-1st page first 5 hits for Oxford's Andrew Wiles, under Google Search "Andrew Wiles plutonium", should be on 1st page of search list for "Andrew Wiles" as a CounterPoint to the 5 million hits that are just pure sugar coated gloss. A counterpoint revealing the other side of the issue of Fermat's Last Theorem where Andrew failed with a fakery proof, yet loves to bask in the sunlight of fame and fortune but not the truth of mathematics. In fact Dr. Wiles was a math failure, not a accomplicia of math, for Andrew was so dumb in mathematics it never occurred to him that the major problem of math was a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And it is doubtful that Andrew was even aware that calculus was geometry, let alone give a geometry proof of FTC.

Web results
Math Con-Artist Andrew Wiles with his fake FLT, for he lusts for fame ...

to Plutonium Atom Universe. Math Con-Artist Andrew Wiles with his fake FLT, for he lusts for fame and fortune but never the truth of mathematics. The nitwit ...

3) AP proved Fermat's Last Theorem in 1991-1993 while Andrew Wiles has a ....

1-Difference between con-artist John Gabriel and Andrew Wiles ...

Andrew Wiles is not a stealer of mathematics, but lusts for fame and fortune the same as John Gabriel. And in the case of ... by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The above was the 1st page of "Andrew Wiles plutonium", but no-one other than myself is going to make such a search.

Google Search is JOURNALISM, but bad journalism for it needs a COUNTERPOINT in Andrew Wiles search. It needs at least one of the above 5 to show up on first page of "Andrew Wiles" as Counterpoint, because he was not a success in math but a failure and presides over Oxford that teaches error filled science, entrenched worthless error filled science such as 2 OR 1 = 3, not the true 2 AND 1 = 3, teaches Calculus with never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and teaches physics with no-one asking the question, is the muon the real electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law and where AP says the 0.5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole.

So Wiles is keeping math education a cesspool nightmare of fake science with no chance of anyone there fixing the errors of science. And Google Search does not help the process of correction with their awful biased all sugar coated hits, no CounterPoint.

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 

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?

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.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 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)

y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

This thread should be on 1st page of a Google Search "Andrew Wiles".

Great Reason on why Oxford should adopt AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS and his geometry proof of Calculus.

More to add to AP's 11th book//World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author).

Medical Note: When I had liposarcoma cancer in 2016 resected, and going home, I had a surge in science discovery, the likes of which I had never experienced before. I even noticed the clarity in my head as I was doing math or physics problems, they flowed so much easier than other times in my life. For example, my second greatest science discovery came in 2016-2017, that the real true electron of atoms was the muon, not the 0.5MeV particle everyone else thought was the electron from J.J. Thomson in 1897 on forward. And my science output increased several fold, I would say 10 X better. So I wanted to know what caused this massive increase in clarity, and I came to the conclusion that in my cancer resection, that I lost one testicle tube, hence the entire testicle would disappear. This I blame for my increase in logical clarity, the toxic hormone flow and thoughts of sex was decreased. Then in June 1, 2021 I had a laser vaporization of 80% of my prostate gland, called a TURP, and that allows me to sleep at night without getting up and making 6-7 trips to the bathroom to piss. And in that TURP, I again decreased testosterone flow, and an increase in logical clarity. That increased logical clarity allowed me to finish my 151st book which is due to be published soon-- TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College. But I can see this increase in clarity in all my math and physics work at current moment. So that I have a 50% testicle and a fractional prostate. This increase in clarity is evident in posts like this, where I clarify even more than before.

I need to add this post and line of thought to my proof of FTC. For as it likely will turn out, my greatest contribution to mathematics will be to focus attention on the greatest math of our time-- the Calculus. And to logically summarize and evaluate what the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus does for mathematics.

Now I often tirade the Old Math community, not because I am vicious, but because my way of talking to them catches their attention, only, as I slap them in the face of attention, otherwise they continue to ignore and go their anti-math way. And my talk is not about egotism on my part, no, it is more about placing the History of Math in its true perspective, what people in 400 years from now, looking back will think and say about our time.

Most people know the history of calculus starts with Newton and Leibniz. But what they do not know, is there was never a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, until AP did the first in about 2015, yes, before my cancer surgery, so the old-man was still thinking sharp. But never as sharp as now in 2021.

So I must add on more and more to what is probably AP's single greatest work and achievement in mathematics. I say that not for bragging but for reality.

You see, if anyone were to ask a math professor from 1990 onwards, what is the most important math problem of the time 1990-2021, all of them would likely say Riemann Hypothesis. None of them would say Geometrical Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

1) Did every mathematician from Newton onwards know that Calculus was geometry? I do not know the answer to that. We can sort of see they knew because they tried to make the derivative as tangent line to a graph curve at a point. And they certainly knew the integral was area under graph curve. So why did no-one from Newton onwards demand a geometry proof of FTC? Was it just too difficult to even start to consider? Or likely, no mathematician from Newton onwards had a "good enough logical brain".

2) Somewhere in the 1800s, Cauchy introduced "limit analysis" to calculus all because he was sick and tired of his smartest students asking how 0 width rectangles summed up can be area for integral. Under this pallor of delusion that limits solve anything, then FTC was buried. So the most important math from Newton onwards was buried under a trashpile called "limit analysis". And other problems like the Riemann Hypothesis were seen as the "current fade/hype of distraction, distraction". Not knowing that if you gave a geometry proof of FTC, the Riemann Hypothesis is fakery and "dead on arrival"..


3) If Hilbert himself, had said, the number one problem in all of math was Geometry proof of FTC, then I would not be writing this because, well, it is likely that someone would have started down the road of a geometry proof of FTC, and probably, AP would not be the first discoverer of the geometry FTC. So maybe AP has Cauchy to thank and Hilbert to thank for leaving a geometry FTC all alone for AP to conquer.

4) So here is a big logical lesson to learn in all sciences. If your science community is barking up the wrong tree in what to focus on, then you will end up as failures of that science. For every 400 years has its one big crucial critical problem to solve. The Big Problem of that science, needs to be seen, be communicated, be tackled in hopes of solving. The big problem from Newton onwards was Geometry proof of FTC, and things like the Riemann Hypothesis were just trash, distraction and pollution in the road of mathematics.

5) Why Geometry Proof of Calculus was the greatest math problem from Newton onwards. Why? Because, calculus is indispensible for physics. We cannot throw out calculus, for we throw out physics also. And that means, like no other math proof, no other math problem, do we see the Consistency of all of mathematics put in play. We can throw out the Reals as the numbers of mathematics, before we throw out calculus. We can throw out negative numbers and 0, before we throw out calculus. We can throw out all so called functions, not polynomials, before we throw out calculus. In other words, Calculus is so precious to math and science, that Calculus alone, is a Consistency test over all parts of mathematics. And once you apply that consistency test, you literally have thrown out up to about 75% of Old Math as being fake garbage.

6) I have never seen a proof like the Geometry proof of FTC, for it is a gem of a proof that cleans up, and cleans out all of Mathematics. No other math proof to my knowledge cleaned up mathematics. In Old Math they had a erroneous logic called Reductio Ad Absurdum, and is a fake method of logic (see my logic book on RAA). But a geometry proof of FTC is a proof that works almost in the reverse of RAA. A geometry proof of FTC, throws out many aspects of Old Math that was assumed true, like Reals, like continuity, like a equation with 0 all alone on the rightside, like negative numbers, like a coordinate system with 4 quadrants. In proving geometry FTC, Old Math is given a complete scrub down and almost everything is challenged as being fake or acceptable.

To have a Geometry Proof of Calculus, the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, you cannot have Reals as the number system of mathematics, for Reals cannot provide empty space from one point to a next successor point. You need discrete geometry to have a Calculus, that means you throw out the Reals and have Decimal Grid Numbers be mathematics. For surely, everyone wants to keep Calculus. Next, you cannot have negative numbers or 0 be on one side of a equation in mathematics, for that causes there to be 4 quadrants in mathematics and Calculus can only exist when you have 1st Quadrant Only. Next, you need your integral to be a square or rectangle for the Y= x^2 is a square box, and is a polynomial and the derivative must be a cut-away of a square at a midpoint of one side of the square giving you a right-triangle. This means the only type of function in mathematics that allows for a Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is the Polynomial Function. That means, every type of function, if not already a polynomial must be translated into a polynomial over a specified interval.

All of these constraints must come together in order to have a Geometrical Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and we all must have a calculus.

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?

MATHOPEDIA-- Listing of 70 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. AP's 174th book.

Last revision was 28JUN2021.

Preface: I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds question of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Some of these can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series, but the entries keep changing and added on new, means I need to have a separate book for these fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for ages 18-19 Freshperson College, math textbook series, book 3
Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
Listing the Errors of Old Math, list of 1 to 50.

Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak, the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science because it has this "peak of calculus", unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete to its peak of calculus understanding. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes because the peak of math is going nowhere. And even though Physics will find new science such as how the proton toruses inside of atoms are configured in geometry, the geometry and calculus used in that configuration, that new science does not change nor does it create or require a new math peak/summit to handle the new physics.

Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.

Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.

The listings in Mathopedia of errors, mistakes and fakes is based on the idea that Calculus is the supreme achievement of all of mathematics for it is the essential math of doing Physics electricity and magnetism. And in order to have a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we must clean up and clean out all the mistakes, fakes and errors of Old Math, erst, we have no Calculus. So calculus is the consistency maker for the rest of all of mathematics.

1) Calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, a proof that derivative and integral are inverses of one another, just as addition and subtraction are inverses, or, multiplication and division are inverses. The only way to obtain a geometry proof is to clean up and clean out all the fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math, such as their fake numbers-- the Reals. Their fake definition of function allowing anything be a function. Their fakery of a continuum when even physics by 1900 with Planck onwards in Quantum Mechanics proving the Universe is discrete Space not a continuum, yet by 1900 onwards those in mathematics following the idiotic continuum in the Continuum Hypothesis with even more avid interest, when they should have thrown the continuum on a trashpile of shame.

2) The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers, because you have to need and apply one mechanism only to obtain the true numbers of mathematics-- Mathematical Induction. In Old Math they had just a tiny few intelligent mathematicians, Kronecker, who emerged from the gaggle crowd of kooks to notice that Naturals all come from one single mechanism-- Mathematical Induction. But Old Math never had a crowd of mathematicians with logical brains to say-- all our numbers need to come from the one mechanism of Mathematical Induction.

3) The true numbers of math have empty space between successor and predecessor numbers. For example the 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . . , 9.8, 9.9, 10..0. Where no numbers exist between .1 and .2, etc. Only discrete numbers allow us to give a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

4) All functions of mathematics must be a polynomial, and if not a polynomial, convert the offering to a polynomial over a specific interval.

5) Space is discrete and all lines in space are strings of attached straight lines.

6) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
We can still keep the name "curve" as long as we know it is a string of fine tiny straightline segments strung together in what looks like a smooth curve. If curves exist, then the Calculus in Fundamental Theorem of Calculus cannot be proven and thus Calculus does not exist. We all know that we have to have Calculus, and so we throw out onto the trash pile the curve of Old Math. And this is reasonable because starting in 1900 in physics there arose the Quantum Mechanics of Space being discrete. And a discrete space has no continuum, has no curve of Old Math.

7) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.

8) Limit analysis was an insane fakery in Old Math, concocted because Old Math needed the excuse of some proof, so they invented the monster con-artist trick that a limit analysis would divert the fact it is no proof at all, but a Non Sequitur argument. Limit analysis is juju totem witchcraft dance around a desire to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Just as idiotic as dancing around a sick person of a virus is going to cure the person.

9) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.

10) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.

11) Calculus needed a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but Old Math never provided such, instead they provided some stupid Limit argument. The reason for the creation of the Limit disaster was that the French mathematician Cauchy got sick and tired of hearing his smartest students complain that the width of rectangles in the integral are 0 width, and those smart students could not, for the life of them understand how a rectangle with 0 width has any interior area. So instead of the math community denouncing the limit, instead they elevated the fakery.

12) Further in Calculus, they knew you could do a transform of coordinate points to turn any function into a polynomial function, a method of Lagrange.. However, they in Old Math were too stupid to take this transform to its highest form-- all functions are polynomial functions and only polynomial functions. When you learn that-- the derivative and integral of any and every function of math is a snap breeze simple and easy.

13) With the error filled 4 quadrants, when it should be 1st Quadrant Only, we have Trigonometry's sine and cosine with the fakery of sinusoid wave when it never was that. The sine and cosine are semicircle waves, and no sinusoid wave exists.

14) There is only one Geometry-- Euclidean, and there is not three distinct geometries of elliptical Riemannian or hyperbolic Lobachevsky. Those two are just duals that make up Euclidean.

15) Torus, volume and surface area formulas in Old Math are all screwed up and in error because they imagined bending a cylinder to form a torus. This brings back memories, for I had to do a percentage formula, since I could not follow the fake way of bending a cylinder. Where 78.5% of Disc Torus (pi)R^2h - (pi)r^2h is the volume of Circle Torus, and 78.5% of Disc Torus 2(pi)Rh + 2(pi)rh + 2 ((pi)R^2 - (pi)r^2) is the surface area of Circle Torus..

16) Ellipse is never a single cone slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut. Although you do get an ellipse from double cones of this configuration <> which in Old Math was the hyperbola, but two hyperbolas joined together to form a ellipse.

17) All Parallelepipeds reduced to a Rectangular Box by making 2 cuts and pastes. Volume of the original Parallelepiped is simply a*b*c of the Rectangular Box length*width*depth formed. Old Math never understood that a precise definition of Parallelepiped has two kinds, the parallelepiped that has 90 degree angles and the parallelepiped that has no 90 degree angle.