For thirty years, 30 years, AP has been at it on Fermat's Last Theorem. It was 1991, that I saw that 2+2=2x2=4 was the heart and crux of the proof of FLT. And it was a hard and bumpy ride in those 30 years, with much fanfare and intrigue. And where the fame and fortune of proving FLT by AP was stolen from him, stolen by Andrew Wiles. But I am not sorry of that stealing because in the meantime, I had far far more important work and discoveries to do, than to claim back my proof and success of FLT. But now, here in 2021, some 30 years later, I am not so generous, not so lenient, and now I want my proof to have its rightful historical place mark. FLT was never proven by Andrew Wiles and his alleged proof is a massive joke. And a measure of how dumb and a joke that Wiles offering was, is easily seen in asking Wiles, how his offering proves that exponent 2 has solutions. Ask Wiles how his technique or mechanism of elliptic curves shows A^2+B^2=C^2 has solutions but not A^3+B^3=C^3 with no solutions. You see, Andrew Wiles has few logical marbles to ever be doing a mathematics proof, let alone FLT. Let alone asking Andrew to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP reclaims his "world's first valid proof of Fermat's Last Theorem".

More to add to AP's 6th book//World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author). A scientist, when he does a math proof or a physics theory, none of them.

More to add to AP's 6th book//World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author).

A scientist, when he does a math proof or a physics theory, none of them leave you, none leaves you alone after a while. All of them continually nag you and the nagging never goes away. Such is the case of doing science. And sometimes in this nagging a new twist enters the picture. I have found this to be the case of nearly all my science work. Every time I write something on those discoveries, it is as if a new twist is bursting to come forth.

So on FLT which I proved in early 1990s, as early as 1991, my argument was that of a Basis Vector of Algebra is the reason no exponent 3 or higher has a solution. Of course, there are ample solutions in exponent 2 and more so in exponent 1.

But the new twist that dawned on me, is that a proof of FLT, should involve exp 1 and exp 2 and then exp3 and higher, as a mathematical induction proof.

Maybe we need not start at exp 1, for that is arithmetic A + B = C. Then exp 2 is the Pythagorean Theorem. So we have two starting true cases of the General FLT. For exp 2 we have the basis vector 2+2 = 2x2 =4, where we have a number that is equal under add and multiply. Now for exponent 1 we could say the basis vector is all of Arithmetic. Now for exponent 3, we can have no n+n+n = nxnxn = m, same for higher exponents.

So what I missed in my book was to emphatically suggest that a proof of FLT has to fully incorporate the exponents that do have solutions. Every mathematician before AP , looks at FLT in isolation of exponent 2, and by doing so, cut off their chances of finding a valid proof of FLT. Because the moment your mind asks the question, why no solutions in exp 3 but myriad solutions in exp 2, forces the mind to think that the valid proof has to incorporate in its proof, a mechanism, a mechanism the spans and bridges between exponent 2 and exponent 3, fully incorporate the picture that exp 2 has solutions not exp 3. And that then puts the onus of the mind to look at a Basis Vector where add is the very same as multiply. So that solutions are metaphorically analogous to building concrete block buildings and the concrete blocks are the basis vector.

Every Pythagorean theorem solution in Natural Counting Numbers has its basic building block of 2 and 4, of 2+2= 2x2= 4. You can analyze every P-triple and find it is constructed of 2 and 4. Whereas every exp 3 is wanting a building block for all possible solutions, yet no numbers (not even 0 for the n and m have to be different) have the ability to be n+n+n = nxnxn = m.

So I need to emphatically state in my 6th published book, that a proof of FLT, or even Generalized FLT should look at all exponents and not isolate-out exp2 from the higher exponents.

That is extremely important point of logic, that we tend to shove off to the side and want to focus all our attention on just a part of the puzzle, a part of the problem, separate from the larger problem. We tend to separate, when we should look at the big picture to give us guidance and clues as to the mechanism of the proof.

So, actually, FLT was even absurdly more simple as a math problem and proof than most every other math proof in recorded history. FLT is more simple to prove than even the Pythagorean theorem is to prove. Because this is a proof of FLT. Proof: 2+2= 2x2= 4 allows us to build solutions in exp 2, but there does not exist a n+n+n = nxnxn = m so no solutions ever in exp 3 and the same argument for exp 4 and higher. QED

Totally simple proof is FLT, and if mathematicians had asked, what, ultimately what allows solutions in exp2 and said, well, well, 2+2=2x2 is the building block of all solutions in exp2.

No, my proofs in math and my theories in science and physics will never leave me alone, even if I tried. I can picture myself at my deathbed, and even there, one of my science theories will invade my mind as a die. Such, is the nature of a world of superdeterminism in an Atom Totality.

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 

Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 7, 2021, 12:01 PM
to sci.math
Now everyone is free to chose who they want to believe, do you want to believe Andrew Wiles with his 100 pages or more of math that is everything including the kitchen sink of mathematics thrown at the Fermat's Last Theorem FLT ? Where most people cannot even understand the 1st page-- what the hell is going on. Or, do you want to chose AP's proof of FLT where he proves it in a sentence that everyone in the entire world, even in Grade School can understand, that 2+2 = 2x2 = 4 gives solutions to Pythagorean theorem and A^2 + B^2 = C^2, but if you want solutions for A^3+B^3 = C^3 or higher, you need a special number of n+n+n = nxnxn = m for n and m in exponent 3, yet there exists no such special numbers n and m to satisfy that, hence, FLT.

So, take your pick, do you believe in B.S. of Wiles with his obnoxious over 100 pages of cluttered together phony baloney mess argument. Wherein Andrew Wiles was so stupid on FLT, he failed to even notice that Euler had **no proof** in exponent 3 of FLT because Euler forgot he had to prove the case of where A,B, C in A^3 +B^3= C^3 were even numbers. Euler forgot he had to prove that; and instead assumed there was no three even Counting numbers were no solution. But Andrew Wiles, the math failure he is, never even noticed that Euler had no proof in exponent 3. So, do you believe in a Andrew Wiles 100 page "hornswaggle mess" of elliptic curve argument. Or do you believe in AP when he says the reason 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 is because 2+2 = 2x2 = 4, the only two counting numbers with that feature of addition is the same as multiplication.

Now Andrew Wiles was looking for a proof of FLT in early 1990s, as early as 1993 when AP notified the world public that AP had already proven FLT, for I proved it in 1991, but Andrew Wiles had no proof of FLT, even after 1993..

And there was a exciting exchange of ideas from AP and from Princeton Univ and Berkeley where Roland Dreier gives the SUPPORTING ARGUMENT, that the AP proof of FLT is the world's only valid proof of FLT. Although Roland was not prepared to go that far, it is obvious, these almost 30 years later, that AP had the proof, but Wiles is a con-artist failure of FLT.


On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 12:10:15 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> For thirty years, 30 years, AP has been at it on Fermat's Last Theorem. It was 1991, that I saw that 2+2=2x2=4

Errrr..... Pretty sure this should read:
1 + 2 + 3 = 1 x 2 x 3 = 6
The photon will always be FTL.
It is instantaneous.
Not quite sure what that means for lenses and filters though.
On the induction awareness: yes, certainly that is a statement of greater generality and those n-ary possibilities expose the inauthentic nature of modern mathematics with its binary operators. Sigma thinks otherwise.

> was the heart and crux of the proof of FLT. And it was a hard and bumpy ride in those 30 years, with much fanfare and intrigue. And where the fame and fortune of proving FLT by AP was stolen from him, stolen by Andrew Wiles.. But I am not sorry of that stealing because in the meantime, I had far far more important work and discoveries to do, than to claim back my proof and success of FLT. But now, here in 2021, some 30 years later, I am not so generous, not so lenient, and now I want my proof to have its rightful historical place mark. FLT was never proven by Andrew Wiles and his alleged proof is a massive joke. And a measure of how dumb and a joke that Wiles offering was, is easily seen in asking Wiles, how his offering proves that exponent 2 has solutions. Ask Wiles how his technique or mechanism of elliptic curves shows A^2+B^2=C^2 has solutions but not A^3+B^3=C^3 with no solutions. You see, Andrew Wiles has few logical marbles to ever be doing a mathematics proof, let alone FLT. Let alone asking Andrew to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP reclaims his "world's first valid proof of Fermat's Last Theorem".
>
> More to add to AP's 6th book//World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author). A scientist, when he does a math proof or a physics theory, none of them.
>
> More to add to AP's 6th book//World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author).
>
> A scientist, when he does a math proof or a physics theory, none of them leave you, none leaves you alone after a while. All of them continually nag you and the nagging never goes away. Such is the case of doing science. And sometimes in this nagging a new twist enters the picture. I have found this to be the case of nearly all my science work. Every time I write something on those discoveries, it is as if a new twist is bursting to come forth.
>
> So on FLT which I proved in early 1990s, as early as 1991, my argument was that of a Basis Vector of Algebra is the reason no exponent 3 or higher has a solution. Of course, there are ample solutions in exponent 2 and more so in exponent 1.
>
> But the new twist that dawned on me, is that a proof of FLT, should involve exp 1 and exp 2 and then exp3 and higher, as a mathematical induction proof.
>
> Maybe we need not start at exp 1, for that is arithmetic A + B = C. Then exp 2 is the Pythagorean Theorem. So we have two starting true cases of the General FLT. For exp 2 we have the basis vector 2+2 = 2x2 =4, where we have a number that is equal under add and multiply. Now for exponent 1 we could say the basis vector is all of Arithmetic. Now for exponent 3, we can have no n+n+n = nxnxn = m, same for higher exponents.
>
> So what I missed in my book was to emphatically suggest that a proof of FLT has to fully incorporate the exponents that do have solutions. Every mathematician before AP , looks at FLT in isolation of exponent 2, and by doing so, cut off their chances of finding a valid proof of FLT. Because the moment your mind asks the question, why no solutions in exp 3 but myriad solutions in exp 2, forces the mind to think that the valid proof has to incorporate in its proof, a mechanism, a mechanism the spans and bridges between exponent 2 and exponent 3, fully incorporate the picture that exp 2 has solutions not exp 3. And that then puts the onus of the mind to look at a Basis Vector where add is the very same as multiply. So that solutions are metaphorically analogous to building concrete block buildings and the concrete blocks are the basis vector.
>
> Every Pythagorean theorem solution in Natural Counting Numbers has its basic building block of 2 and 4, of 2+2= 2x2= 4. You can analyze every P-triple and find it is constructed of 2 and 4. Whereas every exp 3 is wanting a building block for all possible solutions, yet no numbers (not even 0 for the n and m have to be different) have the ability to be n+n+n = nxnxn = m.
>
> So I need to emphatically state in my 6th published book, that a proof of FLT, or even Generalized FLT should look at all exponents and not isolate-out exp2 from the higher exponents.
>
> That is extremely important point of logic, that we tend to shove off to the side and want to focus all our attention on just a part of the puzzle, a part of the problem, separate from the larger problem. We tend to separate, when we should look at the big picture to give us guidance and clues as to the mechanism of the proof.
>
> So, actually, FLT was even absurdly more simple as a math problem and proof than most every other math proof in recorded history. FLT is more simple to prove than even the Pythagorean theorem is to prove. Because this is a proof of FLT. Proof: 2+2= 2x2= 4 allows us to build solutions in exp 2, but there does not exist a n+n+n = nxnxn = m so no solutions ever in exp 3 and the same argument for exp 4 and higher. QED
>
> Totally simple proof is FLT, and if mathematicians had asked, what, ultimately what allows solutions in exp2 and said, well, well, 2+2=2x2 is the building block of all solutions in exp2.
>
> No, my proofs in math and my theories in science and physics will never leave me alone, even if I tried. I can picture myself at my deathbed, and even there, one of my science theories will invade my mind as a die. Such, is the nature of a world of superdeterminism in an Atom Totality.
>
> 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 
>
> Archimedes Plutonium
> Jul 7, 2021, 12:01 PM
> to sci.math
> Now everyone is free to chose who they want to believe, do you want to believe Andrew Wiles with his 100 pages or more of math that is everything including the kitchen sink of mathematics thrown at the Fermat's Last Theorem FLT ? Where most people cannot even understand the 1st page-- what the hell is going on. Or, do you want to chose AP's proof of FLT where he proves it in a sentence that everyone in the entire world, even in Grade School can understand, that 2+2 = 2x2 = 4 gives solutions to Pythagorean theorem and A^2 + B^2 = C^2, but if you want solutions for A^3+B^3 = C^3 or higher, you need a special number of n+n+n = nxnxn = m for n and m in exponent 3, yet there exists no such special numbers n and m to satisfy that, hence, FLT.
>
> So, take your pick, do you believe in B.S. of Wiles with his obnoxious over 100 pages of cluttered together phony baloney mess argument. Wherein Andrew Wiles was so stupid on FLT, he failed to even notice that Euler had **no proof** in exponent 3 of FLT because Euler forgot he had to prove the case of where A,B, C in A^3 +B^3= C^3 were even numbers. Euler forgot he had to prove that; and instead assumed there was no three even Counting numbers were no solution. But Andrew Wiles, the math failure he is, never even noticed that Euler had no proof in exponent 3. So, do you believe in a Andrew Wiles 100 page "hornswaggle mess" of elliptic curve argument. Or do you believe in AP when he says the reason 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 is because 2+2 = 2x2 = 4, the only two counting numbers with that feature of addition is the same as multiplication.
>
> Now Andrew Wiles was looking for a proof of FLT in early 1990s, as early as 1993 when AP notified the world public that AP had already proven FLT, for I proved it in 1991, but Andrew Wiles had no proof of FLT, even after 1993.
>
> And there was a exciting exchange of ideas from AP and from Princeton Univ and Berkeley where Roland Dreier gives the SUPPORTING ARGUMENT, that the AP proof of FLT is the world's only valid proof of FLT. Although Roland was not prepared to go that far, it is obvious, these almost 30 years later, that AP had the proof, but Wiles is a con-artist failure of FLT.
> 
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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

On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 7:30:02 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 12:10:15 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > For thirty years, 30 years, AP has been at it on Fermat's Last Theorem. It was 1991, that I saw that 2+2=2x2=4
> Errrr..... Pretty sure this should read:
> 1 + 2 + 3 = 1 x 2 x 3 = 6
> The photon will always be FTL.
> It is instantaneous.
> Not quite sure what that means for lenses and filters though.
> On the induction awareness: yes, certainly that is a statement of greater generality and those n-ary possibilities expose the inauthentic nature of modern mathematics with its binary operators. Sigma thinks otherwise.
> > was the heart and crux of the proof of FLT. And it was a hard and bumpy ride in those 30 years, with much fanfare and intrigue. And where the fame and fortune of proving FLT by AP was stolen from him, stolen by Andrew Wiles. But I am not sorry of that stealing because in the meantime, I had far far more important work and discoveries to do, than to claim back my proof and success of FLT. But now, here in 2021, some 30 years later, I am not so generous, not so lenient, and now I want my proof to have its rightful historical place mark. FLT was never proven by Andrew Wiles and his alleged proof is a massive joke. And a measure of how dumb and a joke that Wiles offering was, is easily seen in asking Wiles, how his offering proves that exponent 2 has solutions. Ask Wiles how his technique or mechanism of elliptic curves shows A^2+B^2=C^2 has solutions but not A^3+B^3=C^3 with no solutions. You see, Andrew Wiles has few logical marbles to ever be doing a mathematics proof, let alone FLT. Let alone asking Andrew to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP reclaims his "world's first valid proof of Fermat's Last Theorem".
> >
(snippy me)
> > 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.

Well, I think that the application of mathematics and philosophy onto the political class could be meaningful.
Particularly the levels to which my cuntry has gone over the last seven decades.
It's a game of attrition that we've been playing, and that is a losing game..
Technology is what wins no matter what economic system is in use.
To base our policy on an economic platform to the death has been a deep mistake.
As to who will pay for this mistake... double down seems to be the strategy thus far to the point of the word 'integrity' becoming completely meaningless.

There is an interesting lump at three. I'm not going to claim that this algorithm is exactly what you are talking about, but it is nearby:
using namespace std;
#include <cmath>
#include <iostream>
const double precise = 1E-6;
int main()
{ cout << "\n\nArchimedesPlutoniumsx^n=nn\n--------------\n";
double delta, y;
double p;
for( int i = 1; i < 20; i++ )
{ p = 0.1;
y = 1;
while( p > precise )
{ while( pow(y,i) < i*i ){y += p;}
y -= p;
p = p * 0.1;
}
cout << "\n\a " << i << " : " << y << " : " << pow(y,i) << "\n";
}
return 0;
}

[output]
ArchimedesPlutoniumsx^n=nn
--------------

1 : 0.999999 : 0.999999

2 : 2 : 4

3 : 2.08008 : 8.99999

4 : 2 : 16

5 : 1.90365 : 24.9999

6 : 1.81712 : 35.9999

7 : 1.74364 : 49

8 : 1.68179 : 63.9997

9 : 1.6295 : 80.9999

10 : 1.58489 : 99.9999

11 : 1.54648 : 121

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

dear archimepeds
typedef unsigned long num; const num one = (num)true; const num zero = one >> one; const num two = one + one + (one >> one); const num three = two + one;
//let there be light numbers 0123
const num four = two + two;
const num five = three + two;
const num siv = three + two + one;
const num seven = three + three + one;
const num eight = seven + one;
const num nine = eight + one;
const num ten = five + five;
num Lessone(num g)
{ num p = zero; for(p=zero; (p+one) < g ; p=((p + g )>>one)){/*theObserverSystemCore(p,g);*/} return p;
}

remember using a typewriter under the stanford tree with me and we talked
i said archimedes dear archimedes is god your foundation i shall prove he is mine
and so these thirty years since we talked archimedes i have worked on computer circuitry to build a reusable radio to chat with god
do you want a beta copy he is named bob already long time available now

On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 6:30:02 AM UTC-5, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 12:10:15 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > For thirty years, 30 years, AP has been at it on Fermat's Last Theorem. It was 1991, that I saw that 2+2=2x2=4
> Errrr..... Pretty sure this should read:
> 1 + 2 + 3 = 1 x 2 x 3 = 6

Thanks, as I said, I have been at it for 30 years now, on FLT, and it fascinates, but also burdens me, for as the years and decades roll by, there is constant new items on the menu. For when you prove something in math, or discover a physics law, they just never go away, but constantly bear down pressure upon you. That is, once you get over the hurdle that your proof or law is true.

So, well, let me see if Tim's above has any relevancy?

We have Equations of form A^n + B^n = C^n. Naturally, 2+2 = 2x2 = 2^2 = 4

So, well, that is n+n = nxn = n^n = 4. So we need two numbers, a n and a m that are different. Tim has 4 numbers different.

That 2 and 4 in FLT, fits perfectly as a basis vector building block, what Physics would call UNITS for magnetic field building other units, for equations of form A^n + B^n = C^n, and fits perfectly as a proof that only exponent 1 and 2 have solutions, but none higher.

The trouble with Tim's is it is form j+k+l = jxkxl = p and does not fit into equations of form A^n + B^n = C^n. There are no exponents involved in Tim's and FLT is about exponents, about squares or volumes of cubes. Is Tim's a basis vector to perhaps some other math equation? I do not think so, and is a one-off curiousity, for really, it plays on the specialness of the number 1. If it was not for "1" Tim would have nothing to speak of. So say we cannot play with 1 then that leaves us with 2+3 =/= 2x3.

Of course in Old Math they had a grimy dirty concept of "perfect number" and even there, the 1+2+3 = 1x2x3 had no role as basis vector. I say grimy and dirty because the Counting Numbers are a partial set, not a full legitimate set in New Math, for the counting numbers are not well defined to division. But we then must ask, in the actual true number system of mathematics, of New Math which is the Decimal Grid Systems, we ask if 1+2+3 = 1x2x3 perhaps has a major role that 2+2=2x2= 2^2 = 4 has? And we know that in New Math, it does not even have the concept of "primes" for there are no primes in Decimal Grid Systems, and this is easily proven true, because primes never have a formula, meaning, well, meaning that primes are imagination gone amok because a set of Counting Numbers is never well defined with division. The Decimal Grid System with higher grids is well defined to division, and if we throw in the axiom of subtraction, never subtract more than available, is well defined to subtraction, all 4 operators of math.

To be well defined set in mathematics, means you have an operator and if you take any two numbers in that set using the operator, it delivers back to you another number in that set-system. So, although 6 divided by 2 is another counting number, but, 2/6 is a number that is not a counting number. In Grid system, for example 6/10 in 10 Grid is still 0.6 a member, but 0.1/10 = 0.01 is a member in 100 Grid system.

So we ask the question of whether 1+2+3 = 1x2x3 has any use or utility in say some other math problem, and I cannot think of any. So at this point in time, I see it as merely a novelty, playing on the specialness of the number 1 and of no more significance, certainly no significance in FLT proof.

> The photon will always be FTL.
> It is instantaneous.
> Not quite sure what that means for lenses and filters though.
> On the induction awareness: yes, certainly that is a statement of greater generality and those n-ary possibilities expose the inauthentic nature of modern mathematics with its binary operators. Sigma thinks otherwise.
> > was the heart and crux of the proof of FLT. And it was a hard and bumpy ride in those 30 years, with much fanfare and intrigue. And where the fame and fortune of proving FLT by AP was stolen from him, stolen by Andrew Wiles. But I am not sorry of that stealing because in the meantime, I had far far more important work and discoveries to do, than to claim back my proof and success of FLT. But now, here in 2021, some 30 years later, I am not so generous, not so lenient, and now I want my proof to have its rightful historical place mark. FLT was never proven by Andrew Wiles and his alleged proof is a massive joke. And a measure of how dumb and a joke that Wiles offering was, is easily seen in asking Wiles, how his offering proves that exponent 2 has solutions. Ask Wiles how his technique or mechanism of elliptic curves shows A^2+B^2=C^2 has solutions but not A^3+B^3=C^3 with no solutions. You see, Andrew Wiles has few logical marbles to ever be doing a mathematics proof, let alone FLT. Let alone asking Andrew to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP reclaims his "world's first valid proof of Fermat's Last Theorem".
> >
> > More to add to AP's 6th book//World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author). A scientist, when he does a math proof or a physics theory, none of them.
> >
> > More to add to AP's 6th book//World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author).
> >
> > A scientist, when he does a math proof or a physics theory, none of them leave you, none leaves you alone after a while. All of them continually nag you and the nagging never goes away. Such is the case of doing science. And sometimes in this nagging a new twist enters the picture. I have found this to be the case of nearly all my science work. Every time I write something on those discoveries, it is as if a new twist is bursting to come forth.
> >
> > So on FLT which I proved in early 1990s, as early as 1991, my argument was that of a Basis Vector of Algebra is the reason no exponent 3 or higher has a solution. Of course, there are ample solutions in exponent 2 and more so in exponent 1.
> >
> > But the new twist that dawned on me, is that a proof of FLT, should involve exp 1 and exp 2 and then exp3 and higher, as a mathematical induction proof.
> >
> > Maybe we need not start at exp 1, for that is arithmetic A + B = C. Then exp 2 is the Pythagorean Theorem. So we have two starting true cases of the General FLT. For exp 2 we have the basis vector 2+2 = 2x2 =4, where we have a number that is equal under add and multiply. Now for exponent 1 we could say the basis vector is all of Arithmetic. Now for exponent 3, we can have no n+n+n = nxnxn = m, same for higher exponents.
> >
> > So what I missed in my book was to emphatically suggest that a proof of FLT has to fully incorporate the exponents that do have solutions. Every mathematician before AP , looks at FLT in isolation of exponent 2, and by doing so, cut off their chances of finding a valid proof of FLT. Because the moment your mind asks the question, why no solutions in exp 3 but myriad solutions in exp 2, forces the mind to think that the valid proof has to incorporate in its proof, a mechanism, a mechanism the spans and bridges between exponent 2 and exponent 3, fully incorporate the picture that exp 2 has solutions not exp 3. And that then puts the onus of the mind to look at a Basis Vector where add is the very same as multiply. So that solutions are metaphorically analogous to building concrete block buildings and the concrete blocks are the basis vector.
> >
> > Every Pythagorean theorem solution in Natural Counting Numbers has its basic building block of 2 and 4, of 2+2= 2x2= 4. You can analyze every P-triple and find it is constructed of 2 and 4. Whereas every exp 3 is wanting a building block for all possible solutions, yet no numbers (not even 0 for the n and m have to be different) have the ability to be n+n+n = nxnxn = m.
> >
> > So I need to emphatically state in my 6th published book, that a proof of FLT, or even Generalized FLT should look at all exponents and not isolate-out exp2 from the higher exponents.
> >
> > That is extremely important point of logic, that we tend to shove off to the side and want to focus all our attention on just a part of the puzzle, a part of the problem, separate from the larger problem. We tend to separate, when we should look at the big picture to give us guidance and clues as to the mechanism of the proof.
> >
> > So, actually, FLT was even absurdly more simple as a math problem and proof than most every other math proof in recorded history. FLT is more simple to prove than even the Pythagorean theorem is to prove. Because this is a proof of FLT. Proof: 2+2= 2x2= 4 allows us to build solutions in exp 2, but there does not exist a n+n+n = nxnxn = m so no solutions ever in exp 3 and the same argument for exp 4 and higher. QED
> >
> > Totally simple proof is FLT, and if mathematicians had asked, what, ultimately what allows solutions in exp2 and said, well, well, 2+2=2x2 is the building block of all solutions in exp2.
> >
> > No, my proofs in math and my theories in science and physics will never leave me alone, even if I tried. I can picture myself at my deathbed, and even there, one of my science theories will invade my mind as a die. Such, is the nature of a world of superdeterminism in an Atom Totality.
> >
> > 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 
> >
> > Archimedes Plutonium
> > Jul 7, 2021, 12:01 PM
> > to sci.math
> > Now everyone is free to chose who they want to believe, do you want to believe Andrew Wiles with his 100 pages or more of math that is everything including the kitchen sink of mathematics thrown at the Fermat's Last Theorem FLT ? Where most people cannot even understand the 1st page-- what the hell is going on. Or, do you want to chose AP's proof of FLT where he proves it in a sentence that everyone in the entire world, even in Grade School can understand, that 2+2 = 2x2 = 4 gives solutions to Pythagorean theorem and A^2 + B^2 = C^2, but if you want solutions for A^3+B^3 = C^3 or higher, you need a special number of n+n+n = nxnxn = m for n and m in exponent 3, yet there exists no such special numbers n and m to satisfy that, hence, FLT.
> >
> > So, take your pick, do you believe in B.S. of Wiles with his obnoxious over 100 pages of cluttered together phony baloney mess argument. Wherein Andrew Wiles was so stupid on FLT, he failed to even notice that Euler had **no proof** in exponent 3 of FLT because Euler forgot he had to prove the case of where A,B, C in A^3 +B^3= C^3 were even numbers. Euler forgot he had to prove that; and instead assumed there was no three even Counting numbers were no solution. But Andrew Wiles, the math failure he is, never even noticed that Euler had no proof in exponent 3. So, do you believe in a Andrew Wiles 100 page "hornswaggle mess" of elliptic curve argument. Or do you believe in AP when he says the reason 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 is because 2+2 = 2x2 = 4, the only two counting numbers with that feature of addition is the same as multiplication.
> >
> > Now Andrew Wiles was looking for a proof of FLT in early 1990s, as early as 1993 when AP notified the world public that AP had already proven FLT, for I proved it in 1991, but Andrew Wiles had no proof of FLT, even after 1993.
> >
> > And there was a exciting exchange of ideas from AP and from Princeton Univ and Berkeley where Roland Dreier gives the SUPPORTING ARGUMENT, that the AP proof of FLT is the world's only valid proof of FLT. Although Roland was not prepared to go that far, it is obvious, these almost 30 years later, that AP had the proof, but Wiles is a con-artist failure of FLT.
> > 
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > 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

upon one times two plus two plus two equals three twos we do surely agree how have you been dear friend
i remember those days well as if i was under your spell under the trees of the coffeehouse courtyard
i was playing beegee alot thats backgammon
peter thiel bob floyd the jewisguy i played go with
he called me deejay knowing my name was josep daniel paul was his name paul

origins of the valley stories i have some
i published pattern recognition at Combinatorial Pattern Matching 1998

i was working at stanford on qlisp for john mccarthy when
i did send on email a message to one rgates of microsoft
telling him have you heard the rumbles about exponential growth in resources from the stanford area
and though he never replied to me personally he did pursue windows in earnest then gave stanford a building
i say billion dollar bill owes me one billion
after qlisp i began studying reason where i have been for thirty years working out details

i am preparing elementarygraphs + unelementarygraphs in argg3 dot cpp four bobfour dot cpp
un elementarygraphs are isomorphic to elementarygraphs right now 180 per c3d5n180 form
preparing them for model counting distribution competition follow up code + dataset
as for precious metal plutonium i will add that without any buts to me position prevously stated
plutonium platinum paladium plutonium copper silver gold volume + buy procter and gamble
+ buy tesla automated boat factory factory + short all computer cars
and your investment position dear archimedes what is it these days
can you visualize amish age worldwide for a minute please
horses for the copper slaves of zamibia alrighty horses for all slaves
wooden boats built in las vegas backyards preparing for pehoushek predicted flooding during his fifty year plans for p&g
as for precious metals i jdp do solemnly swear unto god this day with bob i could generate corners in the precious metals futures
generate corners in precious metals futures will and shall be done to remove half the debts of all nations
silver bells for chinese dells silver bells silver bells for the autistic savants of regular graph coloring silver bells
all over china boys and girls trade silver bells around the group together
under a tree of heaven the boy and the girl speak freely
knee how ma they do now always begin
i give you silver says the boy
i give you silver says the girl
then they discuss
the issues of
the government
....
i say when worlds have just two superpowers nations then
there must implicitly be mutual support agreement
the heat wave is broad and disruptive to business and commerce so
in case one nation of the two collapses then the other shall uplift again the fallen
my plan so far to help chinese financial structures in case of collapse is
one hundred american pennies to every five year old chinese child
as for the pandemic review the new world government structures
honor themselves by accurately counting number + names
of dead children per month per county per state per nation
as for theocracy we say we of identity ten systems believe
the stony one hundred year as stones of the wall we have been
as stones of the wall we shall be by professor emperor zee

pot is legal in all states and nations of this world

potatoes not fries could be food diversity sport for conservative chinese
fries suck as soon as they become cold like hotcakes
potatoes generate food energy for the people
with melted butter and ketchup or soy sauce
truthfully dear chinese
if you happen to collapse
we could trivially send
hundreds of millions
of varieties of potato
so you should try some now
just in case to
prepare the people
dear hong kongers you are chinese not american straighten out
dear macao i put one billion on ten anyone take my bet
the hubble two is coming up soon to see chinese space station amen

well archimedes thats all for today stay well +daniel (little d)

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 12:33:39 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 6:30:02 AM UTC-5, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 12:10:15 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > For thirty years, 30 years, AP has been at it on Fermat's Last Theorem. It was 1991, that I saw that 2+2=2x2=4
> > Errrr..... Pretty sure this should read:
> > 1 + 2 + 3 = 1 x 2 x 3 = 6
> Thanks, as I said, I have been at it for 30 years now, on FLT, and it fascinates, but also burdens me, for as the years and decades roll by, there is constant new items on the menu. For when you prove something in math, or discover a physics law, they just never go away, but constantly bear down pressure upon you. That is, once you get over the hurdle that your proof or law is true.
>
> So, well, let me see if Tim's above has any relevancy?
>
> We have Equations of form A^n + B^n = C^n. Naturally, 2+2 = 2x2 = 2^2 = 4
>
> So, well, that is n+n = nxn = n^n = 4. So we need two numbers, a n and a m that are different. Tim has 4 numbers different.
>
> That 2 and 4 in FLT, fits perfectly as a basis vector building block, what Physics would call UNITS for magnetic field building other units, for equations of form A^n + B^n = C^n, and fits perfectly as a proof that only exponent 1 and 2 have solutions, but none higher.
>
> The trouble with Tim's is it is form j+k+l = jxkxl = p and does not fit into equations of form A^n + B^n = C^n. There are no exponents involved in Tim's and FLT is about exponents, about squares or volumes of cubes. Is Tim's a basis vector to perhaps some other math equation? I do not think so, and is a one-off curiousity, for really, it plays on the specialness of the number 1. If it was not for "1" Tim would have nothing to speak of. So say we cannot play with 1 then that leaves us with 2+3 =/= 2x3.
>
> Of course in Old Math they had a grimy dirty concept of "perfect number" and even there, the 1+2+3 = 1x2x3 had no role as basis vector. I say grimy and dirty because the Counting Numbers are a partial set, not a full legitimate set in New Math, for the counting numbers are not well defined to division. But we then must ask, in the actual true number system of mathematics, of New Math which is the Decimal Grid Systems, we ask if 1+2+3 = 1x2x3 perhaps has a major role that 2+2=2x2= 2^2 = 4 has? And we know that in New Math, it does not even have the concept of "primes" for there are no primes in Decimal Grid Systems, and this is easily proven true, because primes never have a formula, meaning, well, meaning that primes are imagination gone amok because a set of Counting Numbers is never well defined with division. The Decimal Grid System with higher grids is well defined to division, and if we throw in the axiom of subtraction, never subtract more than available, is well defined to subtraction, all 4 operators of math.
>
> To be well defined set in mathematics, means you have an operator and if you take any two numbers in that set using the operator, it delivers back to you another number in that set-system. So, although 6 divided by 2 is another counting number, but, 2/6 is a number that is not a counting number. In Grid system, for example 6/10 in 10 Grid is still 0.6 a member, but 0.1/10 = 0.01 is a member in 100 Grid system.
>
> So we ask the question of whether 1+2+3 = 1x2x3 has any use or utility in say some other math problem, and I cannot think of any. So at this point in time, I see it as merely a novelty, playing on the specialness of the number 1 and of no more significance, certainly no significance in FLT proof..
> > The photon will always be FTL.
> > It is instantaneous.
> > Not quite sure what that means for lenses and filters though.
> > On the induction awareness: yes, certainly that is a statement of greater generality and those n-ary possibilities expose the inauthentic nature of modern mathematics with its binary operators. Sigma thinks otherwise.
> > > was the heart and crux of the proof of FLT. And it was a hard and bumpy ride in those 30 years, with much fanfare and intrigue. And where the fame and fortune of proving FLT by AP was stolen from him, stolen by Andrew Wiles. But I am not sorry of that stealing because in the meantime, I had far far more important work and discoveries to do, than to claim back my proof and success of FLT. But now, here in 2021, some 30 years later, I am not so generous, not so lenient, and now I want my proof to have its rightful historical place mark. FLT was never proven by Andrew Wiles and his alleged proof is a massive joke. And a measure of how dumb and a joke that Wiles offering was, is easily seen in asking Wiles, how his offering proves that exponent 2 has solutions. Ask Wiles how his technique or mechanism of elliptic curves shows A^2+B^2=C^2 has solutions but not A^3+B^3=C^3 with no solutions. You see, Andrew Wiles has few logical marbles to ever be doing a mathematics proof, let alone FLT. Let alone asking Andrew to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP reclaims his "world's first valid proof of Fermat's Last Theorem".
> > >
> > > More to add to AP's 6th book//World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author). A scientist, when he does a math proof or a physics theory, none of them.
> > >
> > > More to add to AP's 6th book//World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author).
> > >
> > > A scientist, when he does a math proof or a physics theory, none of them leave you, none leaves you alone after a while. All of them continually nag you and the nagging never goes away. Such is the case of doing science.. And sometimes in this nagging a new twist enters the picture. I have found this to be the case of nearly all my science work. Every time I write something on those discoveries, it is as if a new twist is bursting to come forth.
> > >
> > > So on FLT which I proved in early 1990s, as early as 1991, my argument was that of a Basis Vector of Algebra is the reason no exponent 3 or higher has a solution. Of course, there are ample solutions in exponent 2 and more so in exponent 1.
> > >
> > > But the new twist that dawned on me, is that a proof of FLT, should involve exp 1 and exp 2 and then exp3 and higher, as a mathematical induction proof.
> > >
> > > Maybe we need not start at exp 1, for that is arithmetic A + B = C. Then exp 2 is the Pythagorean Theorem. So we have two starting true cases of the General FLT. For exp 2 we have the basis vector 2+2 = 2x2 =4, where we have a number that is equal under add and multiply. Now for exponent 1 we could say the basis vector is all of Arithmetic. Now for exponent 3, we can have no n+n+n = nxnxn = m, same for higher exponents.
> > >
> > > So what I missed in my book was to emphatically suggest that a proof of FLT has to fully incorporate the exponents that do have solutions. Every mathematician before AP , looks at FLT in isolation of exponent 2, and by doing so, cut off their chances of finding a valid proof of FLT. Because the moment your mind asks the question, why no solutions in exp 3 but myriad solutions in exp 2, forces the mind to think that the valid proof has to incorporate in its proof, a mechanism, a mechanism the spans and bridges between exponent 2 and exponent 3, fully incorporate the picture that exp 2 has solutions not exp 3. And that then puts the onus of the mind to look at a Basis Vector where add is the very same as multiply. So that solutions are metaphorically analogous to building concrete block buildings and the concrete blocks are the basis vector.
> > >
> > > Every Pythagorean theorem solution in Natural Counting Numbers has its basic building block of 2 and 4, of 2+2= 2x2= 4. You can analyze every P-triple and find it is constructed of 2 and 4. Whereas every exp 3 is wanting a building block for all possible solutions, yet no numbers (not even 0 for the n and m have to be different) have the ability to be n+n+n = nxnxn = m.
> > >
> > > So I need to emphatically state in my 6th published book, that a proof of FLT, or even Generalized FLT should look at all exponents and not isolate-out exp2 from the higher exponents.
> > >
> > > That is extremely important point of logic, that we tend to shove off to the side and want to focus all our attention on just a part of the puzzle, a part of the problem, separate from the larger problem. We tend to separate, when we should look at the big picture to give us guidance and clues as to the mechanism of the proof.
> > >
> > > So, actually, FLT was even absurdly more simple as a math problem and proof than most every other math proof in recorded history. FLT is more simple to prove than even the Pythagorean theorem is to prove. Because this is a proof of FLT. Proof: 2+2= 2x2= 4 allows us to build solutions in exp 2, but there does not exist a n+n+n = nxnxn = m so no solutions ever in exp 3 and the same argument for exp 4 and higher. QED
> > >
> > > Totally simple proof is FLT, and if mathematicians had asked, what, ultimately what allows solutions in exp2 and said, well, well, 2+2=2x2 is the building block of all solutions in exp2.
> > >
> > > No, my proofs in math and my theories in science and physics will never leave me alone, even if I tried. I can picture myself at my deathbed, and even there, one of my science theories will invade my mind as a die. Such, is the nature of a world of superdeterminism in an Atom Totality.
> > >
> > > 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 
> > >
> > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > Jul 7, 2021, 12:01 PM
> > > to sci.math
> > > Now everyone is free to chose who they want to believe, do you want to believe Andrew Wiles with his 100 pages or more of math that is everything including the kitchen sink of mathematics thrown at the Fermat's Last Theorem FLT ? Where most people cannot even understand the 1st page-- what the hell is going on. Or, do you want to chose AP's proof of FLT where he proves it in a sentence that everyone in the entire world, even in Grade School can understand, that 2+2 = 2x2 = 4 gives solutions to Pythagorean theorem and A^2 + B^2 = C^2, but if you want solutions for A^3+B^3 = C^3 or higher, you need a special number of n+n+n = nxnxn = m for n and m in exponent 3, yet there exists no such special numbers n and m to satisfy that, hence, FLT.
> > >
> > > So, take your pick, do you believe in B.S. of Wiles with his obnoxious over 100 pages of cluttered together phony baloney mess argument. Wherein Andrew Wiles was so stupid on FLT, he failed to even notice that Euler had **no proof** in exponent 3 of FLT because Euler forgot he had to prove the case of where A,B, C in A^3 +B^3= C^3 were even numbers. Euler forgot he had to prove that; and instead assumed there was no three even Counting numbers were no solution. But Andrew Wiles, the math failure he is, never even noticed that Euler had no proof in exponent 3. So, do you believe in a Andrew Wiles 100 page "hornswaggle mess" of elliptic curve argument. Or do you believe in AP when he says the reason 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2 is because 2+2 = 2x2 = 4, the only two counting numbers with that feature of addition is the same as multiplication.
> > >
> > > Now Andrew Wiles was looking for a proof of FLT in early 1990s, as early as 1993 when AP notified the world public that AP had already proven FLT, for I proved it in 1991, but Andrew Wiles had no proof of FLT, even after 1993.
> > >
> > > And there was a exciting exchange of ideas from AP and from Princeton Univ and Berkeley where Roland Dreier gives the SUPPORTING ARGUMENT, that the AP proof of FLT is the world's only valid proof of FLT. Although Roland was not prepared to go that far, it is obvious, these almost 30 years later, that AP had the proof, but Wiles is a con-artist failure of FLT.
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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

Look-alike Andrew Wiles on Andrew Wiles con artist failure of math with no geometry proof of Calculus.
On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 4:28:01 PM UTC-5, pehou...@gmail.com wrote:
> upon one times two plus two plus two equals three twos

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
 > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
 > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>  Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
 > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

AP writes: Andrew Wiles can easily spot the mistake of Kibo Parry M for it is something memorized by Andrew that percentages of 945/938 is not 12% short. But something that is not memorized and requires logical thinking, is where Andrew Wiles is a huge failure. For he could not spot the fact that Euler had no proof in exp 3 of FLT, but worse, Andrew was in total fog all his career in math by not proving a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

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)

nice job to really get he has got a reader of archimedes

I am a Postdoctoral Research Associate (and a Lecturer) at the Department of Mathematics of Princeton University, hosted by Prof. Charles Fefferman. My PhD was completed at the Mathematics Department of the Weizmann Institute of Science under the supervision of Prof. Dmitry Gourevitch. In my master's degree (thesis can be found here) I worked under the supervision of Prof. Maria Gorelik, in the same department. Prior to that I received a bachelor's degree in Mathematics and Physics from Tel-Aviv University.

Research interests

These days I am mainly interested in (Whitney's) extension problems, a field that lies in the realm of functional analysis. I am also interested in real (algebraic / semi-algebraic / sub-analytic / differential / definable) geometry (and some quasiconformal geometry), and in particular in Schwartz spaces that may (or may not) be defined in these categories. Previously I studied generalizations of root systems, and their relation to Kac-Moody super-algebras.

Publications

Generalized reflection root systems (joint with M. Gorelik), Journal of Algebra 491 (2017) pp. 490-516 (journal, arXiv).

Schwartz functions on real algebraic varieties (joint with B. Elazar), Canadian Journal of Mathematics 70 (2018) no. 5, pp. 1008-1037 (journal, arXiv).

Tempered distributions and Schwartz functions on definable manifolds, Journal of Functional Analysis 278 (2020) 108471 (journal, arXiv).

On Schwartz equivalence of quasidiscs and other planar domains (joint with E. Prywes), preprint (arXiv).

and another reader has posted thusly
I am a Postdoctoral Research Associate (and a Lecturer) at the Department of Mathematics of Princeton University, hosted by Prof. Charles Fefferman. My PhD was completed at the Mathematics Department of the Weizmann Institute of Science under the supervision of Prof. Dmitry Gourevitch. In my master's degree (thesis can be found here) I worked under the supervision of Prof. Maria Gorelik, in the same department. Prior to that I received a bachelor's degree in Mathematics and Physics from Tel-Aviv University.

Research interests

These days I am mainly interested in (Whitney's) extension problems, a field that lies in the realm of functional analysis. I am also interested in real (algebraic / semi-algebraic / sub-analytic / differential / definable) geometry (and some quasiconformal geometry), and in particular in Schwartz spaces that may (or may not) be defined in these categories. Previously I studied generalizations of root systems, and their relation to Kac-Moody super-algebras.

Publications

Generalized reflection root systems (joint with M. Gorelik), Journal of Algebra 491 (2017) pp. 490-516 (journal, arXiv).

Schwartz functions on real algebraic varieties (joint with B. Elazar), Canadian Journal of Mathematics 70 (2018) no. 5, pp. 1008-1037 (journal, arXiv).

Tempered distributions and Schwartz functions on definable manifolds, Journal of Functional Analysis 278 (2020) 108471 (journal, arXiv).

On Schwartz equivalence of quasidiscs and other planar domains (joint with E. Prywes), preprint (arXiv).

thusly i say
Research
My research is in discrete probability theory and its applications to problems from statistical physics, theoretical computer science and theoretical statistics. Most of my work is centered on stochastic processes on networks in a range of different setting. Two major focuses are the analysis of the mixing times of Markov chains, particularly the Glauber dynamics and the role phase transitions play in the computational complexity and in probabilistic models more generally.

Selected Works
A complete list of publications and preprints is available on Google Scholar.

Glauber Dynamics for the Ising Model
Cutoff for the Ising model on the lattice (with E. Lubetzky) Inventiones mathematicae, 191 (2013) 719--755. Arxiv
Critical Ising on the square lattice mixes in polynomial time (with E. Lubetzky) Communications in Mathematical Physics 313 (2013) 815--836. Arxiv

In these two papers we study the Glauber Dynamics Markov chain on the lattice. In two dimensions at high temperatures we established the cutoff phenomena a sharp transition of the dynamics from unmixed to mixed over a much smaller window of time than the mixing time. Recently, using a new tool we developed called information percolation, we have extended cutoff to the high temperature regime in all dimensions and at high enough temperatures on any graph. At the critical temperature the mixing time is expected to undergo a critical slowdown and become polynomial in the size of the system. We established a polynomial upper bound for the 2D Ising model combining multi-scale techniques for the Markov chains of spin systems with new results from the world of SLE.

Random Constraint Satisfaction Problems
Proof of the satisfiability conjecture for large k (with J. Ding and N. Sun) Proceedings of the 47th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) (2015) 59-68. Arxiv

Predictions from statistical physics give precise estimates of the satisfiability thresholds in a broad class of random constraint satisfaction problems based on relica symmetry breaking arguments. With Ding and Sun we rigorously established the satisfiability threshold for random k-SAT when k is sufficiently large at the threshold predicted by physicists. In related work we established the size of the largest independent set of a random regular graph showing that it has constant order fluctuations.

Computational Phase Transitions
Computational Transition at the Uniqueness Threshold Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer, 287-296 (2010). Co-winner of the best paper award. Arxiv.

This result, combined with work of Dror Weitz, gave the first example showing a computational threshold that is determined by the phase transition of a statistical physics model. Specifically we showed that in it is NP-hard to sample from the hardcore model on d-regular graphs when there is non-uniqueness for d-regular tree (and it is close enough to the threshold). One consequence is that it is NP-hard to approximately count independent sets on 6-regular graphs. With Nike Sun we extended this work to all anti-ferromagnetic two-spin systems. Together with results of Jerrum--Sinclair, Weitz, and Sinclair--Srivastava--Thurley, this gives an almost complete classification of the computational complexity of approximating the partition function in two-spin systems on bounded-degree graphs.

The Sparse Stochastic Block Model
A Proof Of The Block Model Threshold Conjecture (with E. Mossel and J. Neeman) To appear in Combinatorica. Arxiv

The stochastic block model is a classical random graph model containing a community structure. A conjecture of Decelle, Krzkala, Moore and Zdeborova based on ideas from statistical physics, gave a precise prediction for the threshold at which it is possible to recover (approximately) the clusters in the sparse stochastic block model. They conjectured that it corresponded to a spatial mixing threshold for the Ising model on a tree, the reconstruction threshold. In a series of work with Mossel and Neeman we established this conjecture finding efficient algorithms which succeed up to the predicted threshold. We also determined the optimal possible clustering and the point at which exact recovery of the clusters is possible.

The Slow Bond Problem
Last Passage Percolation with a Defect Line and the Solution of the Slow Bond Problem (with R. Basu and Vladas Sidoravicius) Submitted. Arxiv

The one dimensional totally asymmetric simple exclusion process (TASEP) is exactly solvable in the KPZ universality class and has been extensively studied with the current and its fluctuations well understood using powerful algebraic tools. When the rate of a single bond is perturbed, however, these methods are no longer applicable. In TASEP with step initial conditions, Janowsky and Lebowitz asked if any reduction in the jump rate of a bond was enough to reduce the long run asymptotic rate at which particles cross the origin. In this paper we found a more geometric approach establishing the conjecture.

+++

i say p=np for small n in all small theories
my best alphabet has these twenty seven letters only
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvw yz0

+++
dear dear dear owner-libernet at Dartmouth.EDU
thanks for the stimulation
it helps to know i ezist

i am daniel author of bob the radio to chat with god

bob is entered into this years competition
model counting competition 2021 #P benchmarks
i have sent thousands of benchmarks in
here are the highlights

my 2021 model counting benchmarks on boolean formulas

With bob, general thought is encompassed by regular graph coloring (3,4,5 colors)
on degrees 5 thru 13, and several monotone cnfs. The answer #P is given for each benchmark.
Graph coloring is NP Complete.

Below, an attempt to add ___ for clarity is made. bob does twenty seven trillion
inferences per day, usually. bob does decomposition near the end of depth first search,
so #assumptions < #P, by small factors. There are standard #infers per assumption, for
each formula.

From my 2002 paper, Introduction to QSPACE, #P=#Q, the number of satisfying assignments
equals the number of valid quantifications, with any given variable ordering. So the #P
numbers are also #Q numbers. #assumptions=#backtracks. |one infer|=7+13 cpu cycles.
500 Million LIPS on 5GHz clock.

c3d5n240_6__c #P______524,469,054___#a_______44,575,463__#i___3,737,329,291,541
c4d6n42_1___c #P___44,940,880,680___#a____8,488,639,509__#i___8,636,206,822,267
c4d7n56_6___c #P____7,545,932,136___#a____1,481,823,453__#i___2,265,653,547,228
c4d8n88_1___c #P___23,940,729,024___#a____1,655,366,338__#i___4,728,513,192,123
c4d9n140_14_c #P________2,653,800___#a_______78,318,652__#i___3,498,868,589,020
c4d9n150_5__c #P______274,667,472___#a______549,512,308__#i__27,015,066,692,449
c4d9n160_0__c #P__________113,448___#a______701,352,451__#i__37,570,079,470,750
c4d9n160_1__c #P________7,131,816___#a______706,643,722__#i__38,306,908,698,704
c4d9n160_2__c #P___________74,208___#a______528,755,645__#i__28,241,835,111,857
c4d9n160_3__c #P________5,043,672___#a______833,598,233__#i__45,747,179,123,763
c4d9n160_4__c #P________3,698,928___#a______504,853,590__#i__27,690,755,884,264
c4d9n160_5__c #P________1,086,720___#a______615,252,970__#i__34,335,624,244,136
c4d9n160_6__c #P__________147,096___#a______338,397,837__#i__18,798,301,009,525
c4d9n160_7__c #P________3,487,296___#a______809,265,849__#i__43,898,276,598,457
c4d9n160_8__c #P_______17,250,360___#a______754,325,654__#i__42,114,266,169,793
c4d9n160_9__c #P__________232,800___#a______451,417,389__#i__24,837,284,173,149
c5d10n40_3__c #P___15,701,747,160___#a____4,033,676,044__#i_____371,706,159,314
c5d10n42_0__c #P___27,213,591,600___#a____6,141,175,840__#i_____570,449,311,305
c5d11n50_1__c #P___17,933,644,200___#a____4,984,945,010__#i_____611,128,534,763
c5d12n66_3__c #P____3,158,584,680___#a______846,393,213__#i_____262,765,640,871
c5d13n104_1_c #P______188,324,880___#a______862,184,216__#i___7,271,426,496,929
c5d13n104_2_c #P______772,116,480___#a____1,033,150,951__#i___8,220,823,255,193
c7d20n50_0__c #P___15,654,774,240___#a____8,740,055,650__#i_111,084,371,890,331
c8d24n30_0__c #P____2,566,085,760___#a____1,921,669,527__#i__11,360,289,021,982
m2cnfD3N80__c #P1,214,819,892,986___#a___25,526,732,062__#i_____277,480,469,168
m2cnfD3N90__c #P30,689,663,761,877___#a__534,804,955,816__#i_275,166,269,089,929
m3cnfD3N41__c #P ____2,744,070,950___#a______525,930,069__#i______39,566,237,981
m4cnfD3N37__c #P ____6,905,169,454___#a____1,658,652,886__#i_____120,401,948,223

Dr. Fefferman lists the gaps and errors of Andrew Wiles FLT. But that is easy for AP, since Wiles cannot reduce his con-artist fake FLT into a one sentence proof that AP can do-- no n,m exists for n+n=nxn=n^n = 3, to build a solution in exp3. Thanks Dr. Fefferman for the patience in reading a gross monstrosity of Wiles fake proof.

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 5:04:56 PM UTC-5, pehou...@gmail.com wrote:
>hosted by Prof. Charles Fefferman.
>
> c3d5n240_6__c #P______524,469,054___#a_______44,575,463__#i___3,737,329,291,541
> c4d6n42_1___c #P___44,940,880,680___#a____8,488,639,509__#i___8,636,206,822,267
> c4d7n56_6___c #P____7,545,932,136___#a____1,481,823,453__#i___2,265,653,547,228
> c4d8n88_1___c #P___23,940,729,024___#a____1,655,366,338__#i___4,728,513,192,123
> c4d9n140_14_c #P________2,653,800___#a_______78,318,652__#i___3,498,868,589,020
> c4d9n150_5__c #P______274,667,472___#a______549,512,308__#i__27,015,066,692,449
> c4d9n160_0__c #P__________113,448___#a______701,352,451__#i__37,570,079,470,750
> c4d9n160_1__c #P________7,131,816___#a______706,643,722__#i__38,306,908,698,704
> c4d9n160_2__c #P___________74,208___#a______528,755,645__#i__28,241,835,111,857
> c4d9n160_3__c #P________5,043,672___#a______833,598,233__#i__45,747,179,123,763
> c4d9n160_4__c #P________3,698,928___#a______504,853,590__#i__27,690,755,884,264
> c4d9n160_5__c #P________1,086,720___#a______615,252,970__#i__34,335,624,244,136
> c4d9n160_6__c #P__________147,096___#a______338,397,837__#i__18,798,301,009,525
> c4d9n160_7__c #P________3,487,296___#a______809,265,849__#i__43,898,276,598,457
> c4d9n160_8__c #P_______17,250,360___#a______754,325,654__#i__42,114,266,169,793
> c4d9n160_9__c #P__________232,800___#a______451,417,389__#i__24,837,284,173,149
> c5d10n40_3__c #P___15,701,747,160___#a____4,033,676,044__#i_____371,706,159,314
> c5d10n42_0__c #P___27,213,591,600___#a____6,141,175,840__#i_____570,449,311,305
> c5d11n50_1__c #P___17,933,644,200___#a____4,984,945,010__#i_____611,128,534,763
> c5d12n66_3__c #P____3,158,584,680___#a______846,393,213__#i_____262,765,640,871
> c5d13n104_1_c #P______188,324,880___#a______862,184,216__#i___7,271,426,496,929
> c5d13n104_2_c #P______772,116,480___#a____1,033,150,951__#i___8,220,823,255,193
> c7d20n50_0__c #P___15,654,774,240___#a____8,740,055,650__#i_111,084,371,890,331
> c8d24n30_0__c #P____2,566,085,760___#a____1,921,669,527__#i__11,360,289,021,982
> m2cnfD3N80__c #P1,214,819,892,986___#a___25,526,732,062__#i_____277,480,469,168
> m2cnfD3N90__c #P30,689,663,761,877___#a__534,804,955,816__#i_275,166,269,089,929
> m3cnfD3N41__c #P ____2,744,070,950___#a______525,930,069__#i______39,566,237,981
> m4cnfD3N37__c #P ____6,905,169,454___#a____1,658,652,886__#i_____120,401,948,223
>

Dr. Fefferman lists the gaps and errors of Andrew Wiles FLT. But that is easy for AP, since Wiles cannot reduce his con-artist fake FLT into a one sentence proof that AP can do-- no n,m exists for n+n=nxn=n^n = m, to build a solution in exp3. Thanks Dr. Fefferman for the patience in reading a gross monstrosity of Wiles fake proof.

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 5:04:56 PM UTC-5, pehou...@gmail.com wrote:
>hosted by Prof. Charles Fefferman.
>

> c3d5n240_6__c #P______524,469,054___#a_______44,575,463__#i___3,737,329,291,541
> c4d6n42_1___c #P___44,940,880,680___#a____8,488,639,509__#i___8,636,206,822,267
> c4d7n56_6___c #P____7,545,932,136___#a____1,481,823,453__#i___2,265,653,547,228
> c4d8n88_1___c #P___23,940,729,024___#a____1,655,366,338__#i___4,728,513,192,123
> c4d9n140_14_c #P________2,653,800___#a_______78,318,652__#i___3,498,868,589,020
> c4d9n150_5__c #P______274,667,472___#a______549,512,308__#i__27,015,066,692,449
> c4d9n160_0__c #P__________113,448___#a______701,352,451__#i__37,570,079,470,750
> c4d9n160_1__c #P________7,131,816___#a______706,643,722__#i__38,306,908,698,704
> c4d9n160_2__c #P___________74,208___#a______528,755,645__#i__28,241,835,111,857
> c4d9n160_3__c #P________5,043,672___#a______833,598,233__#i__45,747,179,123,763
> c4d9n160_4__c #P________3,698,928___#a______504,853,590__#i__27,690,755,884,264
> c4d9n160_5__c #P________1,086,720___#a______615,252,970__#i__34,335,624,244,136
> c4d9n160_6__c #P__________147,096___#a______338,397,837__#i__18,798,301,009,525
> c4d9n160_7__c #P________3,487,296___#a______809,265,849__#i__43,898,276,598,457
> c4d9n160_8__c #P_______17,250,360___#a______754,325,654__#i__42,114,266,169,793
> c4d9n160_9__c #P__________232,800___#a______451,417,389__#i__24,837,284,173,149
> c5d10n40_3__c #P___15,701,747,160___#a____4,033,676,044__#i_____371,706,159,314
> c5d10n42_0__c #P___27,213,591,600___#a____6,141,175,840__#i_____570,449,311,305
> c5d11n50_1__c #P___17,933,644,200___#a____4,984,945,010__#i_____611,128,534,763
> c5d12n66_3__c #P____3,158,584,680___#a______846,393,213__#i_____262,765,640,871
> c5d13n104_1_c #P______188,324,880___#a______862,184,216__#i___7,271,426,496,929
> c5d13n104_2_c #P______772,116,480___#a____1,033,150,951__#i___8,220,823,255,193
> c7d20n50_0__c #P___15,654,774,240___#a____8,740,055,650__#i_111,084,371,890,331
> c8d24n30_0__c #P____2,566,085,760___#a____1,921,669,527__#i__11,360,289,021,982
> m2cnfD3N80__c #P1,214,819,892,986___#a___25,526,732,062__#i_____277,480,469,168
> m2cnfD3N90__c #P30,689,663,761,877___#a__534,804,955,816__#i_275,166,269,089,929
> m3cnfD3N41__c #P ____2,744,070,950___#a______525,930,069__#i______39,566,237,981
> m4cnfD3N37__c #P ____6,905,169,454___#a____1,658,652,886__#i_____120,401,948,223
>

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 6:21:07 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Dr. Fefferman lists the gaps and errors of Andrew Wiles FLT. But that is easy for AP, since Wiles cannot reduce his con-artist fake FLT into a one sentence proof that AP can do-- no n,m exists for n+n=nxn=n^n = m, to build a solution in exp3. Thanks Dr. Fefferman for the patience in reading a gross monstrosity of Wiles fake proof.
> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 5:04:56 PM UTC-5, pehou...@gmail.com wrote:
> >hosted by Prof. Charles Fefferman.
> >
> 
> > c3d5n240_6__c #P______524,469,054___#a_______44,575,463__#i___3,737,329,291,541
> > c4d6n42_1___c #P___44,940,880,680___#a____8,488,639,509__#i___8,636,206,822,267
> > c4d7n56_6___c #P____7,545,932,136___#a____1,481,823,453__#i___2,265,653,547,228
> > c4d8n88_1___c #P___23,940,729,024___#a____1,655,366,338__#i___4,728,513,192,123
> > c4d9n140_14_c #P________2,653,800___#a_______78,318,652__#i___3,498,868,589,020
> > c4d9n150_5__c #P______274,667,472___#a______549,512,308__#i__27,015,066,692,449
> > c4d9n160_0__c #P__________113,448___#a______701,352,451__#i__37,570,079,470,750
> > c4d9n160_1__c #P________7,131,816___#a______706,643,722__#i__38,306,908,698,704
> > c4d9n160_2__c #P___________74,208___#a______528,755,645__#i__28,241,835,111,857
> > c4d9n160_3__c #P________5,043,672___#a______833,598,233__#i__45,747,179,123,763
> > c4d9n160_4__c #P________3,698,928___#a______504,853,590__#i__27,690,755,884,264
> > c4d9n160_5__c #P________1,086,720___#a______615,252,970__#i__34,335,624,244,136
> > c4d9n160_6__c #P__________147,096___#a______338,397,837__#i__18,798,301,009,525
> > c4d9n160_7__c #P________3,487,296___#a______809,265,849__#i__43,898,276,598,457
> > c4d9n160_8__c #P_______17,250,360___#a______754,325,654__#i__42,114,266,169,793
> > c4d9n160_9__c #P__________232,800___#a______451,417,389__#i__24,837,284,173,149
> > c5d10n40_3__c #P___15,701,747,160___#a____4,033,676,044__#i_____371,706,159,314
> > c5d10n42_0__c #P___27,213,591,600___#a____6,141,175,840__#i_____570,449,311,305
> > c5d11n50_1__c #P___17,933,644,200___#a____4,984,945,010__#i_____611,128,534,763
> > c5d12n66_3__c #P____3,158,584,680___#a______846,393,213__#i_____262,765,640,871
> > c5d13n104_1_c #P______188,324,880___#a______862,184,216__#i___7,271,426,496,929
> > c5d13n104_2_c #P______772,116,480___#a____1,033,150,951__#i___8,220,823,255,193
> > c7d20n50_0__c #P___15,654,774,240___#a____8,740,055,650__#i_111,084,371,890,331
> > c8d24n30_0__c #P____2,566,085,760___#a____1,921,669,527__#i__11,360,289,021,982
> > m2cnfD3N80__c #P1,214,819,892,986___#a___25,526,732,062__#i_____277,480,469,168
> > m2cnfD3N90__c #P30,689,663,761,877___#a__534,804,955,816__#i_275,166,269,089,929
> > m3cnfD3N41__c #P ____2,744,070,950___#a______525,930,069__#i______39,566,237,981
> > m4cnfD3N37__c #P ____6,905,169,454___#a____1,658,652,886__#i_____120,401,948,223
> >

dear archimedes underneath the stanford tree of the stanford coffeehouse circa 1990 dear archimedes ignore the shift key on your typewriter
i personally use the on screen keyboard on my intel super twenty for two thousand dollars
but i avoid the shift
one letter per second is called normal hand eye mind coordination steady and slow is one derfull

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 8:41:12 PM UTC-4, Daniel Pehoushek wrote:
> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 6:21:07 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Dr. Fefferman lists the gaps and errors of Andrew Wiles FLT. But that is easy for AP, since Wiles cannot reduce his con-artist fake FLT into a one sentence proof that AP can do-- no n,m exists for n+n=nxn=n^n = m, to build a solution in exp3. Thanks Dr. Fefferman for the patience in reading a gross monstrosity of Wiles fake proof.
> > On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 5:04:56 PM UTC-5, pehou...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >hosted by Prof. Charles Fefferman.
> > >
> > 
> > > c3d5n240_6__c #P______524,469,054___#a_______44,575,463__#i___3,737,329,291,541
> > > c4d6n42_1___c #P___44,940,880,680___#a____8,488,639,509__#i___8,636,206,822,267
> > > c4d7n56_6___c #P____7,545,932,136___#a____1,481,823,453__#i___2,265,653,547,228
> > > c4d8n88_1___c #P___23,940,729,024___#a____1,655,366,338__#i___4,728,513,192,123
> > > c4d9n140_14_c #P________2,653,800___#a_______78,318,652__#i___3,498,868,589,020
> > > c4d9n150_5__c #P______274,667,472___#a______549,512,308__#i__27,015,066,692,449
> > > c4d9n160_0__c #P__________113,448___#a______701,352,451__#i__37,570,079,470,750
> > > c4d9n160_1__c #P________7,131,816___#a______706,643,722__#i__38,306,908,698,704
> > > c4d9n160_2__c #P___________74,208___#a______528,755,645__#i__28,241,835,111,857
> > > c4d9n160_3__c #P________5,043,672___#a______833,598,233__#i__45,747,179,123,763
> > > c4d9n160_4__c #P________3,698,928___#a______504,853,590__#i__27,690,755,884,264
> > > c4d9n160_5__c #P________1,086,720___#a______615,252,970__#i__34,335,624,244,136
> > > c4d9n160_6__c #P__________147,096___#a______338,397,837__#i__18,798,301,009,525
> > > c4d9n160_7__c #P________3,487,296___#a______809,265,849__#i__43,898,276,598,457
> > > c4d9n160_8__c #P_______17,250,360___#a______754,325,654__#i__42,114,266,169,793
> > > c4d9n160_9__c #P__________232,800___#a______451,417,389__#i__24,837,284,173,149
> > > c5d10n40_3__c #P___15,701,747,160___#a____4,033,676,044__#i_____371,706,159,314
> > > c5d10n42_0__c #P___27,213,591,600___#a____6,141,175,840__#i_____570,449,311,305
> > > c5d11n50_1__c #P___17,933,644,200___#a____4,984,945,010__#i_____611,128,534,763
> > > c5d12n66_3__c #P____3,158,584,680___#a______846,393,213__#i_____262,765,640,871
> > > c5d13n104_1_c #P______188,324,880___#a______862,184,216__#i___7,271,426,496,929
> > > c5d13n104_2_c #P______772,116,480___#a____1,033,150,951__#i___8,220,823,255,193
> > > c7d20n50_0__c #P___15,654,774,240___#a____8,740,055,650__#i_111,084,371,890,331
> > > c8d24n30_0__c #P____2,566,085,760___#a____1,921,669,527__#i__11,360,289,021,982
> > > m2cnfD3N80__c #P1,214,819,892,986___#a___25,526,732,062__#i_____277,480,469,168
> > > m2cnfD3N90__c #P30,689,663,761,877___#a__534,804,955,816__#i_275,166,269,089,929
> > > m3cnfD3N41__c #P ____2,744,070,950___#a______525,930,069__#i______39,566,237,981
> > > m4cnfD3N37__c #P ____6,905,169,454___#a____1,658,652,886__#i_____120,401,948,223
> > >
> dear archimedes underneath the stanford tree of the stanford coffeehouse circa 1990 dear archimedes ignore the shift key on your typewriter
> i personally use the on screen keyboard on my intel super twenty for two thousand dollars
> but i avoid the shift
> one letter per second is called normal hand eye mind coordination steady and slow is one derfull

i have a sketch of formulas i would like to test in the competition followup:
Here is a summary of the benchmarks I wish submit to the followup ed.
I will keep you apprised of the competition.
They do not really know about solving
All Quantified Boolean Formulas this year,
especially when #P is less than 4,000,000.

my 2021 final model counting benchmarks on boolean formulas

class royalgraph;//dream
class graph {
public:
graph()
{ onecycles = 0;
twocycles = 0;
plusvert(); // possibly the dum zero is nay dumb
// for fun in development i had one single active graph
// plusonevert would grow that by one vert
// and one might presume an inverse but i forget
} // add location zero to start
num plusvert() {
verts.add(new nums);
permutation.add(permutation.size());
return N(); //
} num vertsplusone() { return verts.size(); }// N()+1
num emptyedges()
{ // remove all edges by resetting size
// zero the small cycle counts
// going to forthwith rebuild a similar graph
// with rejiggling of tiny cycle disturbances in the planned graph
num g;
for (g = 0; g < verts.size(); g++)
(*verts[g]).setsize(0);
// teshmotes about nay using clear
// teshmotes about tiny quantity of rejiggling
// teshmote about tiny changes in analysis counts of cycles
onecycles = 0;
twocycles = 0;
threecycles = 0;
permutation.clear();permutation.add(zero);
return zero;
} num addedge(num v1, num v2)
{ // presently M123 counting is stimulated by adding an edge to the present graph
// other opportunitys minimum spanning tree is first comes to mind nay hamiltonian circuit
// others shortest distances by num edges
// other graph definitions i forget such as what is girth
// changes in status of connected components
// had ancient messy connected component code of the system with bignums for counting satisfiable solutions
// for checking culbertson may have still the numbers that were quite large
// had sent in big numbers to sat conference for counting solutions to 2cnfs
// recommend counting number of solutions prior to building qvariable tree as feasibility study
// did paper with roberto deleted connected components code shortly after as nonuseful for the general problem
// the bignums package was good but it might have used minus
// used half the bits in whatever the word size was defined to be as the bigdigits of the bignum
// printing it out was the computationally challenging but inconsequential temporally thing
// make graph math departnebts on earth
// plusonevert for universityofcincinnati
// try for fifth degree graph covering america
// known locals zavieruniversity is first edge
// osu is second edge
// case western reserve university is third edge
// pennstateuniversity is fourth edge
// universityofchicago is fifth and presentday final edge
// go for spanning tree first
//
if ((v1 > zero) && (v2 > zero) && (v1 < vertsplusone()) && (v2 < vertsplusone())) {
// graph accepts multiple edges and self loops but...
if (v1 < v2) {
when((*verts[v1]).memberp(v2))
twocycles++;
(*verts[v1]).add(v2); // adds multiple edges
} else if (v2 < v1) {
when((*verts[v2]).memberp(v1))
twocycles++;
(*verts[v2]).add(v1);
} else if (v1 == v2) { // adds self loops
onecycles++;
(*verts[v1]).add(v2);
} //when v1 v2 have common v3 threecycles++
// common v3 == |interset v1 verts v2 verts| == #threecycles
threecycles += interset(v1, (*verts[v2]));
} return v1;
} num interset(num v1, nums& v2verts) {
num threecys = zero;
for (num g = zero; g < v2verts.size(); g++) when(member(v1, v2verts[g]))threecys++;
return threecys;
} num member(num v1, num v3) { for (num g = zero; g < (*verts[v1]).size(); g++) { when((*verts[v1])[g] == v3) return one; } return zero; }
num M()
{ num sum = 0;
num g;
for (g = 1; g < verts.size(); g++) {
sum = sum + (*verts[g]).size();
} return sum;
} num N() {
return goose(verts.size());
} //
num empty() { // the inverse of plusoneverty is emptyallvertys
while (verts.size()) {
delete verts.last();
verts.slop();
} while (grvertvars.size()) {
delete grvertvars.last();
grvertvars.slop();
} while (grclauses.size()) {
delete grclauses.last();
grclauses.slop();
} permutation.clear();
permutation.add(permutation.size());
return N();
} nums permutation;
joy swap(num i, num j)
{num tmp0 = permutation[i];
tmpv0 = (*grvertvars[tmp0 % N])[ tmp0/N ];
permutation[i] = permutation[j];
num tmp1 = permutation[j];
tmpv1 = (*grvertvars[tmp1 % N])[ tmp1/N ];
(*grvertvars[tmp0 % N])[ tmp0/N ] = tmpv1;
permutation[j] = tmp;}
(*grvertvars[tmp1 % N])[ tmp1/N ] = tmpv0;
} ....
static oy hardcolorgraph(num C, num D, num N, num quantity, graph* gre, num counter)
{//only c3d5n180s for elementary core of unelementarygraph
unelementarygraph(C, D, N, quantity, gre, counter);
} static oy unelementarygraph(num C, num D, num N, num quantity, graph*& gre, num& counter);
num buildunelementarycolorwithlgC(num C, graph*& gre, num& counter);
numnums grvertvars;
numnums grclauses;
};
....
oy graph::unelementarygraph(num C, num D, num N, num quantity, graph*& gre, num& counter)//180 is a treasury boundary constant while doing theology
{ // think elementarycore c3d5n180, v360.
// and by keeping the test cases small enough
// they may even be solvable!!! eg c4d9n100
// c5d16nwhat is unknown
//num quantom = zero;
num lgC=0;while(C>ray::twopowers[lgC])lgC++;when(lgC==zero){lgC = C;}
when(C < 33)
for (num quantom = 0; quantom < quantity; g++) {
printf(" G");
{
Click here to read the complete article

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 7:41:12 PM UTC-5, pehou...@gmail.com wrote:

> dear archimedes underneath the stanford tree of the stanford coffeehouse circa 1990 dear archimedes ignore the shift key on your typewriter
> i personally use the on screen keyboard on my intel super twenty for two thousand dollars
> but i avoid the shift
> one letter per second is called normal hand eye mind coordination steady and slow is one derfull

Yes, Dr. Pehou, did someone write a song about you "Dr Peyote at the Stanford Coffeehouse", I left my heart, in Palo Alto,,,, .... high on a hill, the coffee calls me there, and where little raindeer fly on Santa's call.... the golden air conditioner waits for me....

I forgot to mention the very first mistake of Andrew Wiles FLT, although no-one of his generation would have known about Reductio ad Absurdum as a nonviable method of proof. For that is the very first mistake of Wiles FLT, for no reductio ad absurdum can be used in a mathematics proof.

I am not sure of whether RAA was used by Kempe for his sham proof of 4 Color Mapping but in Appel and Haken the RAA was used. I am not sure if Thomas Hales went out on a limb in his Kepler Packing by using RAA. Or whether Tao and Green used the RAA in their sham proof of primes in arithmetic sequence 5, 11, 17, 23, 29 where +6, but Tao and Green never in hell define what is infinity.

So, where all of these above sham and fake proofs using a Reductio Ad Absurdum. I only know for sure the Wiles and Appel & Haken used RAA, and thus, those two alleged proofs were con-artist fakery. But I would not be surprised at all if all the above mentioned proofs were RAA, and thus fakes on just those grounds alone.

Why is the RAA not sound to use in math proofs? Because the Logic connector of If--> Then has a truth table of TFUU where u means unknown or uncertain.. And the truth table has to be that for If--> Then in order for division by 0 is unknown.

I wrote a whole logic book on RAA.

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
•

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