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.

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 1:05:51 PM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

[snip - word salad 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 list of failed physicists who could never understand 9 x 105 is within sigma error of 945, the mass of either neutron or proton implying the real electron is the muon and real proton is 840MeV as a proton torus doing the Faraday law with the muon.
Ross on failed physicists
Univ Calif San Diego, physics dept
HENRY D. I. ABARBANEL, KAM S. ARNOLD, DANIEL P. AROVAS, RICHARD D. AVERITT, JULIO T. BARREIRO, DIMITRI N. BASOV, STEVEN BOGGS, JAMES G. BRANSON, ADAM J. BURGASSER, LEONID V. BUTOV, ALISON COIL,EVA-MARIA S. COLLINS, MAX (MASSIMILIANO) DI VENTRA,
PATRICK H. DIAMOND, FRED C. DRISCOLL, DANIEL H. DUBIN, OLGA K. DUDKO, RAPHAEL M. FLAUGER,MICHAEL M. FOGLER, ALEX FRAÑÓ, GEORGE M. FULLER,DANIEL R GREEN, KIM GRIEST, BENJAMIN GRINSTEIN,ALEXANDER GROISMAN, TARUN GROVER, JORGE E. HIRSCH, MICHAEL HOLST, TERENCE T. HWA, KENNETH A. INTRILIGATOR, ELIZABETH JENKINS, SUCKJOON JUN, BRIAN KEATING, DUSAN KERES, DAVID KLEINFELD
, QUINN M. KONOPACKY, ELENA F. KOSLOVER, JULIUS KUTI, TONGYAN LIN, ANEESH V. MANOHAR, M. BRIAN MAPLE, JOHN A. MCGREEVY, THOMAS W. MURPHY, KAIXUAN NI, MICHAEL L. NORMAN, THOMAS M. O'NEIL, HANS P. PAAR, MARK PADDOCK, JEREMIE PALACCI, TENIO POPMINTCHEV, WOUTER-JAN RAPPEL,KARIN M. SANDSTROM, IVAN K. SCHULLER, LU J. SHAM,VIVEK SHARMA, TATYANA O. SHARPEE, BRIAN SHOTWELL, OLEG SHPYRKO, ELIZABETH H SIMMONS,SUNIL K. SINHA, DOUGLAS E. SMITH, HARRY SUHL

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7:13:00 AM UTC-5, ross.pro...@gmx.com wrote:
> 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

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  Hi, I am the mindless fuckdog Ross gmx.com who spends every second of every day in trying to get AP kicked out of sci.math. Why am I such a mindless fuckdog? Because, I failed science and want to wreck havoc on those doing science. Will you join me, because nothing is more spiritual in life than to spend every second of the day stalking AP and destroying Usenet to wipe my Ross arse on.
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'