Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

6 May, 2024: The networking issue during the past two days has been identified and appears to be fixed. Will keep monitoring.


tech / sci.math / Re: Difference between con-artist John Gabriel and Andrew Wiles// both lust for fame&fortune, only one was editor of math journal before Internet// both fail at ever doing a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

SubjectAuthor
o Re: Difference between con-artist John Gabriel and Andrew Wiles//Archimedes Plutonium

1
Re: Difference between con-artist John Gabriel and Andrew Wiles// both lust for fame&fortune, only one was editor of math journal before Internet// both fail at ever doing a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

<e30bd1c8-0e5b-4494-9267-1ea288f663f5n@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=100961&group=sci.math#100961

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.math
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:98a:b0:6a3:840f:96d1 with SMTP id x10-20020a05620a098a00b006a3840f96d1mr8741460qkx.286.1653437043551;
Tue, 24 May 2022 17:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:10ce:0:b0:2ff:b7c4:4261 with SMTP id
197-20020a8110ce000000b002ffb7c44261mr18094365ywq.223.1653437043360; Tue, 24
May 2022 17:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 17:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <f56f55c5-5294-446f-972e-714ffe7c07ben@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=107.123.1.44; posting-account=fsC03QkAAAAwkSNcSEKmlcR-W_HNitEd
NNTP-Posting-Host: 107.123.1.44
References: <8e0d3115-0a31-4e93-b30d-f058df435b4dn@googlegroups.com>
<3913f568-fa60-4939-8324-b26ab05814dcn@googlegroups.com> <f56f55c5-5294-446f-972e-714ffe7c07ben@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e30bd1c8-0e5b-4494-9267-1ea288f663f5n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Difference between con-artist John Gabriel and Andrew Wiles//
both lust for fame&fortune, only one was editor of math journal before
Internet// both fail at ever doing a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
From: plutoniu...@gmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Injection-Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 00:04:03 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 13116
 by: Archimedes Plutonium - Wed, 25 May 2022 00:04 UTC

Andrew Wiles delusional, so says MitchR. Mitch-- have you seen Wiles apologize to Univ Oxford students in their newspaper, apologizing for not recognizing the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, or is Wiles still plying his con-art ways?

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:34:20 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> You are delusional
> Don't talk about me. Mine are real...
>
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

AP responds: Yes, Wiles is vastly delusional-- his slant cut in cone an ellipse when it is a oval. His mindless acceptance of Boole logic with 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. His mindless acceptance of Real numbers when they cannot possibly provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but worst of all of Wiles delusions is his inability to even see that Euler never even had a proof of FLT in exp3. This is why AP continues to call Wiles a con-artist of mathematics, not a mathematician at all.

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 15Dec2021. 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". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

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.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 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)

#11-3, 24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07NMV8NQQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1241 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 60 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#11-4, 28th published book

World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.

Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PZ2Y5RV
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 23, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1183 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 34 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#11-5, 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.


Click here to read the complete article
1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor