The matter of stealing even fake math.

Some present day fools such as "timba..@gmail.com" think they found something new but in fact stealing from AP and many others who held a long conversation about such things as 333...3334 in sci.math in mid 1990s. Time for timba and his religious sect to acknowledge Infinite Integers work done by AP, Karl Heuer, Will Schneeburger, Abian and many others. I brought this issue of stealing up to timba, before, and his reaction was to sluff it off. He needs to start footnoting this 1990s work, but of course, AP denies all Infinite Integers for AP found the infinity borderline and found the true numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers, so that Infinite Integers is all pixie dust fakery. Still, AP is adamant that even his fake math he uncovered be footnoted, for I care also about fake math that I discovered and is unwilling to hand that stuff over to some kook like Timba.

On Thursday, February 29, 1996 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> In recognition of the fact that we want to preserve that which has
> great historical importance and greatness. I will now begin to post
> the FAQs of the historic discovering of Naturals = Adics = Infinite
> Integers.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> EMAIL
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 21:21:07 EDT
> To: Ludwig.P...@Dartmouth.EDU
> Subject: Re: Convergence of positive Reals to 1. Transfinite Integers??
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> In-Reply-To: <CEECu...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> In article <CEECu...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> you write:
> > The positive Reals after successive roots all converge to the >number 1.. My question is what do the Transfinite Integers--those >infinite strings to the left. What do they converge to in successive >roots? If a proof is easy please give.
> They don't converge, because the last digit (the most significant one,
> remember), bounces around a lot. Even if the last digit is 1, then the
> second last digit bounces around, unless it is 0, in which case the
> third last digit bounces around, etc..
> the upshot is that 1 is the only number whose roots (by the way, not
> all the roots will exist, especially the k(p-1)^th roots if p is prime
> (4kth roots for 10-adics)) converge.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> EMAIL
>
> Subject: Re: 10-adics
> To: Ludwig.P...@Dartmouth.EDU (Ludwig Plutonium)
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 23:17:54 -0400 (EDT)
> In-Reply-To: <570...@blitzen.Dartmouth.EDU> from "Ludwig
> Plutonium" at Oct 4, 93 08:40:10 pm
> > I am very much behind the curve on adics. You know far more >than I on these things. So I am going to keep asking you alot of >questions. I do not know if 10-adics are what I want. I do know that >I want an extension of the whole numbers--what I call
> infinite >integers. Are they 10-adics for which noone has yet bothered
> to >alter the Peano axioms in order to make the other adics 2-adics,
> 3->adics the same only a different base representation. The idea that
> >numbers are not affected by representation.
> OK, I now know what you want, but why do you want them? What good will
> they do? Why do you think that mathematics will benefit from them?
> >is every positive Real number equal to some 10-adic?
> No. As I pointed out earlier, there is no 10-adic whose square is 3, so
> sqrt(3) cannot be identified with any real number. I don't know why I
> came up with 3 first, since 2 has the same properties.
> I am quite convinced that 10-adics are not what you want, since 1 has
> infinitely many divisors. I think this is undesirable for you because
> then 1 will not be a perfect number. In fact, since 1 divides every
> number, it follows that every 10-adic has infinitely many divisors.
> There is also a problem with defining perfect (p-adic) numbers in terms
> of positive divisors because there is no notion of positivity in the
> p-adics.
> I will also warn you that anything of the sort you are seeking will
> necessarily lead to multiple infinite cardinalities. For instance, the
> 10-adics have an infinite subset that cannot be put into one-to-one
> correspondence with the 10-adics.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Newsgroups:
> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro
> From: Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
> Subject: Re: PHYSICS AND MATH EXPLANATION FOR DINOSAUR EXTINCTION,part
> 1
> Message-ID: <CEECI...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
> References: <CEAM2...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> <28nj2l$1...@seismo.CSS.GOV>
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 23:42:10 GMT
> Lines: 26
> In article <28nj2l$1...@seismo.CSS.GOV> st...@seismo.CSS.GOV (Richard
> Stead) writes:
> > (For
> >the less familiar, oil comes mostly from dead microorganisms, and >organic waste). If you gathered all the dinos that ever lived, and >burned all the organics contained in their bodies, you might power >one electric plant for maybe a year or so.
> Thanks Richard for your comments for I see I must make this topic
> more clear. I will redo my hypothesis to make it more clear. Oil is the
> reason for the dinosaur extinction for it is obvious that when the
> dinosaurs lived was the time period of huge oil and coal forming. I
> must specifically state that an analysis of oil will show a certain
> percentage of oil formed because of the dinosaurs and another percent
> due to plant life. Perhaps the plant life is much larger as you say
> Richard, but the fact that the plant life could sustain the dinosaurs
> in the Mesozoic links the extinction of the dinosaurs with that lush
> plant life, and in the resultant oil forming Mesozoic.
> What I am advocating is that the best answers to the dinosaur
> history is to be gleaned from a scientific analysis of oil. And I would
> even suspect that the dinosaur mystery is a secondary issue. The
> primary issue is the plant kingdom. For if the largest percent of oil
> creation comes from the plant kingdom then what happened to the plant
> kingdom in the Mesozoic is of first importance.
> Study oil for answers to the dinosaurs.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> From: Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
> Subject: Convergence of positive Reals to 1. Transfinite Integers??
> Message-ID: <CEECu...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 23:49:28 GMT
> Lines: 4
> The positive Reals after successive roots all converge to the number
> 1. My question is what do the Transfinite Integers--those infinite
> strings to the left. What do they converge to in successive roots? If a
> proof is easy please give.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> From: Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
> Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorem Event at UC Berkeley
> Message-ID: <CEEJo...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
> References: <28q6f2$9...@agate.berkeley.edu>
> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 02:16:53 GMT
> Lines: 12
> In article <28q6f2$9...@agate.berkeley.edu> ro...@carrot.berkeley.edu
> (Rondi Phillips) writes:
> > FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM. Video and live panel discussion at
> > Wheeler Auditorium, U.C. Berkeley Campus at 7:30 p.m. on
> > Thursday, October 14.
> >
> > Professor Ken Ribet
> The Captain Kangaroo Show with guest stars Wiles Coyote and Kermit
> the frog <ribet,ribet,ribet>.
> Honey, did you hear a frog outside?
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem
> From: Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
> Subject: Riemannian (elliptic,spherical) geom. are infinite integers
> unioned with the Reals
> Message-ID: <CEEM7...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 03:11:34 GMT
> Lines: 29
> Riemannian (elliptic, spherical) geom. are infinite integers
> unioned with the Reals. The infinite integers---infinite strings to the
> left usually have an equal Real. For example, ....6667. is 1/3. This is
> a most beautiful result for the meaning is that the positive numbers
> when they go out there really far, they come back onto themselves. This
> is the wedding of positive numbers to geometry as never seen before.
> The gaussian curvature of positive curvature describes Riemannian
> (elliptic,spherical) geometry which has podal and antipodal points.
> Consider every infinite string leftwards is antipodal to a Real
> positive number (podal). For the few Reals which have no equal leftward
> string then there is the infinite leftward decimal point infinite
> rightward string to-cover-the-hole-so-to-speak. In this fashion the
> positive numbers are the points of Riemannian Geometry.
> This is a new awakening in the history of mathematics. For until
> this discovery (mostly done here on sci.math) the old primitive notion
> of the positive numbers was a borrowed alchemy of Descartes' straight
> line ray going off to infinity. With this discovery we now have the
> proper set of all positive numbers. They include [infinite strings to
> the left decimal point infinite strings to the right] Numbers. I will
> need assistance in modifying the Peano Axioms in order to complete the
> positive numbers by incorporating [infinite strings to the left decimal
> point infinite strings to the right] Numbers.
> This is historic for the true wedding of geometry to a set of
> numbers has just taken place. Riemannian geometry is soon to be
> visualized as a set of podal and antipodal points.
> The wedding of Lobachevskian geometry to the set of negative numbers
> has not occurred yet. The big drawback is to reconfigure the complex
> numbers augmented onto the negative numbers. And also the negative
> numbers have infinite strings to the left, right. What a mess.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> EMAIL
> Printed on Tue, Oct 5, 1993 at 9:10 PM
> From: Ludwig Plutonium
> Subject: Re: Fermat Proof.
> you are a most generous man. And you are far smarter than what you
> realize. You understand math (literature and p-adics) superbly. I have
> huge holes in my knowledge of math (as one insane writer on the nets
> once wrote.) There is alot of truth to that.
> What makes me tick is my desire to achieve and perhaps a bit of logic
> which others do not have.
> I feel in my bones that FLT cannot be proved from what the math
> community worships as the finite integers.
> The finite integers never end. There is no largest finite
> integers--which in a logical sense is saying that there is a largest
> finite integer, namely infinity. That goes directly into saying that
> the infinite integers and the finite integers are one and the same. I
> am sure that since FLT has counterexamples Dik gave the best so far,
> that by impeccable logic says that there cannot exist a proof of FLT
> for finite integers. The best that can be done for FLT is to find an
> actual Natural number counterexample or to admit this statement that
> FLT is Goedel undecideable for finite integers because the definition
> of finite integers contradicts the statement of the equation since
> a,b,c and n are infinite. The definition of integers, of whole numbers
> rubs with the generality of FLT.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> EMAIL
> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 09:57:09 EDT
> To: Ludwig.P...@Dartmouth.EDU
> Subject: Re: Riemannian (elliptic,spherical) geom. are infinite
> integers
> Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem
> In-Reply-To: <CEEM7...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>
> In article <CEEM7...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> you write:
> > The wedding of Lobachevskian geometry to the set of negative >numbers has not occurred yet. The big drawback is to reconfigure >the complex numbers augmented onto the negative numbers. And >also the negative numbers have infinite strings to the le,
> right. >What a mess.
> You said it: what a mess. I want to point out that you don't need the
> negative numbers to motivate complex numbers since in order for 1 to
> have 3 cube roots you need to introduce complex numbers anyway. In
> fact, historically the acceptance of complex numbers did not arise from
> the need to define square roots of negative numbers but from the desire
> to use Cartan's formula for the solutions of a cubic equation. Cartan's
> formula involved the taking of cube roots, and when there were three
> real solutions the only way to make them materialize from the formula
> was to use the complex cube roots.
> Finally, I shall repeat one thing about 10-adics that I had said
> earlier. The reason that the 10-adics "eventually return" to 0 is that
> the topology associated with the 10-adics is such that 10^n gets closer
> to zero as n get larger. This means that 100 is closer to 0 than it is
> to 1, 1000 is even closer, and so on. Hardly consistent with the
> familiar integers.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> EMAIL
> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 14:51:01 EDT
> To: Ludwig.P...@Dartmouth.EDU
> Subject: Re: Riemannian (elliptic,spherical) geom. are infinite
> integers
> Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem
> In-Reply-To: <CEEM7...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>
> In article <CEEM7...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> you write:
> > Riemannian (elliptic, spherical) geom. are infinite integers >unioned with the Reals. The infinite integers---infinite strings to >the left usually have an equal Real. For example, ....6667. is 1/3. >This is a most beautiful result for the meanig
> is that the positive >numbers when they go out there really far, they
> come back onto >themselves. This is
> This is not true, because you are using two different metrics.
> ....66667 is the limit of 7, 67, 6667, ... under the 10-adics metric.
> 0.3333... is the limit of 0.3, 0.33, 0.333, ... under the classical
> metric.
> The closure of the integers and the terminating decimals in the 10-adic
> and classical metrics respectively are similar in some respect (as you
> mentioned, They both have a reciprocal of 3, for example), but there is
> no duality between them.
> A better analogy would be that, if you somehow turned the integers
> Ňinside outÓ so that they then resembled a Cantor set, then if you
> follow a convergent sequence in this Cantor set you can get the
> equivalent of Real numbers - sometimes. The number ....6666667 is not
> Ňfar outÓ from the finite integers if you use the 10-adic metric. And
> that number is not somewhere between 0 and 1 either: the 10-adics
> cannot be ordered.
> To repeat: the 10-adics use different geometry, different ordering, and
> have different properties from the reals. They canŐt be matched in any
> useful manner (other than the canonical one-to-one mapping), and they
> canŐt be welded into one geometry with any degree of union.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem
> Subject: Re: Riemannian (elliptic,spherical) geom. are infinit
> Message-ID: <1993Oct5.152104.55592@gmuvax>
> From: wdo...@mason1.gmu.edu (Bill Dorsey)
> Date: 5 Oct 93 15:21:03 -0500
> References: <CEEM7...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
> Lines: 12
> In article <CEEM7...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> >[typical nonsensical blather deleted]
> >What a mess.
> At least he's got that right.
> Bill
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> EMAIL
> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 16:17:02 EDT
> To: Ludwig.P...@Dartmouth.EDU
> Subject: Re: Fermat Proof.
> Newsgroups: rec.puzzles,sci.math
> In-Reply-To: <CEAtF...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> References: <CE3qq...@umassd.edu> <CE6o2...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> <1993Oct2.1...@Princeton.EDU>
> Ludwig I do not think you realize what you have done. This is what you
> have done:
> 1) You have taken the sentence
> "There is no quadruple of positive integers (a,b,c,n) such that n>3 and
> a^n+b^n=c^n."
> 2) You have redefined positive integer (BTW I am really curious how the
> negative integers work).
> 3) You have disproved the sentence as set in quotation marks.
> This does NOT disprove the sentence with its original meaning. If it
> did, I could just as well redefine "=" to mean "<>" to get buttloads of
> solutions. Even if you can convince the world that the 10-adics are
> "better" than the usual integers (whatever that means) you will still
> not have disproved the sentence with its original meaning.
> If you cannot accept this logic (and I really don't understand how you
> cannot accept the logic although you haven't been able to so far) at
> least note that I have accepted this logic and should not be awarded
> the LP Wolfskehl Prize.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> From: wil...@zucchini.princeton.edu (William Schneeberger)
> Subject: Re: Infinite in both directions? (was: PERHAPS A CONSTRUCTIVE
> PROOF . . . )
> Message-ID: <1993Oct5.1...@Princeton.EDU>
> Organization: Princeton University
> References: <CE8uM...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> <1993Oct2.0...@Princeton.EDU> <28nio1$7...@paperboy.osf.org>
> Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 17:56:55 GMT
> Lines: 35
> In article <28nio1$7...@paperboy.osf.org> ka...@dme3.osf.org (Karl Heuer)
> writes:
> [random stuff about LP's numbers deleted]
> >However, this does lead to a question that I've been thinking about >lately. (For concreteness, I'll restrict myself to p=2 here, though >the question does generalize.) Is it possible to create a well >defined number system where each number is the sm
> of a 2-adic >number and a real number? Since the rationals are special
> cases of >both, it would be nice to have <m/n,-m/n> be 0 (and hence the
> >representation of a number as a doubly-infinite string of bits will >not be unique).
> [similar questions deleted]
> Not likely, depending on what you want. A continuos image of the
> 2-adics and the interval [0,1] identifying appropriate rationals must
> have a really weak topology.
> To prove this, note that a basic open set in the 2-adic metric of the
> rationals looks like
> {2^n a/b + u | a an integer, b an odd integer}
> and that this set is dense in the usual metric on the rationals.
> The inverse image of a closed set containing a nonempty open set must
> be a closed set (in the real-metric sense) containing a basic open set
> (in the 2-adic sense) of the rationals. Thus it must contain all of the
> rationals, and since the rationals are dense in both metrics, it must
> contain all of the reals and 2-adics.
> If we assume that the map is surjective (we may, as above, look at the
> image), this gives us that there are no proper closed sets containing
> nonempty open sets.
> --
> Will Schneeberger DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are
> not
> wil...@math.Princeton.EDU necessarily those of Ludwig Plutonium

Timba... attempts to steal Infinite Integers of AP's dating back to 1993, with out so much as a footnote by Timba.

Timba, all happy and full of glee to see that computers can retrieve 3334 then 33334 then 333334, etc, so happy and full of glee, but Timba failing to footnote that AP, Abian, Karl Heuer, Will Schneeburger and many many others worked on this in early 1990s, had gone over all of this in the 1990s.

Timba needs to footnote and credit that early 1990s work, or be called a stealer.

Not that AP is deeply worried. For the Infinite Integers are fake numbers when the true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers with an infinity borderline at 1*10^604. But what AP is worried about, is the rules against stealing, even the stealing of fake math. Timba is attempting to steal fake math, given in 1993. But AP cares about "all forms of stealing and cheating".

AP