Dan says don't be a victim of Math Con Artist Andrew Wiles who has a fake FLT proof, and could not even spot the mistake in Euler's FLT// Worse, Dr. Wiles could never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and too feeble to realize.

Google please put this thread into a Google Search of Dr. Andrew Wiles for he needs a Balanced Search page, not a top heavy in praise and no counterpoint. It would be like PBS Newshour to interview only Republicans and never Democrats.

On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 8:59:22 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

1-AP's 6th published book WORLD's FIRST VALID PROOF OF FERMAT's LAST THEOREM, and exposing the shoddy fake proof of Euler in exp3 and the con-artist fake Wiles offering.

AP is revisiting and revising his World's First Valid Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and giving a detailed account of the fake and con-artist offering by Andrew Wiles. Andrew Wiles cheated AP of the prizes awarded for the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. And this was a huge huge problem of science journalism publishing. Those that had access to publishing had a dreadful tendency of cheating scientists who had no direct access to publishing. So that Andrew Wiles achieved fame for FLT not on merits of truth, but only because he controlled as editor of a math journal out of Princeton Univ. All that AP had was Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics and other newsgroups. The old old way of doing science with publication became fraught with cheating and error and outright stealing of scientists working in the field without that access to publication.

And it was about 1993, when the Usenet and Internet started to Free the World, Give Liberty to scientists in the Field, who had no direct access to publishing and were prone to being stolen from and cheated of their work.

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 

Euler was shoddy with his fake Fermat's Last Theorem, FLT, Proof for exponent 3, shoddy and failed to give a proof. But Andrew Wiles is a con-artist fraud, more than just shoddy on FLT.

Euler made a mistake in his fake proof, for he assumed that x,y,z all three even numbers cannot be a solution set in FLT. As Wikipedia entry quoted below says "One of the three must be even, whereas the other two are odd."

And it is true Euler provided a proof of the case of exponent 3 provided two of x,y,z are odd and the last, even. However, that is not a proof for the entire exponent 3. Euler was shoddy in his proof for to be a mathematics proof, it has to be complete. And what Euler missed was the case in which all three x,y,z are even numbers.

Now we can see this important missed case of Euler by just running through a few numbers.

So we have

2^3 = 8 and 4^3 = 64 and we have 8 + 8 =/= 64 but far from it.
6^3 = 216, and we have 64 + 64 =/= 216, but we are narrowing the gap.

So let us jump out to 100^3 and 98^3 and we have
98^3 = 941,192
100^3 = 1,000,000
And instantly you can see and recognize that 98^3 + 98^3 far far exceeds 1,000,000 and telling you, that Euler cannot Assume a FLT in exp 3 must only be two odds with one even. Euler shoddily miss the fact that he had to prove no three even numbers for x,y,z can hold true for FLT.

Now, steps into the picture Andrew Wiles around 1993 with his elliptic curves attempt at proving FLT. And Andrew is reliant, is dependent on Euler's exponent 3 proof for his elliptic curves to work. Trouble is, well, Andrew Wiles seems to have no logical brains in even spotting the fact that Euler had no proof of FLT for exponent 3. Because to prover FLT is true in exponent 3, meant, Euler had to prove not only two odds with one even cannot be a solution, but meant that all three evens could not be a solution.

Instead, Euler shoddily overlooked the fact that he had to prove x,y,z, all three evens could not solve FLT.

And Andrew Wiles, being so logically dumb in mathematics, could not even spot the shoddy fake proof of Euler.

--- Quoting Wikipedia on Euler's error ridden FLT, where he never proves in the case of x, y, z integers all three being even ---

n = 3

Leonhard Euler by Jakob Emanuel Handmann.
Fermat sent the letters in which he mentioned the case in which n = 3 in 1636, 1640 and 1657. Euler sent a letter in which he gave a proof of the case in which n = 3 to Goldbach on 4 August 1753. Euler had the complete and pure elementary proof in 1760. The case n = 3 was proven by Euler in 1770. Independent proofs were published by several other mathematicians, including Kausler, Legendre, Calzolari, Lamé, Tait, Günther, Gambioli, Krey, Rychlik, Stockhaus, Carmichael, van der Corput, Thue, and Duarte.

Chronological table of the proof of n = 3
date result/proof published/not published work name
1621 none published Latin version of Diophantus's Arithmetica Bachet
around 1630 only result not published a marginal note in Arithmetica Fermat
1636, 1640, 1657 only result published letters of n = 3 Fermat
1670 only result published a marginal note in Arithmetica Fermat's son Samuel published the Arithmetica with Fermat's note.
4 August 1753 only result published letter to Goldbach Euler
1760 proof not published complete and pure elemental proof Euler
1770 proof published incomplete but elegant proof in Elements of Algebra Euler

As Fermat did for the case n = 4, Euler used the technique of infinite descent. The proof assumes a solution (x, y, z) to the equation x^3 + y^3 + z^3 = 0, where the three non-zero integers x, y, and z are pairwise coprime and not all positive. One of the three must be even, whereas the other two are odd. Without loss of generality, z may be assumed to be even.

Since x and y are both odd, they cannot be equal. If x = y, then 2x^3 = −z^3, which implies that x is even, a contradiction.

Since x and y are both odd, their sum and difference are both even numbers

2u = x + y
2v = x − y
where the non-zero integers u and v are coprime and have different parity (one is even, the other odd). Since x = u + v and y = u − v, it follows that

−z^3 = (u + v)^3 + (u − v)^3 = 2u(u^2 + 3v^2)
Since u and v have opposite parity, u^2 + 3v^2 is always an odd number. Therefore, since z is even, u is even and v is odd. Since u and v are coprime, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u^2 + 3v^2 is either 1 (case A) or 3 (case B).

Proof for Case A
In this case, the two factors of −z^3 are coprime. This implies that three does not divide u and that the two factors are cubes of two smaller numbers, r and s

2u = r^3
u^2 + 3v^2 = s^3
Since u^2 + 3v^2 is odd, so is s. A crucial lemma shows that if s is odd and if it satisfies an equation s^3 = u^2 + 3v^2, then it can be written in terms of two coprime integers e and f

s = e^2 + 3f^2
so that

u = e ( e^2 − 9f^2)
v = 3f ( e^2 − f^2)
Since u is even and v odd, then e is even and f is odd. Since

r3 = 2u = 2e (e − 3f)(e + 3f)
The factors 2e, (e–3f ), and (e+3f ) are coprime since 3 cannot divide e: If e were divisible by 3, then 3 would divide u, violating the designation of u and v as coprime. Since the three factors on the right-hand side are coprime, they must individually equal cubes of smaller integers

−2e = k^3
e − 3f = l^3
e + 3f = m^3
which yields a smaller solution k^3 + l^3 + m^3= 0. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution (x, y, z) was impossible.

Proof for Case B
In this case, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u^2 + 3v^2 is 3. That implies that 3 divides u, and one may express u = 3w in terms of a smaller integer, w. Since u is divisible by 4, so is w; hence, w is also even. Since u and v are coprime, so are v and w. Therefore, neither 3 nor 4 divide v..

On Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 11:18:48 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Dan says don't be a victim of Math Con Artist, Archimedes Plutonium...

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