Andrew Wiles math con-artist Oxford Univ with his fake and nonsense Fermat's Last Theorem, FLT, why Andrew was so dumb in mathematics and chasing after a proof of FLT, he failed to notice that Euler's so called proof of FLT for the special case of exponent 3 was itself a failed and flawed proof. Yet he never notices Euler's flawed and invalid proof and goes ahead and uses Euler's invalid argument in his own tripe FLT.

Andrew has the affliction of most math professors-- they want fame and glory and fortune in math, and never satisfied with just teaching math, but fame and glory from offering wastrel garbage and calling it a proof. Andrew does not care about math truth, he just wants fame and fortune.

And this is why I keep harping and harping that all students wanting to become a math professor must be required to take two formal courses of Logic so that they have some exposure to how to "think straight and think clear".

AP proved the Fermat's Last Theorem back in 1993, long before Andrew Wiles popped up with his sham nonsense. And the only reason that Wiles got attention with his con art fakery, is that he is a math professor at Princeton at the time and controled a math journal, so that no matter how sick his proof argument was-- he was going to publish, come hell, come high water. See AP's 1993 proof below, published in 2019.

Andrew Wiles is a failure of mathematics for he seeks fame and fortune in math, not the truth of math. He apparently cannot find a honest bone in his body to admit slant cut of Cone is a oval, never the ellipse for a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry yet a cone and oval both have 1 axis of symmetry.

Yet there Dr. Wiles is at Oxford Univ, brainwashing more young students that a ellipse is a conic section. Wiles grew up in the era of Old Math where you con art math by publishing the nonsense and then reward those who agree by publishing their nonsense, and that was the end of it, where no-one debated the nonsense. But Wiles never realized the Internet would bounce his sham proof and highlight his ignorance and corruption of mathematics.
Wiles came at the end of an era of country club mathematics where you agree to Wiles garbage and he rewards you with publishing your nonsense in the journal he controled.

Wiles could never prove the most important math theorem of the 20th and 21st century-- the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. For heavens sake how could he-- the imp cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. Run Andrew Wiles, hide Andrew Wiles.

My 3rd published book:
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse..

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, 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)

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) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.

Preface: Truthful 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).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)

Yes, Andrew Wiles is a complete math failure and he is emblematic of mathematicians of the 20th century-- earn a degree in math yet never understand nor study LOGIC, as is seen not only by Andrew Wiles but his corrupt buddies of Terence Tao, John Stillwell, Thomas Hales, Ken Ribet, Ruth Charney, Roger Penrose who to this very day still abide by Boole & Jevons Logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, never having one logical marble of reasoning in their entire brain yet polluting the minds of youngsters with their failed math. So stupid in logic that they never understood Boole & Jevons mixed up and screwed up AND for OR, that the truth table of AND is actually TTTF not TFFF, and yet, all their math understanding is under the illusion of TFFF. Andrew Wiles should be a name that never came up in math history, for who wants to know about a failure who works under a logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and such an idiot of Fermat's Last Theorem that the idiot of math Andrew Wiles never spotted the error of Euler of his exponent 3 alleged proof. Andrew Wiles amounts to nothing in math, except to see how bad one can become in math.

Lill..................varsti oled sa manala mees...........Ma arvan, et me ei pea kaua ootama..................

Head päeva !!!!!!!!!!!

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 1:15:48 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Yes, Andrew Wiles is a complete math failure and he is emblematic of mathematicians of the 20th century-- earn a degree in math yet never understand nor study LOGIC, as is seen not only by Andrew Wiles but his corrupt buddies of Terence Tao, John Stillwell, Thomas Hales, Ken Ribet, Ruth Charney, Roger Penrose who to this very day still abide by Boole & Jevons Logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, never having one logical marble of reasoning in their entire brain yet polluting the minds of youngsters with their failed math. So stupid in logic that they never understood Boole & Jevons mixed up and screwed up AND for OR, that the truth table of AND is actually TTTF not TFFF, and yet, all their math understanding is under the illusion of TFFF. Andrew Wiles should be a name that never came up in math history, for who wants to know about a failure who works under a logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and such an idiot of Fermat's Last Theorem that the idiot of math Andrew Wiles never spotted the error of Euler of his exponent 3 alleged proof. Andrew Wiles amounts to nothing in math, except to see how bad one can become in math.

Andrew Wiles math con-artist Oxford Univ with his fake and nonsense Fermat's Last Theorem, FLT, why Andrew was so dumb in mathematics and chasing after a proof of FLT, he failed to notice that Euler's so called proof of FLT for the special case of exponent 3 was itself a failed and flawed proof. Yet he never notices Euler's flawed and invalid proof and goes ahead and uses Euler's invalid argument in his own tripe FLT.

Andrew has the affliction of most math professors-- they want fame and glory and fortune in math, and never satisfied with just teaching math, but fame and glory from offering wastrel garbage and calling it a proof. Andrew does not care about math truth, he just wants fame and fortune.

And this is why I keep harping and harping that all students wanting to become a math professor must be required to take two formal courses of Logic so that they have some exposure to how to "think straight and think clear".

AP proved the Fermat's Last Theorem back in 1993, long before Andrew Wiles popped up with his sham nonsense. And the only reason that Wiles got attention with his con art fakery, is that he is a math professor at Princeton at the time and controled a math journal, so that no matter how sick his proof argument was-- he was going to publish, come hell, come high water. See AP's 1993 proof below, published in 2019.

Andrew Wiles is a failure of mathematics for he seeks fame and fortune in math, not the truth of math. He apparently cannot find a honest bone in his body to admit slant cut of Cone is a oval, never the ellipse for a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry yet a cone and oval both have 1 axis of symmetry.

Yet there Dr. Wiles is at Oxford Univ, brainwashing more young students that a ellipse is a conic section. Wiles grew up in the era of Old Math where you con art math by publishing the nonsense and then reward those who agree by publishing their nonsense, and that was the end of it, where no-one debated the nonsense. But Wiles never realized the Internet would bounce his sham proof and highlight his ignorance and corruption of mathematics.
Wiles came at the end of an era of country club mathematics where you agree to Wiles garbage and he rewards you with publishing your nonsense in the journal he controled.

Wiles could never prove the most important math theorem of the 20th and 21st century-- the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. For heavens sake how could he-- the imp cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. Run Andrew Wiles, hide Andrew Wiles.

My 3rd published book:
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse..

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, 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)

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) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.

Preface: Truthful 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).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)