Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 108 of 108
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: Dimensions, sets, and Fermat's Theorem

  1. #101
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Dimensions, sets, and Fermat's Theorem

    I never ignored any issues, except the moronic ones you brought up which I readily demolished in the second thread, which you subsequently closed. About Euler's formulae as I remember... Shall we do it again?

    Petty, petty horseshit. And there are only three of you that have weighed in to my proof (with a lot of noise, mostly). I think there may be only four of us posting on this forum, but there are more reading it as guests.

    Unfortunately, two of the village idiots are moderators, including one who pontificates about maintaining the free flow of ideas, while most of the time unable to figure out what any of them really mean.

    Time will tell....

    So, three village idiots (who haven't even heard of Descartes, or who reject him and all physics since, not to mention engineering, not to mention linear algebra by refusing to consider independent variables (a,b) in a Cartesian coordinate system) against one - myself - who has at least a mathematics degree from a university and some graduate work in physics, and 10 years of actually working in the research field in mathematical physics think tanks .... (Santa Barbara Research Center and General Research in Santa Barbara... In fact, early in my UCSB years I worked with Dr. Walker on the Mossbauer Effect as a lab assistant... among other jobs, and as a graduate student was granted a research assistantship - not that that means anything to the three village idiots responding to me on this subject)

    I quote credentials not to brag (I have more if necessary, but there are lots and lots of guys with even more - much more) but to point out that I have been through way more vetting of my capabilities than you three idiots can ever hope to do.... But I would be very interested to hear if any of you have any at all.

    Because if you did accept Descartes and the significance of (a,b) you would understand my proof in an instant (and Fermat, for sure, knew of Descartes and orthogonal coordinate systems). (And you would have understood why John Gabriel was wrong in his definition of his "new derivative".)

    And none of you will address the fundamentals of my proof except to say "Coordinate system? We don't need no coordinate system, we're happy with a single number line, but we can't figure out how to prove Fermat's theorem, and nobody else can who is on the same number line with us." And wonder why...

    And pontificate in the echo chamber with the other guys on the same single number line, and refuse to acknowledge others who may understand circles - and even lines with slopes.

    But keep on with the literature search. ..
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 12-27-2016 at 11:55 AM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  2. #102
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    4,005

    Default Re: Dimensions, sets, and Fermat's Theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    I never ignored any issues, except the moronic ones you brought up which I readily demolished in the second thread, which you subsequently closed. About Euler's formulae as I remember... Shall we do it again?
    Here's another link to the second thread, it's easily read, there's only 21 posts in the whole thread:
    Fermat's Theorem, Revisited

    Petty, petty horseshit. And there are only three of you that have weighed in to my proof (with a lot of noise, mostly). I think there may be only four of us posting on this forum, but there are more reading it as guests.

    Time will tell....

    So, three village idiots (who haven't even heard of Descartes, or who reject him and all physics since, not to mention engineering, not to mention linear algebra by refusing to consider independent variables (a,b) in a Cartesian coordinate system) against one - myself - who has at least a mathematics degree from a university and some graduate work in physics, and 10 years of actually working in the research field in mathematical physics think tanks .... (Santa Barbara Research Center and General Research in Santa Barbara... In fact, early in my UCSB years I worked with Dr. Walker on the Mossbauer Effect as a lab assistant... among other jobs, and as a graduate student was granted a research assistantship - not that that means anything to the three village idiots responding to me on this subject)

    I quote credentials not to brag (I have more if necessary, but there are lots and lots of guys with even more) but to point out that I have been through way more vetting of my capabilities than you three idiots can ever hope to do.... But I would be very interested to hear if any of you have any at all.

    Because if you did accept Descartes and the significance of (a,b) you would understand my proof in an instant (and Fermat, for sure, knew of Descartes and orthogonal coordinate systems). (And you would have understood why John Gabriel was wrong in his definition of his "new derivative".)

    And none of you will address the fundamentals of my proof except to say "Coordinate system? We don't need no coordinate system, we're happy with a single number line, but we can't figure out how to prove Fermat's theorem, and nobody else can who is on the same number line with us." And wonder why...

    And pontificate in the echo chamber with the other guys on the same single number line, and refuse to acknowledge others who may understand circles - and even lines with slopes.

  3. #103
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    4,005

    Default Re: Dimensions, sets, and Fermat's Theorem

    The most interesting part is where you struggle to understand my objection to:
    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    If the triangle is not a right triangle, then
    Then you claim it was a simple typo and you fix it ("without attribution" you point out) to "If the triangle is a right triangle, then "

    For triangles, is never true. That's because of the Triangle Inequality.
    Last edited by grapes; 12-27-2016 at 12:12 PM.

  4. #104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Dimensions, sets, and Fermat's Theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    The most interesting part is where you struggle to understand my objection to:

    Then you claim it was a simple typo and you fix it ("without attribution" you point out) to "If the triangle is a right triangle, then "

    For triangles, is never true. That's because of the Triangle Inequality.
    THAT IS MY PROOF

    (that said, if I said that, I only said it once, and it was a typo. I don't think so, but I could have made that error)l

    Edit: I did just look it up, and I omitted the "not" (dyslexia), it is true. Still the context of the discussion is obvious. That said, I was so pissed off at you for other misleading and wrong errors and donkey braying and the context was so obvious, I didn't notice the error.

    We had been at this argument for eternity, and to claim that is an intellectual position I ever maintained throughout all the interchanges on all the threads is at best misleading and at worst a blatant lie.

    Now I undersand why you closed the thread. To preserve that trivial error as a "counter-proof", at the same time claiming my actual position as your own. Talk about hypocrisy... in a "moderator" yet.

    I will happily go back and correct the error to show what I mean, if it will help you to understand the proof and you open the thread instead of preserving the error as a quote of a position I have never held, and is in fact, part of my proof from the very beginning.

    I have been writing a lot of tex, have no proofreader, and mistakes sometimes get by. You aren't writing anything original, just throwing shit against the wall to see if anything sticks. Others reading this will cut me some slack, and can pm me to see what I really meant if there is a question.

    I have ALWAYS said (in context, except for that mistake):

    in the Binomial theorem where rem(a,b2) = 2ab.

    That is why I showed Fermat's theorem is proven:

    in the Binomial theorem where rem(a,b,2) = 2ab.

    Therefore, unless the triangle is Pythagorean (right triangle) for the case n=2. n>2 follows immediately.

    (I don't even need this condition to prove Fermat's theorem for which n > 2)

    (I show this case in the STR unit circle for two independent integers).

    So the triangle inequality is never true because there exists rem(a,b,2) > 0. Which means you may finally understand what I have been saying from the beginning.

    That is why I proved Fermat's Theorem for the case of the Binomial theorem for n = 2, (rem a,b,2) > 0

    And then n>2 follows immediately. Because (a,b) are independent variables....

    As a moderator, you are unethical, small minded, and incompetent. If we're going to have to fight, have the courage to fight mano a mano on the same battlefield.
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 12-27-2016 at 12:59 PM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  5. #105
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    4,005

    Default Re: Dimensions, sets, and Fermat's Theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    THAT IS MY PROOF

    (that said, if I said that, I only said it once, and it was a typo. I don't think so, but I could have made that error)l

    Edit: I did just look it up, and I omitted the "not" (dyslexia), it is true. Still the context of the discussion is obvious. That said, I was so pissed off at you for other misleading and wrong errors and donkey braying and the context was so obvious, I didn't notice the error.
    Yes, you blind yourself.

    Now, go back to those posts, read them carefully!

    Neither of your versions were correct, with or without the "not"

    Because of the Triangle Inequality.
    We had been at this argument for eternity, and to claim that is an intellectual position I ever maintained throughout all the interchanges on all the threads is at best misleading and at worst a blatant lie.

    Now I undersand why you closed the thread. To preserve that trivial error as a "counter-proof", at the same time claiming my actual position as your own. Talk about hypocrisy... in a "moderator" yet.

    I will happily go back and correct the error to show what I mean, if it will help you to understand the proof and you open the thread instead of preserving the error as a quote of a position I have never held, and is in fact, part of my proof from the very beginning.

    I have been writing a lot of tex, have no proofreader, and mistakes sometimes get by. You aren't writing anything original, just throwing shit against the wall to see if anything sticks. Others reading this will cut me some slack, and can pm me to see what I really meant if there is a question.

    I have ALWAYS said (in context, except for that mistake):

    in the Binomial theorem where rem(a,b2) = 2ab.

    That is why I showed Fermat's theorem is proven:

    in the Binomial theorem where rem(a,b,2) = 2ab.

    Therefore, unless the triangle is Pythagorean (right triangle) for the case n=2. n>2 follows immediately.

    (I don't even need this condition to prove Fermat's theorem for which n > 2)

    (I show this case in the STR unit circle for two independent integers).

    So the triangle inequality is never true because there exists rem(a,b,2) > 0. Which means you may finally understand what I have been saying from the beginning.

    That is why I proved Fermat's Theorem for the case of the Binomial theorem for n = 2, (rem a,b,2) > 0

    And then n>2 follows immediately. Because (a,b) are independent variables....

    As a moderator, you are unethical, small minded, and incompetent. If we're going to have to fight, have the courage to fight mano a mano on the same battlefield.
    I make corrections to help out, but it is very difficult when you do not actually read my comment--or your own post!

    I'm honestly worried about you, my friend.

  6. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Dimensions, sets, and Fermat's Theorem

    My posts stand; others will judge the context. Time will tell, let history be the judge.

    My proofs are available at .pdf's on my site, independent of this forum. I now have several related proofs, all consistent with each other, all based on the indepence of (a,b). I will be happy to respond to questions privately.

    If anyone else has any questions about this at all and wants to avoid the flak, to get my personal response pm me so we can avoid all the bullshit....

    I really am interested in an intelligent critique of my position.... but communicating with the Peanut Gallery on my Ignore List is impossible for obvious reasons....
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 12-27-2016 at 02:28 PM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  7. #107
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    4,005

    Default Re: Dimensions, sets, and Fermat's Theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    My posts stand; others will judge the context. Time will tell, let history be the judge.

    My proofs are available at .pdf's on my site, independent of this forum. I now have several related proofs, all consistent with each other, all based on the indepence of (a,b). I will be happy to respond to questions privately.

    If anyone else has any questions about this at all and wants to avoid the flak, to get my personal response pm me so we can avoid all the bullshit....

    I really am interested in an intelligent critique of my position.... but communicating with the Peanut Gallery on my Ignore List is impossible for obvious reasons....
    You have continued the discussion here:
    Fermat's Theorem revisited, and my "mistake".

  8. #108
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: Dimensions, sets, and Fermat's Theorem

    Thread Merging.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •