FLT. Because the moment your mind asks the question, why no solutions in exp 3 but myriad solutions in exp 2, forces the mind to think that the valid proof has to incorporate in its proof, a mechanism, a mechanism the spans and bridges between exponent 2 and exponent 3, fully incorporate the picture that exp 2 has solutions not exp 3. And that then puts the onus of the mind to look at a Basis Vector where add is the very same as multiply. So that solutions are metaphorically analogous to building concrete block buildings and the concrete blocks are the basis vector.
Every Pythagorean theorem solution in Natural Counting Numbers has its basic building block of 2 and 4, of 2+2= 2x2= 4. You can analyze every P-triple and find it is constructed of 2 and 4. Whereas every exp 3 is wanting a building block for all possible solutions, yet no numbers (not even 0 for the n and m have to be different) have the ability to be n+n+n = nxnxn = m.
So I need to emphatically state in my 6th published book, that a proof of FLT, or even Generalized FLT should look at all exponents and not isolate-out exp2 from the higher exponents.
That is extremely important point of logic, that we tend to shove off to the side and want to focus all our attention on just a part of the puzzle, a part of the problem, separate from the larger problem. We tend to separate, when we should look at the big picture to give us guidance and clues as to the mechanism of the proof.
So, actually, FLT was even absurdly more simple as a math problem and proof than most every other math proof in recorded history. FLT is more simple to prove than even the Pythagorean theorem is to prove. Because this is a proof of FLT. Proof: 2+2= 2x2= 4 allows us to build solutions in exp 2, but there does not exist a n+n+n = nxnxn = m so no solutions ever in exp 3 and the same argument for exp 4 and higher. QED
Totally simple proof is FLT, and if mathematicians had asked, what, ultimately what allows solutions in exp2 and said, well, well, 2+2=2x2 is the building block of all solutions in exp2.
No, my proofs in math and my theories in science and physics will never leave me alone, even if I tried. I can picture myself at my deathbed, and even there, one of my science theories will invade my mind as a die. Such, is the nature of a world of superdeterminism in an Atom Totality.
6th published book
World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
Preface:
Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
Length: 156 pages
File Size: 1503 KB
Print Length: 156 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQKGW4M
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray:
Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 7, 2021, 12:01 PM
to sci.math
Now everyone is free to chose who they want to believe, do you want to believe Andrew Wiles with his 100 pages or more of math that is everything including the kitchen sink of mathematics thrown at the Fermat's Last Theorem FLT ? Where most people cannot even understand the 1st page-- what the hell is going on. Or, do you want to chose AP's proof of FLT where he proves it in a sentence that everyone in the entire world, even in Grade School can understand, that 2+2 = 2x2 = 4 gives solutions to Pythagorean theorem and A^2 + B^2 = C^2, but if you want solutions for A^3+B^3 = C^3 or higher, you need a special number of n+n+n = nxnxn = m for n and m in exponent 3, yet there exists no such special numbers n and m to satisfy that, hence, FLT.
So, take your pick, do you believe in B.S. of Wiles with his obnoxious over 100 pages of cluttered together phony baloney mess argument. Wherein Andrew Wiles was so stupid on FLT, he failed to even notice that Euler had **no proof** in exponent 3 of FLT because Euler forgot he had to prove the case of where A,B, C in A^3 +B^3= C^3 were even numbers. Euler forgot he had to prove that; and instead assumed there was no three even Counting numbers were no solution. But Andrew Wiles, the math failure he is, never even noticed that Euler had no proof in exponent 3. So, do you believe in a Andrew Wiles 100 page "hornswaggle mess" of elliptic curve argument. Or do you believe in AP when he says the reason 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 is because 2+2 = 2x2 = 4, the only two counting numbers with that feature of addition is the same as multiplication.
Now Andrew Wiles was looking for a proof of FLT in early 1990s, as early as 1993 when AP notified the world public that AP had already proven FLT, for I proved it in 1991, but Andrew Wiles had no proof of FLT, even after 1993.
And there was a exciting exchange of ideas from AP and from Princeton Univ and Berkeley where Roland Dreier gives the SUPPORTING ARGUMENT, that the AP proof of FLT is the world's only valid proof of FLT. Although Roland was not prepared to go that far, it is obvious, these almost 30 years later, that AP had the proof, but Wiles is a con-artist failure of FLT.
From: ***@durban.berkeley.edu (Roland Dreier)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: 1 page proof of FLT
Date: 18 Aug 93 14:55:02
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Lines: 42
Message-ID: (***@durban.berkeley.edu>
References: (***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(24s7de$***@outage.efi.com>
(***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(***@Princeton.EDU>
In article (***@Princeton.EDU>
***@fine.princeton.edu (Kin Chung) writes:
In article (***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
***@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
LP Hardy in Math..Apology said words to the effect that the
LP understanding of any math proof is like pointing out a peak in the
LP fog of a mtn range and you can only point so long and do other
LP helps and hope the other person will see it and say Oh yes now I
LP see it. But you can not exchange eyeballs. Again I repeat the
LP arithmetic equivalent of FLT is that for exp2 there exists a
LP number equal under add & multiply i.e. 2+2=2x2=4. Immediately a
LP smallest P triple is constructible for exp2 i.e. (3,4,5>. But no
LP number exists like 2 for exp3 or higher in order to construct P-
LP triples for these higher exp. I am very sorry that I cannot make it
LP any clearer than that. Time to take a break and reread Hardy Math
LP Apology.
KC You also say that a smallest P-triple is constructible for exp2
KC immediately from the existence of a number N such that
KC N+N=NxN, namely N=2. How do you construct a P-triple given N
KC with this property? Please note that I am not asking how you do
KC it for exp3, but for exp2.
Before I continue, let me say that this post does not in any way constitute
an endorsement of LvP's "proof"; what I am about to explain does not
extend to exponent 3 in the least. However, things are rather easy for
exponent two. (Not to be critical, but you really could have figured this
out yourself :-)
So suppose we have an N with 2xN=N+N=NxN. Set a=N+1, b=N+N=NxN.
Then we get
a^2 = (N+1)^2 = N^2+2xN+1 = 2xN^2+1
also
b^2 = (N+N)^2 = 4xN^2.
So
a^2+b^2 = 6xN^2+1.
Now set c=2xN+1. Then
c^2 = (2xN+1)^2 = 4xN^2 + 4xN + 1 = 4xN^2 + 2xN^2 + 1
= 6xN^2+1.
So magically a^2+b^2=c^2, just as desired! !
If you can figure out how to do that for exponent 3, make yourself famous.
Roland
--
Roland "Mr. Excitement" Dreier ***@math.berkeley.edu
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 9, 2021, 11:33:39 AM
to sci.math
For thirty years, 30 years, AP has been at it on Fermat's Last Theorem. It was 1991, that I saw that 2+2=2x2=4
1 + 2 + 3 = 1 x 2 x 3 = 6
Thanks, as I said, I have been at it for 30 years now, on FLT, and it fascinates, but also burdens me, for as the years and decades roll by, there is constant new items on the menu. For when you prove something in math, or discover a physics law, they just never go away, but constantly bear down pressure upon you. That is, once you get over the hurdle that your proof or law is true.
So, well, let me see if Tim's above has any relevancy?
We have Equations of form A^n + B^n = C^n. Naturally, 2+2 = 2x2 = 2^2 = 4
So, well, that is n+n = nxn = n^n = 4. So we need two numbers, a n and a m that are different. Tim has 4 numbers different.
That 2 and 4 in FLT, fits perfectly as a basis vector building block, what Physics would call UNITS for magnetic field building other units, for equations of form A^n + B^n = C^n, and fits perfectly as a proof that only exponent 1 and 2 have solutions, but none higher.
The trouble with Tim's is it is form j+k+l = jxkxl = p and does not fit into equations of form A^n + B^n = C^n. There are no exponents involved in Tim's and FLT is about exponents, about squares or volumes of cubes. Is Tim's a basis vector to perhaps some other math equation? I do not think so, and is a one-off curiousity, for really, it plays on the specialness of the number 1. If it was not for "1" Tim would have nothing to speak of. So say we cannot play with 1 then that leaves us with 2+3 =/= 2x3.
Of course in Old Math they had a grimy dirty concept of "perfect number" and even there, the 1+2+3 = 1x2x3 had no role as basis vector. I say grimy and dirty because the Counting Numbers are a partial set, not a full legitimate set in New Math, for the counting numbers are not well defined to division. But we then must ask, in the actual true number system of mathematics, of New Math which is the Decimal Grid Systems, we ask if 1+2+3 = 1x2x3 perhaps has a major role that 2+2=2x2= 2^2 = 4 has? And we know that in New Math, it does not even have the concept of "primes" for there are no primes in Decimal Grid Systems, and this is easily proven true, because primes never have a formula, meaning, well, meaning that primes are imagination gone amok because a set of Counting Numbers is never well defined with division. The Decimal Grid System with higher grids is well defined to division, and if we throw in the axiom of subtraction, never subtract more than available, is well defined to subtraction, all 4 operators of math.
To be well defined set in mathematics, means you have an operator and if you take any two numbers in that set using the operator, it delivers back to you another number in that set-system. So, although 6 divided by 2 is another counting number, but, 2/6 is a number that is not a counting number. In Grid system, for example 6/10 in 10 Grid is still 0.6 a member, but 0.1/10 = 0.01 is a member in 100 Grid system.
So we ask the question of whether 1+2+3 = 1x2x3 has any use or utility in say some other math problem, and I cannot think of any. So at this point in time, I see it as merely a novelty, playing on the specialness of the number 1 and of no more significance, certainly no significance in FLT proof.
Archimedes Plutonium
12:25 AM
to sci.math
I forgot to mention the very first mistake of Andrew Wiles FLT, although no-one of his generation would have known about Reductio ad Absurdum as a nonviable method of proof. For that is the very first mistake of Wiles FLT, for no reductio ad absurdum can be used in a mathematics proof.
I am not sure of whether RAA was used by Kempe for his sham proof of 4 Color Mapping but in Appel and Haken the RAA was used. I am not sure if Thomas Hales went out on a limb in his Kepler Packing by using RAA. Or whether Tao and Green used the RAA in their sham proof of primes in arithmetic sequence 5, 11, 17, 23, 29 where +6, but Tao and Green never in hell define what is infinity.
So, where all of these above sham and fake proofs using a Reductio Ad Absurdum. I only know for sure the Wiles and Appel & Haken used RAA, and thus, those two alleged proofs were con-artist fakery. But I would not be surprised at all if all the above mentioned proofs were RAA, and thus fakes on just those grounds alone.
Why is the RAA not sound to use in math proofs? Because the Logic connector of If--> Then has a truth table of TFUU where u means unknown or uncertain. And the truth table has to be that for If--> Then in order for division by 0 is unknown.
I wrote a whole logic book on RAA.
27th published book
Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.
Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T
If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F
Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F
Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.
Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:
| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p
Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Length: 86 pages
Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 10, 2021, 3:32:17 PM
I was looking through the Internet last night for these fake proofs if they were all Reductio Ad Absurdum, or Contrapositive method, or some call it the Indirect method.
I had known that Wiles FLT was Reductio Ad Absurdum and also the Appel & Haken fake 4 Color Mapping was RAA, also. I was not sure of these others. So I looked via Google to see if all the recent fake proofs of math were all of one method-- Reductio Ad Absurdum. And if all are such, well, that is very telling of how modern day Con-Art Math is established. It is established through a method of proof that is not valid method. The method itself is a con-art.
1) Andrew Wiles elliptic curves FLT Fermat's Last Theorem-- is a Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art fakery.
2) Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping is Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art math.
3) Green-Tao primes any length of arithmetic sequence is Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art fake math.
4) Thomas Hales Kepler Packing offering is Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art worthless and fake math.
But looking even deeper, there are fake proofs built on more fake proofs. For that Wiles needed the fake proof of Ribet theorem, where Ken Ribet uses Reductio Ad Absurdum to build up Wiles fake proof. So we have layers and layers of Reductio Ad Absurdum for Wiles to add on another RAA for his fakery.
And the same with Green-Tao using the fake Szemeredi theorem which is a reductio ad absurdum proof and hence fake.
So we have not only a singular use of Reductio Ad Absurdum to create fake worthless con-art math proofs, but we have a cascading mountain of RAA to contrive more con-art fake math proofs.
Now, most people are not logical. And unfortunately, most mathematicians are not logical although they have potential of becoming logical, most mathematicians never reach the heights of being logical.
That being said, we must show not only mathematicians but laypersons on how to be more logical.
And the best way of showing this is through common language. And the best example I can give of this RAA nonsense is the tv show "Death in Paradise" where every week the show has the inspector solve a crime mystery. This is an example of an excellent "natural language example of Reductio Ad Absurdum" and multiple RAA used.
Even Wiles, Tao, Hales can learn from this tv show why their proof is worthless garbage.
A few weeks back Death in Paradise had a nurse die of poison in her locked stateroom. The locked door is a RAA that her brother did not do it, nor anyone else. The suicide note left behind is a RAA that she committed suicide. So we have 2 RAA and thus a Wiles or Hales or Tao would conclude suicide just as their fake math proofs of RAA. And this is why RAA is not a valid proof of mathematics as AP wrote in his RAA book.
Another few weeks back in Death in Paradise was a journalist reporter who was killed at her own home found in the swimming pool. The death was estimated at a specific time that a RAA excluded the radio announcer. An RAA excluded the daughter of the radio announcer. And so a Wiles and Tao and Hales logic would, like their fake math proofs, exonerate the radio announcer and his daughter.
You see, Reductio Ad Absurdum is not deductive logic, but probability and uncertain logic. Read AP's book on RAA.
5th published book
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
Length: 72 pages
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray:
Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 10, 2021, 3:58:00 PM
Andrew Wiles and his fake FLT proof, so dumb on FLT he could not even spot Euler's flaw of exp 3 FLT, and so dumb as a mathematician, he never could do a geometry proof of calculus, FTC 44 views
Jul 10, 2021, 3:32 PM
to sci.math
I was looking through the Internet last night for these fake proofs if they were all Reductio Ad Absurdum, or Contrapositive method, or some call it the Indirect method.
I had known that Wiles FLT was Reductio Ad Absurdum and also the Appel & Haken fake 4 Color Mapping was RAA, also. I was not sure of these others. So I looked via Google to see if all the recent fake proofs of math were all of one method-- Reductio Ad Absurdum. And if all are such, well, that is very telling of how modern day Con-Art Math is established. It is established through a method of proof that is not valid method. The method itself is a con-art.
1) Andrew Wiles elliptic curves FLT Fermat's Last Theorem-- is a Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art fakery.
2) Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping is Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art math.
3) Green-Tao primes any length of arithmetic sequence is Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art fake math.
4) Thomas Hales Kepler Packing offering is Reductio Ad Absurdum, hence con-art worthless and fake math.
But looking even deeper, there are fake proofs built on more fake proofs. For that Wiles needed the fake proof of Ribet theorem, where Ken Ribet uses Reductio Ad Absurdum for his own proof, which is then used by Wiles for a piling up mountain of RAA to build up Wiles fake proof. So we have layers and layers of Reductio Ad Absurdum for Wiles to add on another RAA for his fakery.
And the same with Green-Tao using the fake Szemeredi theorem which is a reductio ad absurdum proof and hence fake.
So we have not only a singular use of Reductio Ad Absurdum to create fake worthless con-art math proofs, but we have a cascading mountain of RAA to contrive more con-art fake math proofs.
Now, most people are not logical. And unfortunately, most mathematicians are not logical although they have potential of becoming logical, most mathematicians never reach the heights of being logical.
That being said, we must show not only mathematicians but laypersons on how to be more logical.
And the best way of showing this is through common language. And the best example I can give of this RAA nonsense is the tv show "Death in Paradise" where every week the show has the inspector solve a crime mystery. This is an example of an excellent "natural language example of Reductio Ad Absurdum" and multiple RAA used.
Even Wiles, Tao, Hales can learn from this tv show why their proof is worthless garbage.
A few weeks back Death in Paradise had a nurse die of medication overdose in her locked stateroom. The locked door is a RAA that her brother did not do it, nor anyone else. The suicide note left behind is a RAA that she committed suicide. So we have 2 RAA and thus a Wiles or Hales or Tao would conclude suicide just as their fake math proofs of RAA. And this is why RAA is not a valid proof of mathematics as AP wrote in his RAA book.
Another few weeks back in Death in Paradise was a journalist reporter who was killed at her own home found in the backyard swimming pool. The death was estimated at a specific time that a RAA excluded the radio announcer. An RAA excluded the daughter of the radio announcer. And so a Wiles and Tao and Hales logic would, like their fake math proofs, exonerate the radio announcer and his daughter. Multiple RAA used.
You see, Reductio Ad Absurdum is not deductive logic, but probability and uncertain logic. In one sense, RAA is akin to Occam's Razor, and Occam's Razor is not deductive logic. Read AP's book on RAA.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 10, 2021, 6:41:10 PM
Alright, searching through the Internet on the proofs of Kempe and Tait in the late 1800s of 4 Color Mapping that both Kempe and Tait fake proofs were Reductio Ad Absurdum, some call it Indirect some call it proof by contradiction, some call it contrapositive.
Alright, looking and I find the Kempe fakery and Tait fakery were Reductio Ad Absurdum.
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
One alleged proof was given by Alfred Kempe in 1879, which was widely acclaimed;[10] another was given by Peter Guthrie Tait in 1880. It was not until 1890 that Kempe's proof was shown incorrect by Percy Heawood, and in 1891, Tait's proof was shown incorrect by Julius Petersen—each false proof stood unchallenged for 11 years.[11]
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
So here we have the idea that the entire method of proof in mathematics using Reduction Ad Absurdum is a fake method and allows con-artists of math to gain recognition and fame and fortune but at the cost of fakery math proof.
We could not expect Heawood nor Petersen to connect the dots that the very method of proof using Reductio Ad Absurdum was itself flawed. It was not until the late 1800s that Formal Symbolic Logic was established by Boole and others but riddled full of mistakes. It took until 1990s for AP to finally unravel the errors of Symbolic Logic and to capitalize on the idea that Reductio Ad Absurdum itself was fakery for math proofs.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 10, 2021, 8:48:35 PM
--- quoting from scholar dot uwindsor dot canada
Web results
Common Ground, Argument Form and Analogical Reductio ad Absurdum
by H Jansen · 2007 · Cited by 4 — 23). Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca suggest that this effect is due to the typical form of reductio ad absurdum . Characteristic of the reductio ad absurdum form is the ...
--- end quote ---
Another fakery of the 21st century, is the Poincare Conjecture, for not only is the proof a fake, but the entire conjecture is hard boiled stupid fakery. One of Poincare's few mistakes as a mathematician.
I do not want to deride Poincare for he was a valuable scientist, both in physics and math.
The Poincare conjecture is a problem I myself spent considerable time on in the early 1990s, around 1991 when I did the Fermat's Last Theorem Proof.
But the ugly fact of the Poincare conjecture is 4th dimension, yet science stops at 3rd dimension. There simply is no 4th dimension and EM theory proves this, in the simple fact of Volume is 3rd D and Voltage is 3rd D.
But I was curious if the so called proof by Perelman, who I deeply admire for rejecting prize and awards, whether Perelman's so called proof was Reductio Ad Absurdum.
Apparently it was built from another so called proof which used Reductio Ad Absurdum -- Olbrechts-Tyteca.
What this goes to show is that every proof of the past history of mathematics that is a Reductio Ad Absurdum is thrown out the window as trash math.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 11, 2021, 2:24 AM
Alright, what I have given for objections to Reductio Ad Absurdum, RAA, or proof by contradiction, was a math-logic objection. That the If --> Then conditional must need a truth table of TFUU where U stands for unknown and has probability value, not certainty to allow for division by 0 in math be unknown. That screws up the Reductio Ad Absurdum.
But then philosophers also joined into the debate on whether RAA was sound or fallacious.
And one line of thought was that it was awfully tedious to police a RAA argument, where a proponent of RAA slips in unrelated material that produces a contradiction. To illustrate that point, suppose someone is doing the Wiles FLT and they slip into the proof that right triangles have one angle of 91 degrees, and then later recognize it as a contradiction and then say Wiles's FLT proof is correct. So here we see the objection to RAA proofs because it is a tough line to enforce on what is pertinent and relevant to a individual proof and what is brought in from outside to generate the contradiction. Especially in Wiles's FLT or Appel&Haken's 4 Color Mapping which draws so much outside material.
But another philosophy objection to RAA is the Intuitionist School of Philosophy that objects to RAA on the grounds it relies upon Law of Excluded Middle where the world is either true or false and no shade in between T and F. Yet Quantum Mechanics shows us both particle and wave and no sharp lines of either one or the other. So the Intuitionist School of Philosophy rejects RAA on the grounds it makes the world all be black and white with no shade of color in between.
But it should not surprise anyone that RAA is the favorite method of most mathematicians as being the most expedient method, the fastest method, and even though, in the end, the method says nothing about the underlying structure of the math statement proven.
So, well, RAA, is a fake method of mathematics and is never a proof of any statement. It is closely similar to Occam's Razor where the most simple explanation is often, not always but often the true explanation. In the same manner, RAA, hints of whether a statement is ultimately found true or false, but RAA cannot itself be the proof.
Archimedes Plutonium
July 11, 2021, 11:56 AM
Euclid's Infinitude of Primes was one of AP's first math proof corrections in 1991. I published my proof in several places, obviously to sci.math in 1993. Whether I did so in Dartmouth newspaper, I no longer recall.
Anyway, the gist of AP's proof was that multiply the lot, add 1 is a new number necessarily a prime number and that is guaranteed by the definition of prime number itself.
But in 1991 and up until I corrected Boole logic in the 2000s, I had believed that RAA was a valid proof method. Once I had corrected Boole Logic I realized If--> Then truth table had to be TFUU and not what Boole had of TFTT. The U stands for uncertain or unknown and is a probabilistic unit. So in true logic we have true, false and unknown. In true logic we have no law of excluded middle, where the only units are true and false. This further means RAA is invalid proof method, in addition to the fact that a truth table of TFUU for if--then does not allow RAA to be a method of deductive logic.
So here I am in 2021 and going back to review Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof to point directly to the error or flaw as to why it cannot be a proof of mathematics. And it is very easy to spot that flaw.
Before I do so, I must say that I had concluded in the 1990s that Euclid gave a direct proof of Infinitude of Primes, a construction proof, from the wording of his proof. And it was only in modern times that people went back and "imagined it was RAA". To give an example of how you make a proof of IP construction by multiplying a "small group of primes, add 1". So say all the primes that exist in the world are just 3 and 5. Then 3x5 plus add 1 is 16. Now, the divisors of 16 are not 3, and 5 and so from another theorem, unique prime factorization there exists a prime, specifically 2, that we can add to our list of {3,5}. So in this fashion we can see a construction proof of IP, instead of RAA.
But I want to point out the flaw of RAA for Infinitude of Primes. Why IP using RAA was never a valid proof of IP. Because pointing out this flaw, is very much relevant in why Wiles FLT is a flawed RAA, and Hales Kepler Packing is flawed RAA, and Perelman's Poincare conjecture is flawed RAA, and Appel& Haken's 4 Color Mapping is flawed RAA, and Green-Tao prime intervals is flawed RAA, and hence none of them were a math proof.
Before I show the flawed gap of RAA in Euclid Infinitude of Primes, I must mention the fact that in True Mathematics, there are no prime numbers, for the true numbers of mathematics require small numbers along with large numbers, and these are Decimal Grid Number Systems, the smallest of which are the 10 Grid of the set { 0.1, 0.2, ..., 9.8, 9.9, 10.0} We generally throw in 0 into that set for utility sake. And the 10 Grid has small numbers along with the whole numbers {1, 2, ..., 9, 10}.
When you have a set of just Whole Numbers, it is ill-defined towards division, not well defined. In every proof of mathematics, all your concepts must be Well Defined. So in Decimal Grid Systems, there is no concept of "prime". And this is true not only for mathematics but the larger science called Physics. Physics never had a "prime" concept. The Old Math primes never had a "physics feature", for helium was not special over lithium over carbon. You ask a physicist, do you see a "prime concept" in physics, and hell no is the answer.
So the concept of prime in Old Math was itself a delusion, built on the fact that a set {1, 2, 3 , ....} is not well defined per the operator division. That set is well defined over multiplication, because you take any two members yields a new number that is within that set. And because Counting numbers are well defined over multiplication means you can have a theorem of Unique Factorization. But not Unique Prime Factorization.
So before I begin, in True Math, there are no primes because the true numbers of math-- Decimal Grid Numbers have no primes. And that is logically reasonable given the obvious fact that in 2 thousand years of math everyone looked for a formula that describes all the primes. A formula like Y= 2k that describes all even numbers of Counting numbers. So why was there never a formula to describe all primes? You guessed it, because primes are a delusion set, built from imagination with no logic support.
So, let me get directly to the heart of the huge gaping flaw of a RAA, indirect proof of Infinitude of Primes.
The flaw is actually easy to see from the get go. We have definitions of prime of counting numbers, but we have no definition of finite or of infinite. We defined primes as counting numbers divisible only by 1 and itself. We defined Counting Numbers as start with 1 and add 1 to achieve a set {1, 2, 3, .... }.
But, we never define what is finite and what is infinite. That is the huge gaping flaw of RAA on Infinitude of Primes Proof. So, in that flawed RAA proof we reach a moment where we say If primes are finite, there exists a largest prime call it P and where we have a set of all smaller primes before we reach P, {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, . . ., P}. Now multiply all those primes and add 1 to form a new number, all it Q. With Q you notice that when you divide by all the primes that exist, you always have a remainder, meaning that Q itself must be prime from the definition we started with of "what is being prime mean". So, we have a RAA of showing that Q is a new prime beyond the list of all finite primes, and then we conclude primes are infinite. So what is wrong with that RAA? Where is the gap?
The gap is that we never defined "finite or infinite" at the start. We well defined "prime and the Counting Numbers" but we did not well define finite and infinite. So in the above proof, when we said "Suppose primes are a finite" to get P as the largest finite prime. At that critical moment, we cannot say P is the last and largest prime because we never had a well defined finite, nor a well defined infinite. When you do not well define what finite and infinite means, you cannot say there is a last and largest prime.
So, during the 2000s I well defined finite and infinite with a borderline between the two concepts. And I used Huygens proof of tractrix to fetch the borderline between finite and infinite as being 1*10^604 for macroinfinity and for microinfinity 1*10^-604. And in the 2000s, I gave the modern day Well Defined Proof of Infinitude of Primes, of course knowing that primes do not exist in Decimal Grid Systems.
Here we well define finite and infinite for Counting Numbers as all finite counting numbers are equal or below 1*10^604 and above are infinite numbers. But I had to well define what a Infinite set would be in True Math. And I defined it as saying the square of 1*10^604 is 1*10^1208. And a Infinite set of numbers is one in which there are 1*10^604 type or kind of number of interest between 1 and 1*10^1208.
So, well, that is WELL DEFINED finite and infinite, with borderline and amount of numbers to be called an infinite set.
So in that well defined definition, we see the Perfect Squares are an infinite set {1, 4, 9, 16, .... } And Pythagorean triples are an infinite set, and many others, but how about the Primes of Old Math? Well, it is easy to calculate that in about 10^607 you have 10^604 of what we used to call primes of Old Math.
So, this is the modern day method of proving if a set is infinite or finite, a calculation of whether there are 10^604 of that kind within 1 and 1*10^1208.
Did you see the flaw, the gap of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes done RAA? To remind you, the gap was no well defined concept of "finite or infinite". So that in RAA when we say P is the last and largest finite prime, you had no borderline between finite and infinite numbers to be able to say P even actually exists.
And the reason I write this today, is to look carefully at Wiles's fake FLT for his gap and flaw, to look closely at Appel&Haken 4 color mapping for their gap and flaw, to look carefully at Green-Tao for their gap and flaw, to look carefully at Hales Kepler Packing for his gap and flaw, to look carefully at Perelman's Poincare conjecture for his gap and flaw.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 11, 12:29 PM
Euclid's Infinitude of Primes was one of AP's first math proof corrections in 1991. I published my proof in several places, obviously to sci.math in 1993. Whether I did so in Dartmouth newspaper, I no longer recall.
Anyway, the gist of AP's proof was that multiply the lot, add 1 is a new number necessarily a prime number and that is guaranteed by the definition of prime number itself. (My correction was more to say about how logically crippled were math professors in not recognizing that "multiply the lot and add 1" is necessarily a new prime, no, those crippled in logic would then needlessly continue on with more added stuff, not realizing the proof had ended the instant that "multiply the lot and add 1" was formed.)
But in 1991 and up until when I corrected Boole logic in the 2000s, I had believed that RAA was a valid proof method of mathematics. Not until later in 2000s would I slowly realize RAA is not deductive science and cannot be used as a math proof. Once I had corrected Boole Logic I realized If--> Then truth table had to be TFUU and not what Boole had of TFTT. The U stands for uncertain or unknown and is a probabilistic unit. So in true logic we have true, false and unknown. In true logic we have no law of excluded middle, where the only units are true and false. This further means RAA is invalid proof method, in addition to the fact that a truth table of TFUU for if--then does not allow RAA to be a method of deductive logic.
So here I am in 2021 and going back to review Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof to point directly to the error or flaw as to why it cannot be a proof of mathematics. And it is very easy to spot that flaw.
Before I do so, I must say that I had concluded in the 1990s that Euclid gave a direct proof of Infinitude of Primes, a construction proof, from the wording of his proof. And it was only in modern times that people went back and "imagined it was RAA". To give an example of how you make a proof of IP construction by multiplying a "small group of primes, add 1". So say all the primes that exist in the world are just 3 and 5. Then 3x5 plus add 1 is 16. Now, the divisors of 16 are not 3, and 5 and so from another theorem, unique prime factorization there exists a prime, specifically 2, that we can add to our list of {3,5}. So in this fashion we can see a construction proof of IP, instead of RAA.
But I want to point out the flaw of RAA for Infinitude of Primes. Why IP using RAA was never a valid proof of IP. Because pointing out this flaw, is very much relevant in why Wiles FLT is a flawed because it is RAA, and Hales Kepler Packing is flawed because it is RAA, and Perelman's Poincare conjecture is flawed because it is RAA, and Appel& Haken's 4 Color Mapping is flawed because it is RAA, and Green-Tao prime intervals is flawed because it is RAA, and hence none of them were a math proof and all of them were fakes.
Before I show the flawed gap of RAA in Euclid Infinitude of Primes, I must mention the fact that in True Mathematics, there are no prime numbers, for the true numbers of mathematics require small numbers along with large numbers, and these are Decimal Grid Number Systems, the smallest of which is the 10 Grid of the set { 0.1, 0.2, ..., 9.8, 9.9, 10.0} We generally throw in 0 into that set for utility sake. And the 10 Grid has small numbers along with the whole numbers {1, 2, ..., 9, 10}.
When you have a set of just Whole Numbers, it is ill-defined towards division, not well defined. In every proof of mathematics, all your concepts must be Well Defined. So in Decimal Grid Systems, there is no concept of "prime". And this is true not only for mathematics but the larger science called Physics. Physics never had a "prime" concept. The Old Math primes never had a "physics feature", for helium was not special over lithium over carbon. You ask a physicist, do you see a "prime concept" in physics, and hell no is the answer.
So the concept of prime in Old Math was itself a delusion, built on the fact that a set {1, 2, 3 , ....} is not well defined per the operator division. That set is well defined over multiplication, because you take any two members, multiply, yields a new number that is within that set. And because Counting numbers are well defined over multiplication means you can have a theorem of Unique Factorization. But not Unique Prime Factorization.
So before I begin, in True Math, there are no primes because the true numbers of math-- Decimal Grid Numbers have no primes. And that is logically reasonable given the obvious fact that in 2 thousand years of math everyone looked for a formula that describes all the primes. A formula like Y= 2k that describes all even numbers of Counting numbers. So why was there never a formula to describe all primes? You guessed it, because primes are a delusion set, built from imagination with no logic support.
So, let me get directly to the heart of the huge gaping flaw of a RAA, indirect proof of Infinitude of Primes.
The flaw is actually easy to see from the get go. We have definitions of prime and of counting numbers, but we have no definition of finite or of infinite. We defined primes as counting numbers divisible only by 1 and itself. We defined Counting Numbers as start with 1 and add 1 to achieve a set {1, 2, 3, .... }.
But, we never define what is finite and what is infinite. That is the huge gaping flaw of RAA on Infinitude of Primes Proof. So, in that flawed RAA proof we reach a moment where we say If primes are finite, there exists a largest prime call it P and where we have a set of all smaller primes before we reach P, {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, . . ., P}. Now multiply all those primes and add 1 to form a new number, all it Q. With Q you notice that when you divide by all the primes that exist, you always have a remainder, meaning that Q itself must be prime from the definition we started with of "what is being prime mean". So, we have a RAA of showing that Q is a new prime beyond the list of all finite primes, and then we conclude primes are infinite. So what is wrong with that RAA? Where is the gap?
The gap is that we never defined "finite or infinite" at the start. We well defined "prime and the Counting Numbers" but we did not well define finite and infinite. So in the above proof, when we said "Suppose primes are a finite" to get P as the largest finite prime. At that critical moment, we cannot say P is the last and largest prime because we never had a well defined finite, nor a well defined infinite. When you do not well define what finite and infinite means, you cannot say there is a last and largest prime. And you cannot even say, your set is infinite, for the sheer logical reason-- you never in hell defined what infinite is.
Now some may say, define finite as "ending" and define infinite as "never ending". Does that help, or does that relieve the above Euclid RAA on Infinitude of Primes? No, it does not help, it does not make the gap go away, because without a Borderline, you cannot take a number like P, and know if it is below the borderline or above and is a infinite number or a finite number. You are stuck with having to have a Well defined finite and infinite, not a ill-defined. The only way to Well Define finite and infinite is a border crossing, just as ending and never ending are evasive and elusive.
So, during the 2000s I well defined finite and infinite with a borderline between the two concepts. And I used Huygens proof of tractrix to fetch the borderline between finite and infinite as being 1*10^604 for macroinfinity and for microinfinity 1*10^-604. And in the 2000s, I gave the modern day Well Defined Proof of Infinitude of Primes, of course knowing that primes do not exist in Decimal Grid Systems.
Here we well define finite and infinite for Counting Numbers as all finite counting numbers are equal or below 1*10^604 and above are infinite numbers. But I had to well define what a Infinite set would be in True Math. And I defined it as saying the square of 1*10^604 is 1*10^1208. And a Infinite set of numbers is one in which there are 1*10^604 type or kind of number of interest between 1 and 1*10^1208.
Now in Physics the square is also extremely important and its reverse the square root. For you see it in the Shrodinger equation all the time as a probability function of square or square root. So it is not surprising that the Need of square in Physics translates over to being essential in mathematics.
So, well, that is WELL DEFINED finite and infinite, with borderline and amount of numbers to be called an infinite set.
So in that well defined definition, we see the Perfect Squares are an infinite set {1, 4, 9, 16, .... } And Pythagorean triples are an infinite set, and many others, but how about the Primes of Old Math? Well, it is easy to calculate that in about 10^607 you have 10^604 of what we used to call primes of Old Math.
So, this is the modern day method of proving if a set is infinite or finite, a calculation of whether there are 10^604 of that kind within 1 and 1*10^1208.
Did you see the flaw, the gap of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes done RAA? To remind you, the gap was no well defined concept of "finite or infinite". So that in RAA when we say P is the last and largest finite prime, you had no borderline between finite and infinite numbers to be able to say P even actually exists.
And the reason I write this today, is to look carefully at Wiles's fake FLT for his gap and flaw, to look closely at Appel&Haken 4 color mapping for their gap and flaw, to look carefully at Green-Tao for their gap and flaw, to look carefully at Hales Kepler Packing for his gap and flaw, to look carefully at Perelman's Poincare conjecture for his gap and flaw.
Not only every present day math proof using the RAA is not a valid proof, but every math proof of the past history using RAA is internally flawed and is junk and invalid. But there is also this very curious aspect of modern day RAA proofs such as Wiles, Hales, Appel&Haken, Green&Tao, is that they use multiple RAA in their fake proofs. Wiles uses the fake Ribet theorem which is a RAA, same goes for Green&Tao and Perelman who use a outside RAA to build their own RAA. In Euclid's Infinitude of Primes using RAA, that was only one use of RAA, but for some monster ugly fake proof like Wiles's FLT, he likely used perhaps 5 other fake RAA's within his own overarching RAA. Fakes plastered over other fakes for a granddaddy of Fakery.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 11, 2021, 11:42:08 PM
to sci.math
So here we have to have math historians do the actual research.
We ask the question of how many RAA fake proofs are composed of more RAA inside the proof itself.
1) Wiles FLT is overall a RAA fake proof, but how many other RAA inside of Wiles fake proof were used? The Ribet theorem is a fake RAA proof, so we know at least one other RAA fake inside of Wiles overall RAA fake. But how many in total RAA can be found in Wiles FLT?
2) Same question for the fake 4 Color Mapping of Appel & Haken where the overall is RAA fake, but are there more RAA fakes inside that Appel & Haken used? And AP would guess that Wiles has more total RAA fakes than does Appel & Haken.
3) Same question for Hales's Kepler Packing, is his fake proof utilize 1 RAA, or more than 1 RAA?
4) Same question for Green-Tao prime intervals proof that is a RAA fakery? And here they utilized Szemeredi theorem which is a RAA fake proof so at least Tao-Green use 2 RAA.
5) Same question for Perelman's fake Poincare conjecture which is not even a mathematics problem since 4th dimension is nonexistent. But how many RAA was utilized here? Was it 2 with Olbrechts-Tyteca RAA utilized or more than 2, or was it far more? And here we have to ask whether every topology proof of 4th dimension or higher use RAA, as if RAA is the only proof method in higher dimension topology. AP thinks the entire subject of topology is trash nonsense and delivered to the trashcan for "bending" is not a subject of mathematics. Perhaps welding or metallurgy can have a science of bending but ridiculous in math.
So, I ask, who has the world record of number of RAA arguments used in a proof-fake of math? I would guess Wiles, since it is so long.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 11, 2021, 10:11 AM
to sci.math
Now the science of Topology is a bag of b.s., pure raw b.s. for "bending" was never a math enterprise.
Remember our definition of a "kook"? A kook is a person that loves to crank garbage and loves to make up things that he feels others can never understand, so that others think of him as a genius. That he can do that yet others never able to do it. And that is because the kook wants fame and fortune but never the truth of math or science.
A nice example is Topology of Old Math.
In New Math, we simply throw the entire lot of Topology out the window as raw fetid garbage, stinking garbage-- because Bending is not mathematics.
Counting is mathematics
Measuring in numbers is mathematics
Line segments is mathematics
Straight line figures is mathematics
Area is mathematics
Volume is mathematics
Equations are mathematics
Functions are mathematics
Calculus is mathematics
Derivative is mathematics
Integral is mathematics
Only a kook would dream up bending and call it mathematics.
So I ask you, for I do not know myself, since I have an aversion to kook math and never want to waste time on it. But, are all the proofs of Topology, are all of them using the Reductio Ad Absurdum? Is there a single proof in Topology that is not RAA?
Because Topology really belongs in a science like that of welding or metallurgy where you have to bend things.
So, who was the first kook in math history to dream up this crankery subject now called topology and that wastes the time in the life of so many students across the world, wastes their time when they could be learning real true math of calculus and the EM equations of physics, real science.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 12, 2021, 10:21 AM
to sci.math
Now sad to say Harold Jacobs in his book Mathematics A Human Endeavor inserted a chapter of Topology in his book, as the last chapter. I would recommend to Harold in future revisions of his book to delete the entire chapter of Topology and in its place do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- the very most important mathematics of our times.
11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Length: 137 pages
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
y z
| /
| /
|/______ x
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium