Andrew Wiles and his fake FLT proof, so dumb on FLT he could not even spot Euler's flaw of exp 3 FLT, and so dumb as a mathematician, he never could do a geometry proof of calculus, FTC.

Berkeley's Roland Dreier was extremely generous in 1993, and he needed not state that AP had proven FLT, for it is obvious that AP had proven FLT and Roland had given that part of the proof with his own algebra proof (see below his 1993 post) that Pythagorean Triples are built from 2+2 = 2x2 = 2^2 = 4.


On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
> Taniyama-Shimura conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem I will give a
> brief account of the situation. During the review process a number of
> problems emerged, most of which have been resolved, but one in
> particular I have not yet settled. The key reduction of (most cases
> of ) the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture to the calculation of the Selmer
> group is correct. However the final calculation of a precise upper
> bound for the Selmer group in the semistable case (of the symmetric
> square representation associated to a modular form) is not yet
> complete as it stands. I believe that I will be able to finish this
> in the near future using the ideas explained in my Cambridge
> lectures.
> The fact that a lot of work remains to be done on the
> manuscript makes it still unsuitable for release as a preprint . In
> my course in Princeton beginning in February I will give a full
> account of this work.
>
> Andrew Wiles.

Andrew, your FLT is junk and a sham proof. So dumb on FLT are you, Andrew, that you never spotted the error of Euler in his exponent 3 of FLT, the error that Euler could never prove the case of when all three A,B,C are even, A^3 + B^3 = C^3. You never spotted that error of Euler and yet you are so pompous that you think you found a proof of all of FLT. No, Andrew, actually you are a math failure for you never recognized that the pressing problem in all of mathematics of our generation is to give a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (see below at end). Instead, you, Andrew chased after fame and fortune, but never the "truth of mathematics".

5-Andrew Wiles and his fake FLT proof, so dumb on FLT he could not even spot Euler's flaw of exp 3 FLT, and so dumb as a mathematician, he never could do a geometry proof of calculus, FTC.

Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 7, 2021, 11:10:15 PM
to sci.math
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.

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 1:49:24 AM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

[snip - text not worth reading]

Response to AP,

Without intending to sound nasty, it does strike me as rather tragic that you waste so much of both your time and effort (and other people's) writing your pseudo-mathematical drivel on here when you don't have much time left on the clock. You are in your 70's aren't you? Average life expectancy in wealthier parts of Europe is about 80, and obviously health runs the risk of seriously declining beyond 70 unless you have taken amazing care of yourself. So barring Aubrey de Grey's efforts succeeding at a speed beyond his expectations (at present), you've probably got less than a decade. If you are actually interested in mathematics, wouldn't you be better off actually trying to learn some genuine number theory rather than just writing down whatever occurs to you and writing crap about Wiles (whose proof has been thoroughly checked ages ago)?

A nice book is Hardy and Wright's text: An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers

The latest edition has an introduction by Wiles himself.

Geniuses like Wiles should be looked up to and imitated so that what worked for them can help the community at large and so aid humanities quest for truth. Being jealous and scornful of them accomplishes nothing at all, but wastes a lot of time that could be better spent.

Some Number Theory Book Recommendations

1) An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers, By G.H. Hardy and E.M. Wright. This book gives a highly respected overview of the field, starting from reasonably basic level, and is highly respected by the mathematical community.. It is a reference book rather than a text book though and covers some quite hard material. So its a companion text rather than anything else.

The four books below give different approaches to elementary number theory or look at different topics.

2) Higher Arithmetic: an algorithmic introduction to number theory, by Harold Edwards. Perhaps the simplest introduction to number theory that I have come across, and one of the shortest. Edwards favours an old fashioned constructivist approach to mathematics, so you won't find set theory and hard analysis in here, its all elementary and written in an almost 19th century spirit at times.

3) Number Theory, by George Andrews. Takes a combinatorial approach to number theory. Starts off at same level as Edwards, but utilises some ideas from calculus later on. Doesn't seem to assume any background in abstract algebra though.

4) Elementary Number Theory, by Jones and Jones. A standard first text in the UK. Has solutions for most exercises and is more modern in its treatment than the Edwards or Andrews two texts, but still requires little in the way of pre-requisites for most chapters, however it enters more abstract territory than the other two texts.

5) The Higher Arithmetic, by Davenport. More of a monograph than a proper textbook, but is aimed at a beginning level and is reasonably short. Includes an extended discussion of continued fractions which the previous three texts don't really go into.

You would do yourself a service by cutting your losses on the constant, boring and repetitive posting (do you really think google or the mathematics community gives a damn about your unlettered views on Wiles and Tao?), and instead having a crack at absorbing these lovely texts.

Have a Wonderful Day
QB

Remain Calm and Keep Loving Real Analysis
[Recommended Book of the Day: Dr Euler's Fabulous Formula, by Paul Nahin]

Ross, gmx.com declares *insane logicians list*, where every single one preaches the contradictory foolhardy Either.. or.. or.. both. Being far to insane in logic to realize either or or both is a walking talking Contradiction.. The truthful AND connector is TTTF and not the mindless Boole TFFF.

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```.....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'...          ..-''    '     '  Hi, I am Ross at gmx.com, the hippity hoppity mindless science fuckdog with the mindless insand Logicians list of fools. On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:24:07 AM UTC-5, ross.pro...@gmx.com wrote:
> Response
> Without intending to sound nasty,
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``.........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'

Peter Bruce Andrews
Lennart Aqvist
Henk Barendregt
John Lane Bell
Nuel Belnap
Paul Benacerraf
Jean Paul Van Bendegem
Johan van Benthem
Jean-Yves Beziau
Andrea Bonomi
Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers)
Alan Richard Bundy
Gregory Chaitin
Jack Copeland
John Corcoran
Dirk van Dalen
Martin Davis
Michael A.E. Dummett
John Etchemendy
Hartry Field
Kit Fine
Melvin Fitting
Matthew Foreman
Michael Fourman
Harvey Friedman
Dov Gabbay
L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers)
Sol Garfunkel
Jean-Yves Girard
Siegfried Gottwald
Jeroen Groenendijk
Susan Haack
Leo Harrington
William Alvin Howard
Ronald Jensen
Dick de Jongh
David Kaplan
Alexander S. Kechris
Howard Jerome Keisler
Robert Kowalski
Georg Kreisel
Saul Kripke
Kenneth Kunen
Karel Lambert
Penelope Maddy
David Makinson
Isaac Malitz
Gary R. Mar
Donald A. Martin
Per Martin-Lof
Yiannis N. Moschovakis
Jeff Paris
Charles Parsons
Solomon Passy
Lorenzo Pena
Dag Prawitz
Graham Priest
Michael O. Rabin
Gerald Sacks
Dana Scott
Stewart Shapiro
Theodore Slaman
Robert M. Solovay
John R. Steel
Martin Stokhof
Anne Sjerp Troelstra
Alasdair Urquhart
Moshe Y. Vardi
W. Hugh Woodin
John Woods
On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:24:07 AM UTC-5, ross.pro...@gmx.com wrote:
> Response
> Without intending to sound nasty, it does strike me as rather tragic that you waste so much of both your time and effort (and other people's) writing your pseudo-mathematical drivel

#6-1, 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of 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 end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Length: 72 pages

File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



#6-2, 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.