# Thread: Fermat's last, and mine too.

1. ## Wiles' Proof

Wiles' uses Elliptic Functions:

, which are analytic and periodic; Fermat's Equation is neither, nor is the Binomial Expansion and in my STR proof, the relativistic circle is not periodic (although sine and cosine are represented, they are indicative of initial, final, and perturbation states over the field variables , where vt' can be identified with charge and ct with mass, so the "bare" mass without charge is simply m=ct.

(There is a rectangle involved, of course, 2ab, the interaction rectangle in my proof, but it is not periodic; space and time are not involved.)

For a single particle a, the charge to mass ratio is represented by

If there is no charge, the particle doesn't interact with other particles.

STR allows the comparison of two particles; i.e., a second particle b represented by a second disjoint set , in which the parameters are distinguished by a second dimension, e.g. in the case of identical numbers in the different set, where a and b are variables over the complete number lines (positive fields) in each dimension, e.g. . Both Fermat's expression and the Binomial expansion put restrictions on these which are easily understood by examining the equations.

However, neither of these equations require periodicity, and the is not parameterized in the relativistic unit circle
(there are two mixing angles, , well understood in Quantum Field Theory; I just show how they apply to the Binomial expansion.

2. ## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Originally Posted by emperorzelos
He is correct though, binomial theorem has nothing to do with Fermats, they are distinct and unrelated.
This comment is just stupid.

c1=g1(a,b) = (Fermat's Expression)

c2=g2(a,b) = (The Binomial Expansion).

Fermat's expression is the integer metric for a Presburger arighmetic (without multiplicative products like

The Binomial Expansion includes Fermat's expression but also those multiplicative products in Rem(a,b,n), and therefore
Therefore, the binomial expansion has no relevance for the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, you're throwing in extra terms that aren't there.
is consistent as a metric for the two dimensional (real number) field (a,b)) with Peano's axioms. However, Fermat's expression requires that a=0 or b=0 for n>2 if c is to be an integer (for fields, division is always possible so is always possible, so the field of positive real numbers is consistent and but not complete (Godel's proof is based on positive integers), since it requires complex numbers for subraction (). The key issue is that one needs two fields (Cartesian coordinates) to define any function y=f(x) at all, not to mention z=g(x,y) as in the Binomial Expansion for z a single valued resultant variable.

Cartesian coordinates can express real numbers without the necessity of Dedekind cuts in a single dimension number line.

STR provides a way of generating continuous fields (without using Dedekind cuts) and for positive fields, also provides trigonometric functions (and negative fields if Dirac is included).

One liner responses from the Peanut Gallery with no intellectual content whatever in responses to posts like this (where I can provide Wiki links as necessary) are merely spam and bloating my thread's intellectual content with nothing other than complaints indicating that the Peanut Gallery have no idea WTF I am talking about.
We know what you think you're doing. No need to repeat it.

3. ## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

FLT Document Updated 03/12/2017 05:40 PM PST

Intended for intelligent eyes only...

4. ## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
FLT Document Updated 03/12/2017 05:40 PM PST

Intended for intelligent eyes only...
Typical response from you when your errors and erroneous assumptions have backed you into a corner. You are like the disgruntled teenager that declares that the elders just don't understand them.

5. ## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
This comment is just stupid.

c1=g1(a,b) = (Fermat's Expression)

c2=g2(a,b) = (The Binomial Expansion).

Fermat's expression is the integer metric for a Presburger arighmetic (without multiplicative products like

The Binomial Expansion includes Fermat's expression but also those multiplicative products in Rem(a,b,n), and therefore is consistent as a metric for the two dimensional (real number) field (a,b)) with Peano's axioms. However, Fermat's expression requires that a=0 or b=0 for n>2 if c is to be an integer (for fields, division is always possible so is always possible, so the field of positive real numbers is consistent and but not complete (Godel's proof is based on positive integers), since it requires complex numbers for subraction (). The key issue is that one needs two fields (Cartesian coordinates) to define any function y=f(x) at all, not to mention z=g(x,y) as in the Binomial Expansion for z a single valued resultant variable.

Cartesian coordinates can express real numbers without the necessity of Dedekind cuts in a single dimension number line.

STR provides a way of generating continuous fields (without using Dedekind cuts) and for positive fields, also provides trigonometric functions (and negative fields if Dirac is included).

One liner responses from the Peanut Gallery with no intellectual content whatever in responses to posts like this (where I can provide Wiki links as necessary) are merely spam and bloating my thread's intellectual content with nothing other than complaints indicating that the Peanut Gallery have no idea WTF I am talking about.
Becuase of the extra terms, they are not related as fermats last theorem does'nt contain the terms. How stupid are you?

6. ## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

Originally Posted by Neverfly
Typical response from you when your errors and erroneous assumptions have backed you into a corner. You are like the disgruntled teenager that declares that the elders just don't understand them.
Yeah, and see how he tries to mish mash physics and mathematics, it is laughable.

7. ## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

Originally Posted by emperorzelos
Yeah, and see how he tries to mish mash physics and mathematics, it is laughable.
Sadly laughable, even. Can mathematics be the template for modeling physic? Yes.
Can physics be the template for modeling mathematics? NO. Because math is the language of physics. I cannot use expressionism to model English.
In physics, we have the formula, "F=ma". Force equals mass times acceleration. What Chuck is trying to do is like taking "F=ma" and substituting the values of what F, m and a mean. You simply cannot do that and get any meaningful result because the values are specific to the application of the formula as it is meant to be used.
The value of F=ma will only apply when the formula is limited by the physical parameters that are defined outside of the formula.
I cannot use F=ma to determine how much force a police department needs to halt crime.
I cannot use F=ma to determine how much electrical charge (force) is proportional to the solid state transistor.
This example is simplistic enough that even BuleriaChk would see the absurdity of it. Yet, he so wants to believe that he is 'onto something' that he blinds himself to that same fallacy in his own claims.

8. ## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

Originally Posted by Neverfly
Sadly laughable, even. Can mathematics be the template for modeling physic? Yes.
Can physics be the template for modeling mathematics? NO. Because math is the language of physics. I cannot use expressionism to model English.
In physics, we have the formula, "F=ma". Force equals mass times acceleration. What Chuck is trying to do is like taking "F=ma" and substituting the values of what F, m and a mean. You simply cannot do that and get any meaningful result because the values are specific to the application of the formula as it is meant to be used.
The value of F=ma will only apply when the formula is limited by the physical parameters that are defined outside of the formula.
I cannot use F=ma to determine how much force a police department needs to halt crime.
I cannot use F=ma to determine how much electrical charge (force) is proportional to the solid state transistor.
This example is simplistic enough that even BuleriaChk would see the absurdity of it. Yet, he so wants to believe that he is 'onto something' that he blinds himself to that same fallacy in his own claims.
That's the story of all stupid cranks, they so want to do something big ebcause they are miserible failures in life that they must build up a delusion to feel like they are worth something.

9. ## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

Neverfly and the Naked Emperor have no idea WTF I am talking about. Analysts use the mathematical structure of STR in programs on Wall Street having nothing to do with Physics. The example I wrote in the most recent update was for physics at UCSB, but the concept of the theory (initial state, perturbation, and final state) are used throughout the world in non-physical applications.

But hey, I'm happy that Neverfly learned f=ma. Shows progress....

I don't necessarily believe I am "onto something". I just want to discuss a concept with intelligent and knowledgeable people (that is, others than the echo chamber of the Village Idiots in the Peanut Gallery)....

10. ## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Neverfly and the Naked Emperor have no idea WTF I am talking about.
You keep claiming that others just "don't understand you" everytime someone points out the flaws in your logic, the errors in your claims. In fact, every active member of the board has tried to reason with you, even two new people joined and tried to reason with you. And no one has gotten anywhere because you merely brush it all aside as "they don't understand." The mathematicians do not understand. The physicists do not understand. The way you tell it, the only person that can understand your claims is YOU.
And that, at least, I can agree with.
Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
I just want to discuss a concept with intelligent people (that is, others than the Peanut Gallery)....
You don't want to discuss it. You want to be worshiped. Whenever anyone tries to discuss it, you label them as members of the Peanut Gallery and claim they are morons.
You try to "kick people out of 'your' threads." You want to silence anyone that opposes your view. You claim anyone that points out the flaws in your claims has misunderstood them. You routinely resort to derogatory insults and derision of anyone that dares mention the many flaws in your assertions. None of these are discussion. It is your dictation that must be either wordlessly accepted or face your wrath.

Page 13 of 21 First ... 31112131415 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

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