Kibo Parry M. complaining, he has fair Google search list but not Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales with no COUNTERPOINT on first page, only sugar coated propaganda-- oh the baby boy genius when in reality they are Failures of Math, see below

> Michael Moroney's profile photo
> Michael Moroney wrote:
> Jun 20, 2021, 11:07:11 PM
> "Court Jester of Physics"
> Michael Moroney's profile photo
> Michael Moroney wrote:
> Jun 20, 2021, 11:11:48 PM
>Physics Stooge"

All of Wiles & Tao Google search hits are sugar coated baby boy genius, but Google should have a CounterPoint hit on each of their 1st pages. Maybe the below is too harsh but the reality is that Tao & Wiles are math failures, not geniuses

So you Google Search "Harvard Dr. Hau" and you find Balanced Honest Search List with a Counterpoint in Dr. Hau's first page.

But you Google Search Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales and you find nothing but propaganda, brainwash of sugar coated baby boy genius at his award trophy cabinet.

When the truth and reality of the matter is they are math failures, so stupid in math that they cannot be bothered by making a homemade paper cone and dropping a Kerr lid inside and at a slant, it is not a ellipse but a OVAL.

And then those three oafs of math knew that Calculus was geometry, or did they? And calculus being geometry demands a geometrical proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Yet all they can do is the fakery "limit analysis".

Then there is the matter of Logic for you need logic to do a math proof. And yet those three oafs still teach the fakery Boole logic with AND truth table being TFFF when in reality it is TTTF so that you can have 2 AND 1= 3 and not the Boole fakery of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.

Yet the world puts these three oafs on a pedestal of math achievement when the truth of the matter is-- they are con-artists out for fame and fortune, and the truth be damnation.

So those three need this Counterpoint on their first page of a Google hit list.

A thread of this was found in "Terence Tao Plutonium" but it should be found in simply "Terence Tao" as a counterpoint to the awful 5 million hits of sugar coated baby boy genius

novaBBS - sci.math - 1-Shit for brains in math-- Andrew Wiles ...
From: Archimedes Plutonium ... Shit for brains in math-- Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet never a geometry proof ...

Now maybe that is too harsh, but the thread in sci.math of these are good for Tao and for Wiles and for Hales.

Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Jan 88 posts 4864 views updated 2:20 PM

Re: Why is John Stillwell such a numbskull on Irrational numbers-- his book Mathematics and its History
By Zelos Malum 46 posts 500 views updated 2:29 PM

Re: Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Jan 25 posts 653 views updated 2:26 PM

Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Zelos Malum 67 posts 1027 views updated 2:22 PM

Google is JOURNALISM and we would be sick and tired of PBS NEWSHOUR if all they ever did was interview a Republican and never a counterpoint of a Democrat. Same thing goes for math propaganda of Tao, Wiles, Hales of 5 million hits of sugar coated nonsense.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 21, 2021, 1:47:29 AM (4 days ago)



to
On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 1:34:35 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> A thread of this was found in "Terence Tao Plutonium" but it should be found in simply "Terence Tao" as a counterpoint to the awful 5 million hits of sugar coated baby boy genius
>
> novaBBS - sci.math - 1-Shit for brains in math-- Andrew Wiles ...
> From: Archimedes Plutonium ... Shit for brains in math-- Terence Tao, Andrew Wiles, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet never a geometry proof ...
>

And this is probably how mechanically, they skew the search hits. They put in a command that any "plutonium" in a search hit of Terence Tao cannot be included in a search of "Terence Tao". So that Princeton Univ or Google or UCLA attach a "delete any hit with plutonium" in a Terence Tao search list.

But, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales need a COUNTERPOINT in their very first Google list. For all three were too stupid in math to do any of these-- calculus, ellipse-oval, Boole corrected.

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

#8-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

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 



Google came into existence at the nexus of Old Math-- journal editors as little dictators of math journals, where the old method of math proofs was merely a country club of old men trying to secure favors, but never concerned about "math truth". Time and time again in Old Math with their journal editors being corrupt for math and printing b.s. as the truth. We see it today in Jill Pipher's AMS refusing to admit to the truth that a single cone slant cut is the OVAL never the ellipse, and here Jill is supposed to be all about math truth, not her corrupt stance to keep AP out of the news, to deny even the fact that Jill is terrible in math, for Jill does not even recognize that calculus is geometry, yet there she sits with her mindless limit analysis of a fake proof.

So in this world of country club fake math proffered onto the world public as the 1990s was the last decade before the Internet can expose fakery and corruption like that of Andrew Wiles, being perhaps the last fake con-artist mathematician driven with the power of having had a Journal editor dictatorship to get his awful abhorrent FLT across the finish line.

For in this new world of SCIENCE REPORTING, because the Internet is here and many many people can offer their wisdom and not the corrupt country club having it all their way, 100% their way with all objections muffled and stifled. Here the Internet has replaced Science Reporting to large extent and opened the doors to Free Speech in Science. Wiles can run, but his proof is going nowhere but the trashpile of shame.

And so, Wiles and Tao and Hales have enlisted Google Search engines to better their corruption of math by stacking their search lists all in favor of their con-artistry. But, unknown to them, it is just because of the Freedom of Speech that the Internet offers, that their use of Google Search as a propaganda tool in the favor of Wiles, Tao, Hales, and in physics Weinberg, Glashow, Higgs, it is the Internet that exposes the corruption of corrupt scientists, who play with the Truth of Science all to garner fame and fortune, but never the truth.

Wiles never proved FLT and in fact was so so very stupid on FLT that his tiny math mind never realized Euler had no proof of FLT in exponent 3 and Wiles depended his entire argument on having a Euler proof of exponent 3.

So, the trouble with Google Search in this new era of science reporting, is that Google Search is pandering to corrupt con-artists with never a COUNTERPOINT hit on the first page of a major issue of science. Tao's and Wiles's and Hales's Google search hits are in the millions and all of them sugar coated b.s. All of them "baby boy genius or award trophy cabinet stock full"

Yet, not a single one of these con-artists of math admit that calculus is geometry and where is their geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

So Google Search, needs and requires a Counterpoint hit on 1st page of Tao, Hales, Wiles. Google is a JOURNALISM platform and good journalism like PBS Newshour never has just always the opinion of Republicans only, with never a Democrat viewpoint. Yet Google up to this date is slanted all in one direction-- the IQ of baby boy genius Tao who is so stupid in math that he never can do a geometry proof of Calculus FTC.

The true proof, the valid proof of FLT was given by AP, and although Wiles did not steal AP's proof, Wiles did steal AP's fair share of fame and awards, for no-one has proven FLT until AP did so in 1991.

We will see, if the Internet not only changes how Science is reported, but whether the Internet, now can mete out justice on Wiles stealing the fame and fortune of FLT proof, stealing it from AP. Whether the Internet also serves as a Justice platform and removes the trophy cabinet from Wiles for his fake and corrupt FLT, his nonsense of a proof.

2) AP proved Fermat's Last Theorem in 1991-1993 while Andrew Wiles has a fake proof of FLT.

AP proved Fermat's Last Theorem in 1991-1993 while Andrew Wiles has a fake proof of FLT.

A short list of errors by Andrew Wiles on his FLT.

1) Reductio ad Absurdum is never a proof method that is valid in mathematics, and it shows on Wiles's FLT for he is never able to bridge over and prove the Generalized FLT, in fact, his method sits there as a one off-- math offering, unable to kindle the proof of any other math conjecture. (See AP's book on fixing Logic below).

2) Wiles was so backwards in research in FLT that he failed to see that Euler's offering of a proof on exponent 3 of FLT was not a proof either, for Euler forgot the case of when x, y, z are three even numbers in x^3 + y^3 = z^3. And Wiles proof-offering is dependent on Euler having had a proof in exponent 3 for his elliptic curves.

3) A genuine true proof of FLT is able to easily bridge the gap of Generalized FLT of that of A^x + B^y = C^z, all A,B,C,x,y,z being Counting Numbers. Yet Andrew Wiles offering fails miserably on that account. But AP's proof based on Counting Numbers Basis Vector of 2+2 = 2x2 = 2^2 = 4, yet for exponent 3, no basis vector exists such that n+n+n = nxnxn = n^3 = a actual counting number.

Andrew Wiles did not steal AP's proof, but Andrew Wiles stole all the fame and fortune of the true world's first proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Andrew Wiles offering is a fakery, a con-artist job of massive publicity all because he was a head editor of a math journal at Princeton University. This allowed him extra privileges of propanganda and brainwash of the general public. But we are going to see if the power of the world's Internet can bring to light the fact that AP did the world's first proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in 1991-1993, and that Wiles had stolen the honors from AP with his joke of a offering.

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 

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)


• 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
•

#6-3, 143rd published book

DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.

Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.

Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.

Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled
•
•

#6-4, 100th published book

Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:

Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
....would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---

But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.
Length: 123 pages

Product details
• File size : 807 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 123 pages
• Publication date : March 14, 2020
• ASIN : B085X863QW
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,160,707 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #61,471 in Philosophy (Kindle Store)
◦ #193,599 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
◦ #240,849 in Philosophy (Books)

3> Google came into existence at the nexus of Old Math-- journal editors as little dictators of math journals, where the old method of math proofs was merely a country club of old men trying to secure favors, but never concerned about "math truth". Time and time again in Old Math with their journal editors being corrupt for math and printing b.s. as the truth. We see it today in Jill Pipher's AMS refusing to admit to the truth that a single cone slant cut is the OVAL never the ellipse, and here Jill is supposed to be all about math truth, not her corrupt stance to keep AP out of the news, to deny even the fact that Jill is terrible in math, for Jill does not even recognize that calculus is geometry, yet there she sits with her mindless limit analysis of a fake proof.

Andrew Wiles is probably the last of his kind in mathematics, where a fool of math trumps up his achievements which are hollow and nonexistent, all because his over testosterone to gain fame and fortune, the truth of math be damn. The fool Wiles cannot even see that Euler had no valid proof in exponent 3, yet that very same fool thinks he proved FLT. Wiles never belonged in math, perhaps a accountant or bank teller, for there you need not have to prove something, just do a honest days work.

And so Google, being new to the world in the 1990s, never realized that they are JOURNALISM and good journalism never covers only one side of a issue, but the other side. And here, Google failed proper journalism with their obnoxious 5 million hits all saying what a great mathematician, and the AP Counterpoint never showing up in a biased propaganda Google Search. Only if you search "Andrew Wiles Plutonium" do you get the fair balanced Counterpoint. But this Counterpoint should be on the first page of all Google search hits of "Andrew Wiles".

If Google can be fair with Counterpoint on Harvard's Dr. Hau, then no excuse for Google to be fair with Andrew Wiles, the flunky of math with not even a geometry proof of Calculus, FTC.

2> Google does a fair, accurate, honest with Counterpoint Search list on Harvard Univ Dr. Hau where she refuses to finish her slow light experiment only because it will prove that AP was correct-- light waves are closed loop circuits back to the source of the light. But, a Google Search of Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales reveals only 5 million hits or more that is pure propaganda, sugar coated propaganda to elevate con-artist failures of math with their con-artist trickery, when neither Wiles, Tao, Hales can even do a valid proof or geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. So, apparently, Google is aiding and abetting con artist fakery in math, where they figured out how to skew in favor of con-artists, carnival barkers.