Page 11 of 21 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 207
Like Tree15Likes

Thread: Fermat's last, and mine too.

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

    Default Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    You're just being foolish. Go, read your post again.

    You're being foolish. Read my post again. And stop with the fricken one-liners about concepts you don't understand.

    Turns out that Gentzen is a finitist philosophically; his approach is based on primitive recursive arithmetic. That assumes that primitive mathematical objects exist a priori, some think like Wittgenstein in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in response to Russell's Principia (others, with whom I agree, think that work is laying the foundations for the Philosophical Investigations and Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics.)

    It is becoming ever more clear that you have very little understanding of the foundations of mathematics. The Naked Emperor has a very limited understanding of only one school of thought and no others....
    .
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 03-09-2017 at 07:43 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.

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

    Default Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    You're being foolish. Read my post again.
    Perfect! You mimic real words, but you have no idea what they mean, because you're blind even to your own posts.

  3. #103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Perfect! You mimic real words, but you have no idea what they mean, because you're blind even to your own posts.
    Not true, you don't answer my points or begin to make an effort to understand my proof or even read the Wiki links I suggest.

    You're blind to any concepts except those in your limited understanding; I doubt if you have read even one of my pdf's. (Do you have any of your own?)
    _______________________________________
    "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.

  4. #104
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    4,005

    Default Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Not true, you don't answer my points or begin to make an effort to understand my proof or even read the Wiki links I suggest.
    Nonsense, you know that's not true, not one of those is true
    You're blind to any concepts except those in your limited understanding; I doubt if you have read even one of my pdf's. (Do you have any of your own?)
    You're just being foolish, over-reacting so much that you cannot even see your own obvious mistakes. Even when people try to help.

    You should know I've read some (all? How many are there?!) of your PDFs, I've even quoted them back to you. And yes, I've got an advanced degree in theoretical math, and I've published works (in actual mainstream hard-copy peer-reviewed journals) on physics and geophysics.
    Last edited by grapes; 03-09-2017 at 08:42 PM.
    emperorzelos likes this.

  5. #105
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    564

    Default Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Fermat's Theorem cannot apply to the set of all integers, because the set of all integers includes the operation of multiplication, which is absent from Fermat's forumula, but present in the Binomial Expansion.

    Fermat's expression only represents that of the Presburger arithmetic (which includes addition of powers of individual integers, which are themselves integers), which is consistent and complete, but has no multiplication operation.

    Goedel's theorem says that the set of integers cannot be complete unless it includes multiplication, and is only complete by the Binomial Expansion, but in that case c cannot be an integer unless a=0 or b=0 for n>2, i.e. or for n > 2 for c an integer.

    QED.
    The first one is a non-sequitor, it's irrelevant.

    Gödels incompleteness theorems says nothing about multiplication, again you are just spewing shit without understanding them.

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

    Default Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post

    You should know I've read some (all? How many are there?!) of your PDFs, I've even quoted them back to you. And yes, I've got an advanced degree in theoretical math, and I've published works (in actual mainstream hard-copy peer-reviewed journals) on physics and geophysics.
    Did you understand the RUC as mathematics?
    (see last three updates.)

    (Note that the RUC generates an integer from the final state of the two dimensional relation (ct,vt') as two independent fields where the metric t, t' relates the "reification" (c,v) -> (ct,vt')
    so that all possible linear configurations (where the first derivatives are related - Einstein called them "inertial frames", but the theoretical foundation is mathematical, not physical, as I explain in its application to the Binomial Expansion (which adds the concept of multiplication of two variables to Presburger arithmetic).

    Particularly the update dated 03/08/2017 10:13 AM PST Addendum
    and the ones following, which encapsulate the concepts as a summary. (If you need a diagram, go to the RUC pdf and scroll down).

    If you do not understand the relativistic unit circle, you are not speaking to my proof. You are speaking to your own misconceptions and misinterpretations of my proof.

    Do you know what the basis of a vector space is? A convolution integral? A Greens' function?
    Linear system theory at all? (Dual spaces, etc.)

    Note: I use the cross product in relation to the null vector to define the operation of multiplication in two dimensions (independent variables) where exchange of variables in the application provides commutativity in the factor of 2ab=2ba in the Binomial Theorem for n=2, and is also the foundation for relativistic spin (hyperfine structure) in the splitting of energy levels in the atom.

    I also derive the factor 2ab=2ba from the Dirac formulation in the same way (so it is consistent with QFT) ...

    You completely ignore the concept of independent variables and dimensions in your responses, and focus on Presburger arithmetic (now that I know what to call it, which only generates your "c=a+b") instead of that generated by Peano's axioms (which includes multiplication); I have provided links to Wiki from those discussions, including a response to Gentzen... And then you completely ignore my interpretation in two dimensions (e.g. trigonometry) as in the RUC as a requirement for the Binomial Expansion as a vector expansion to make sense ..

    You seem to have no concept whatever of the Foundations of Mathematics or the difference in mathematical philosophies that form the heart of controversies (Wittgenstein, Russell, Dedekind, Godel, et. al., which my proof should resolve, if it is properly understood, as well as many other issued - including Einstein's application of differential geometry to GTR vs. QFT).

    My proof is not mainstream (that's why I wrote it); mainstream (as far as I know) does not relate relativity to the foundations of mathematics and Gödel's theorem via the Binomial Expansion.

    That is what I am proposing, but my equations are mainstream; it is the interpretation of them that is critical, and if you do not understand it, you are misinterpreting all my responses...

    (I will grant that even for me, it has been along and confusing journey, with some of the "mainstream" signposts pointing in misleading directions, but when Pauli and Dirac are understood, the highway becomes much clearer....

    (It depends on whether you acknowledge Pauli and Dirac as "mainstream" as the foundation of the Standard Model, but their basic presentation only involves matrices - which of course, can be interpreted into "wave" equations as I show in the RUC).
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 03-10-2017 at 12:11 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
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    564

    Default Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Did you understand the RUC as mathematics?
    (see last three updates.)

    If not, you are not speaking to my proof You are speaking to your own misconception and misinterpretation.

    Do you know what the basis of a vector space is? A convolution integral? A Greens' function?
    Linear system theory at all? (Dual spaces, etc.)
    Yeah don't try to act as if you have any clue, you are vastely inferior here.

  8. #108
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

    Quote Originally Posted by emperorzelos View Post
    Yeah don't try to act as if you have any clue, you are vastely inferior here.
    Sez you. I (and many others not in the Peanut Gallery) will beg to differ.

    If so, then say something intelligent about my proof (not your misunderstanding of it).

    Hey, quote Wiki even. And explain how your idea of "modules" as coefficients of vectors are related to modular elliptic curves... I'll be interested...

    Or even how a single coefficient looking for a single vector are related. And how you can do functional analysis (even define a derivative) without two dimensions...

    You and the rest of the Peanut Gallery are in the grip of a Mental Group Grope (pun intended), except that some of the Peanut Gallery don't even understand what a group is.... and some are convinced there is only One Ring....

    (inferior my ass.... )
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 03-10-2017 at 12:32 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.

  9. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

    FLT Document Updated (this post)

    (Once more, into the breach....)

    Another way of stating Fermat's theorem is:

    cannot be valid for positive integers a,b,c and n for any arithmetic system that includes multiplication between integer variables a and b.

    (Powers such as multiply an integer with itself in a single dimension: ,

    For a=b, so that and , so c cannot be an integer.

    , where the vector is not aligned with either or , and rem(a,b,n) consists of terms with only multiplicative products. Therefore, Fermat's expression cannot be valid unless these multiplicative products vanish; i.e. a=0 or b=0.

    If multiplication is included in the arithmetic system, rem(a,b,n) cannot vanish.

    Integers include the operation of multiplication for all integers a, b, and c. Therefore, Fermat's Expression cannot be valid for any integers a,b,c, and n for n>2 (and even for n=2 if Pythagorean triples are excluded, which amounts to eliminating multiplication in that case since .

    The relativistic unit circle provides a method of assigning a unit vector for each a and b independently by varying the positive fields c,v,t and t' for each dimension (a,b) over their respective fields (if c=0, there is no basis vector, and hence no integer in even one dimension.

    Finally, the Relativistic Unit Circle is also true for (positive - i.e. positive definite) fields, as is the Binomial Expansion.
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 03-10-2017 at 01:43 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.

  10. #110
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    4,005

    Default Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    FLT Document Updated (this post)

    (Once more, into the breach....)

    Another way of stating Fermat's theorem is:

    cannot be valid for positive integers a,b,c and n for any arithmetic system that includes multiplication between integer variables a and b.

    (Powers such as multiply an integer with itself in a single dimension: ,

    For a=b, so that and , so c cannot be an integer.

    , where the vector is not aligned with either or , and rem(a,b,n) consists of terms with only multiplicative products. Therefore, Fermat's expression cannot be valid unless these multiplicative products vanish; i.e. a=0 or b=0.
    rem can be negative

    If multiplication is included in the arithmetic system, rem(a,b,n) cannot vanish.

    Integers include the operation of multiplication for all integers a, b, and c. Therefore, Fermat's Expression cannot be valid for any integers a,b,c, and n for n>2 (and even for n=2 if Pythagorean triples are excluded, which amounts to eliminating multiplication in that case since .

    The relativistic unit circle provides a method of assigning a unit vector for each a and b independently by varying the positive fields c,v,t and t' for each dimension (a,b) over their respective fields (if c=0, there is no basis vector, and hence no integer in even one dimension.

    Finally, the Relativistic Unit Circle is also true for (positive - i.e. positive definite) fields, as is the Binomial Expansion.

Page 11 of 21 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

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
  •