Is Fred Jeffries replacing Andrew Wiles Oxford Univ. math failure?? For at least Jeffries can ask the question which is slant cut of cone -- oval or ellipse, while all that Andrew Wiles can do in math is Run Andrew Hide Andrew Wiles the pathetic math geometry failure. Why even, any High School student in England and drop a coin inside a folded up paper cone and see there is only 1 axis of symmetry and the slant cut is a oval, never ellipse.
>
> But England likes to harbor academic failures like Andrew Wiles, for they harbor George Boole with his ludicrous 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, for Boole and Jevons screwed up OR with AND and mixed and turned them around, too stupid to realize AND truth table has to be TTTF not TFFF.
>
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > > *
> > > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > earle
> > > > > *
> > > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > http ----------
> > > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
>
> So where is Gerald Edgar failure of math propose where the missing 2nd axis is hiding?? Is it running and hiding along with the math failure Gerald Edgar??
>
> 1--Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
> >
> > Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> > Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
> >
> > 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> > 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> > 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> > 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> >
> >
> > Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> > John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.

I pity all the math students at Oxford Univ under the con-artist Andrew Wiles-- for he has not even the dignity and decency to admit slant cut of cone is never the ellipse-- instead is an oval. And every student of the phony Andrew Wiles can roll up a sheet of paper into a cone and drop a coin inside and prove to themselves that a cone and oval have 1 axes of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2. Sure, slant cut of cylinder is ellipse, but not cone. And probably the failure of math Andrew Wiles could never begin to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. For the cad is more interested in fame and fortune than in what is true mathematics.

Actually Roland Dreier in August of 1993 had a full very short proof of FLT, but he just did not recognize it. And of course Andrew Wiles never had a proof of FLT other than his con-art chicanery of a mindless wreck with his fake-proof.

Roland's proof is logically this-- every time you can have A^x + B^y = C^z, then you can break that down into being the addition of 2+2=2x2.

The only mistake Roland made, is that he thought he had to show that 2+2= 2x2 had to be installed into A^3 + B^3 = C^3.

No, Roland, you need not have to install 2+2= 2x2 = 4 into exponent 3, but simply just say there is no N+N+N = NxNxN.

So, just a hoopla of logic, stopped Roland from recognizing he had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem by August of 1993. Allowing for the con-artist Andrew Wiles to permeate his fake FLT.


On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 11:55:23 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> From: dre...@jaffna.berkeley.edu (Roland Dreier)
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Subject: Re: 1 page proof of FLT; this is what Fermat
> had in mind when he wrote "margin to small".
> Fermat reasoned that the proof was so simple that
> others would easily rediscover it.
> Date: 13 Aug 93 13:32:17
> Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
> Lines: 12
> Message-ID: (DREIER.93A...@jaffna.berkeley.edu>
> References: (CBpno...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>
> In article (CBpno...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Ludwig.P...@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> For the case n=3 suppose there exists a P-triple
> which satisfies FLT. Then there has to exist a smallest
> P-triple for n=3. If true implies there exists a number N
> which has the property N+N+N=NxNxN=M.
>
> Not that I expect a coherent answer, but let me ask anyway:
> why does this follow? In other words, given positive
> integers a,b,c with a^3+b^3=c^3, how do I get a positive
> integer N with N+N+N=N*N*N ?
>
> --
> Roland "Mr. Excitement" Dreier dre...@math.berkeley.edu
>
>
> Answering Roland Dreier FLT post of 1993, and why 2+2 = 2*2 as AdditiveMultiplicative Identity AMI proves FLT overall
>
> From: dre...@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: (DREIER.93A...@durban.berkeley.edu>
> References: (CBxp0...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> (24s7de$c...@outage.efi.com>
> (CByoq...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> (1993Aug18.1...@Princeton.EDU>
>
> In article (1993Aug18.1...@Princeton.EDU>
> kin...@fine.princeton.edu (Kin Chung) writes:
> In article (CByoq...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Ludwig.P...@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 dre...@math.berkeley.edu
>
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 21:32:46 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: My 1993 basis vector pure algebra proof of Regular FLT Re: AP's 2014
> proof of Generalized FLT Fermat's Last Theorem and proof of Regular FLT as a
> corollary thereof//updated 2019 for more clarity
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 05:32:47 +0000
>
> My 1993 basis vector pure algebra proof of Regular FLT Re: AP's 2014 proof of Generalized FLT Fermat's Last Theorem and proof of Regular FLT as a corollary thereof//updated 2019 for more clarity
>
> Ever since 1993, I have been making proof attempts for a Pure Algebra Proof of FLT. My first attempt was the specialness of 4 with 4 = 2+2 = 2*2, arguing that exp2 has solutions due to the fact of this specialness of 4. Now if another integer had a property of N+N+N = N*N*N = N^3, the argument would go that this special number allows for a solution set in exp3. Similarly for higher exponents.
>
> To this day I maintain the logic of that is correct and is a Pure Algebra proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. For you can consider that special number as a basis vector of a exponent allowing for a solution set.
>
> But as the years rolled by, came 2014 and sort of tired of arguing the basis vector proof. I took a plunge and dive at proving Generalized FLT and did so in 2014, and lo and behold to my surprise, a easy proof of Regular FLT comes out as a corollary. Ever since 2014, I sort of bypassed or mildly forgotten the basis vector pure algebra proof.
>
> But I think I should resurrect it. The foolish math professors of my time just will never understand a basis vector proof-- the simpleton fools cannot even accept the fact they were misguided for 2 thousand years on the ellipse for it is never a conic. So can anyone expect such fools to have a sensible idea of a proof by basis vector? Of course not.


>
>
>
> My 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)