132,849 Oxford Univ student victims by failed mathematicians Andrew Wiles, Dan Christensen, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen wrote
>May 28, 2021, 11:45 AM
>WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

Dan's warning is too late with 132,849 student victims of Andrew Wiles, a failed mathematician who could never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Google Search needs a fair Balanced Search on the con-artist mathematician Andrew Wiles, not a hornswaggle that matches his FLT hornswaggle
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 27, 2021, 6:59:25 PM (yesterday)



to
Andrew Wiles ranks as one of Google Search Engine hits as all time worst search engine hits, with the crazy praise of a mathematician so lacking in logical understanding of math, he fails to even give a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And Andrew Wiles has no proof of Fermat's Last Theorem just a silly hornswaggle. For AP gave the world's first proof of FLT by 1993 and written in his book 6th published book.

What search engine hits on Andrew Wiles should be discussing is how a fame and fortune crackpot of mathematics can dupe the world with a fakery math because Andrew was the head of a math journal at Princeton Univ and being the head of that journal allowed him to publish con-art fakery math, and the rest of the world unable to evaluate such a ugly incomprehensible 100 page nonsense. Then Andrew goes and gets a knighthood to further bury the fact that Andrew is a failed mathematician whose only aim is fame and fortune.

World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Why, Andrew Wiles is so dumb, so very dumb about FLT, that the fool could never even spot the Error of Euler's alleged proof of FLT for exponent 3. Wiles could never even spot that Euler failed to prove exp 3 for when A,B,C are all even numbers. Which is the hardest part of proving FLT for exp 3. So, Andrew Wiles is not a mathematician but a buffoon con-artist of math-- proof-- he cannot even do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus..

_Google Search for a Balanced report_ of Andrew Wiles, where not every hit is a Wiles genius when in truth Wiles is a math failure who cannot even do a geometry and hence valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

So what explains the millions of hits of Google Search on Wiles as "all praise yet the failure of Wiles in doing such simple correcting of error filled math and logic. Wiles is so dumb in geometry that he still thinks a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when in truth it is a oval, and Wiles has never corrected but uses the error filled Boole Logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. And Wiles even uses the Reductio Ad Absurdum proof method which is a False method of proof for any math proof, including FLT, which is the reason Wiles offering cannot prove the Generalized FLT as noted in AP's book on FLT.

In fact, Wiles offering of FLT as a proof has never gone anywhere in solving other mathe problems related to FLT such as Generalized FLT, but that is why Wiles is so much a con-artist-- unable to publically state what all mathematicians have seen-- Wiles's FLT has no ramifications on other math.

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.

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).
Length: 156 pages

File Size: 1503 KB
Print Length: 156 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQKGW4M
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

27th published book

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T

If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)

And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F

Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Length: 86 pages

Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•

Wiles cannot correct math nor logic because he fails in both math and logic, yet Google Search means on perpetuating a failure like Andrew Wiles in academic circles.

Google-- give Andrew Wiles a BALANCED SEARCH ENGINE hits, not this--- oh oh he is such a goodie genius.



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 19May2021. 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". 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?

On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 1:00:22 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Students victims of AP's fake math and science. Don't be his next victim.

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

AP is a malicious internet troll who wants only to mislead and confuse you. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives.

Note that AP will often delete his bizarre and hateful postings when his lies are called out, only to repost identical ones moments later in a NEW thread.

Readers should, of course, judge for themselves. In AP's OWN WORDS here:

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.”
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]"
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

"Are you the same Archimedes Plutonium being mentioned on this old blog post?:

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/31/where-have-all-the-usenet-kooks-gone/

If so, then wow! You've basically wasted your life in a sense.

I suppose in another sense the stamina is quite impressive and you might get logged in some future internet historian's notes on this kind of behaviour (is that the goal, a kind of thin residual abstract immortality?).

John Gabriel can only fantasize about earning such a historical footnote at this point. He'd be better off trying to save up for a module or two at the Open University, but you can only help people that want to be helped I guess"