On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 8:46:46 AM UTC+2, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> This is an elementary proof probably number 5 about why 2^{1/3} isn't any existing real number (except in very stupid and hollow minds), based on the truthiness of Fermat's last theorem
> *********************************************
>
> Q: How could many historical figures in science easily cheat the innocent human minds by fabricating a huge volume of so unnecessary business mathematics from this insolvable Diophantine equation: n^3=10^3m+10^3m?
>
> First - Consider this insolvable Diophantine Equation:
>
> Original Link: https://www.quora.com/How-could-many-historical-figures-in-science-easily-cheat-the-innocent-human-minds-by-fabricating-a-huge-volume-of-so-unnecessary-business-mathematics-from-this-insolvable-Diophantine-equation-n-3-10-3m-10-3m/answer/Bassam-Karzeddin-1
>
>
> ($ n^3 = 10^{3m} + 10^{3m} $) Eqn. (1)
>
> Where ($n, m$) are natural numbers
>
> Of course, for any beginner in number theory, one must realize that this actually about Fermat’s last theorem that had been well-proved since centuries (about a cubic case only)
>
> So, one realizes so easily that no existing integers ($n, m$) that can strictly satisfy any existing solution, and the whole problem is completely finished
>
> But many well-known and alleged historical figures in the history of mathematics would never let it go so easily in order to make very huge volumes of so unnecessary business mathematics that also perpetuate them, where they simply hide behind useless and so many meaningless (decisions or equivalently definitions and concepts, etc) that are never any true discovery but very little and so exposed mind games that apparently consistent whereas the very bitter fact it is absolutely contradicting so elementary and truly discovered mathematics
>
> Such many meaningless concepts or decisions are (Infinity, imaginary numbers, limits, convergence, Cauchy sequences, Euler’s unfinished sums, Dedekind cuts, intermediate theorems, Newton’s endless approximations numerical methods, etc, etc), where all those are purely non-mathematics terms but APPROXIMATIONS, that are irrelevant to pure mathematics
>
> So what was the problem then? And how did they claim so many meaningless integer solutions? Wonder!
>
> Divide Eqn. (1) by $ 10^{3m} $, you get the following insolvable eqn.
> $ \frac {n}{10^m} \neq \sqrt[3]{2} $, where the natural number $ n $ consists of $(m + 1)$ sequence digits in 10-base number system
>
> So, we have an endless approximation for our alleged real number $ \sqrt[3]{2} $ as solutions for this insolvable Diophantine in Eqn. (1) as below:
>
> $ \sqrt[3]{2} \neq \frac {12}{10}$, since our alleged real algebraic number is irrational but the later decimal representation is forever and always a rational number only, no matter if you can fill the milky way galaxy with your obtained digits, similarly:
>
> $ \sqrt[3]{2} \neq \frac {125992104989}{100000000000}$,
>
> Please don’t let the decimal notation blinds you completely from seeing the mere simple fact since it is only a notation of division (and not any fundamental operation in mathematics) , where then every irrational number (that is not constructible) is ultimately expressed as an approximation ratio generally in rational numbers as described above, and there isn’t any other way so unfortunately
>
> But since those majority of alleged real positive “non-constructible” irrational numbers require strictly a ratio of two natural numbers (each with endless digits), where integers with endless digits strictly don’t exist nor can be defined and also impossible to obtain, hence that ratio for those alleged real positive “non-constructible” irrational numbers strictly doesn’t exist at all, and unlike the case of positive real constructible numbers that always represent an exact existing distance relative to a chosen unity
> In short, the real number is an existing distance (and nothing else)
> So, what actually is it? See the wolfram alpha (they are experts in those many fictional alleged real numbers), since they can provide you with many digits and certainly not all at all
>
> https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5E3+%3D+2 (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5E3+%3D+2)
>
> Hence, $ \sqrt[3]{2} = nothing $ as per our original insolvable Diophantine Eqn. (1)
> So, it is purely a fictional number (that can never represent exactly any existing physical described geometrical distance as the case with real constructible numbers say randomly $ \sqrt{3} $, which is exactly the largest diagonal of a cube with unity side (based on a theoretical level)
> And indeed Wantzel had rigorously proved in 1837 that $ \sqrt[3]{2} $ is impossible construction, but like the old Greeks they had missed the true reason of such impossibility of such constructions, which is “existence”
> Had they understood the true reason of non-existence of such alleged real numbers, then the Greeks would have never raised their three well-known impossible construction problems, but so, unfortunately, they didn’t know nor did the mathematicians and scientists up to this date (June, 26th, 2018) know the real true very simple reason behind such long-standing puzzles in mathematics
>
> And you may guess correctly now about the other alleged real complex roots that are strictly fabricated from this real “non-existing” root for a polynomial ($ x^3 = 2 $)
>
> Those complex roots are also purely fictional solutions (see my answer about refutations of imaginary numbers as well)
> And since those very serious issues are generally forbidden by official establishments in mathematics, they have to be PUBLISHED publicly first for mainstream public mathematicians or journalists to investigate them in depth in order to free the human minds from well-established fictions
>
> © Copyrights, 2018
> June 26th, 2018
> Regards
> Bassam Karzeddin
>
> ********************************************
> *Note that the same above proof was also published for the vast majorities of idiots academic mathematicians and alike here on sci. math much earlier (in my posts) since I usually don't trust the (ability, nobility and honesty) of any official establishments or moderated sites for mathematics into those very elementary issues for so many other well-exposed reasons
>
> So, let us fix and document this natural shameful deeds for natural true history of mathematics and the true knowledge
>
> The message for the specialists isn't to understand the proof since that is out of the question that is too shameful to say this need any peer-review, but to better understand yourself in depth and further details, and let others do understand the same, please
>
> BKK