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

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

I love how you, Malaria, say copy and paste without understanding when you do the same fucking shit with mathematics constantly.

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

FLT Document updated 03/17/2017

Showing the relation of STR to the establishment of basis vectors in a Cartesian coordinate system (a,b), (x,y) or (x,t) in terms of the initial and final states, and thus the relation of Galilean coordinates to Minkowski coordinates (in two dimensions).

3. ## Proof of Fermat's Theorem

-------------------------------
case n=2
--------------
ab=0 (Pythagorean Triple

,

,
--------------------------------

, ,

Therefore, c' cannot be an integer
-----------------------------------
case n>2
----------------

------------------------------

-------------------------

---------------------------

--------------------------
QED

4. ## Re: John Gabriel

I really respect John Gabriel. He was wrong in his definition of a "new calculus" (e.g., the derivative), but his intuition was correct in terms of "reified" real numbers (including integers). The first his fundamental issues was that the derivatives requires two dimensions for a generalized definition, of which the simplest is that of a straight line: y = Ax +b, where A is the slope of the line. By introducing a second variable (m) he invalidated that definition, and thus any concept of limit for y=f'(x)x +b.

The fundamental issue is that of providing a basis in one dimension that is valid for all possible real numbers in that dimension as a way to "reify" that dimension, so , where the basis is defined for the specific real number (including integers) under consideration.

This is provided by the relativistic equation of the circle, where , where the four parameters c,v,t,t' determine the final state (ct') in terms of the initial state (ct) and a perturbation (vt')

where the initial state and perturbation state are independent themselves; that is, in the space ct and vt' are independent so that

The first equation an be solved for t', yielding the so-called "time dilation" equation, without any interpretation of "time" except as scaling factors on c and v (which have no physical interpretation either except in terms of the initial state and perturbing state):

, where ,

Dividing both sides by ct' yields the relativistic circle for a single dimension (a), where

, which can be interpreted as the equation of the relativistic unit circle, where and so that
for any value of .

This basis is then valid for any real number in the dimension: as the reified value in terms of the generating real variables c,v,t and t'). It can be views as mapping ct and vt' onto the dimension, where the basis is achieved when vt'=0 so that ct=ct'; i.e., t= t' in the final state, defining the reified real number as an invariant for all possible values of its constituent parameters.
-------------------------
It should be understood that this reifies a real number in only one dimension ()
------------------------

In order to define a second dimension (b) a second equation and set of independent parameters must be used in the same way for defining a basis in (b), valid for all possible real numbers in that dimension. When this is done, one has the vector space of independent variables (a,b) of reified real numbers, of which the integers in each dimension are a subset.
-----------------------------------
Since there are two independent dimensions, in general multiplication is defined by the cross product, except in the case for n=2, Pythagorean triples, where ab=0. Otherwise, there will be a cross product which is a mixing multiplication of the two numbers, and so doesn't belong in either basis of the original two dimensions, but in separate dimension (rem(a,b,n) \vec{k}.

Thus the operation of multiplication is missing in Fermat's expression for n>2, but present in the Binomial Expansion for n>2 - present in the Binomial Expansion for different powers of a and b, with the Binomial Coefficients representing the power each variable multiplies itself in the terms of rem(a,b,n).

Fermat's expression can be thought of as a metric for a Presburger arithmetic that does not include multiplication, and so is incomplete in the Goedel representation. However, if multiplication is included, then the Binomial Expansion cannot be consistent, because of the existence of rem(a,b,n) where c cannot be an integer, although can be an integer.

Therefore, if Fermat's expression and the Binomial Expansion are considered vector equations for the independent reified variables (a,b), Fermat's Theorem is proven, and the example is a proof of Goedel's Theorem (since Goedel defines his logical syntax in terms of Peano's arithmetic/axioms)

If however, the bases for mapping the vectors a,b, and ab into a single resultant are generated by STR, then the constructivist approach is moot, since the real numbers are assumed continuous to begin with, and all metrics are included by varying the parameters c,v,t, and t' in reifying the real number for each dimension (and thus the resultant).

The relativistic bases are the foundation of the Pauli/Dirac characterization of physical systems in terms of SU(2) and SO(3), and are thus the foundation of the Standard Model in physics.

And to give John Gabriel credit, it was the interchange with him, and his staunch defense (frustrated as it was) that directed me to the foundations of mathematics, and the role of STR in evaluating the dimensional aspects so fundamental to polynomials in more than one dimension... He was right to be skeptical about infinitesimals as absolute conceptual ideas, but he hadn't yet been introduced to relativity as a mathematical (as opposed to physical) concept of the method for reifying variables in a single dimension, and then defining multiplication (and addition) between independent variables in each of two dimensions.

5. ## Re: John Gabriel

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
I really respect John Gabriel.
...Shoulda been your first clue that you were a crank.

6. ## Spin and the Binomial interaction term for n=2

Added a section to the FLT proof to clarify the interaction term for the case n=2 (if it hadn't been clear already), and extended the discussion to show the relation of the "spin up" and "spin down" configurations of QFT w.r.t. the Binomial Expansion and the null vector (using integers, but works for real numbers as well); the discussion also applies to real numbers and my earlier definition of spin as , which corresponds to that used in the calculation of hyperfine structure (a relativistic effect) of the spectrum of an atom in atomic physics...

7. ## Re: John Gabriel

Originally Posted by Neverfly
...Shoulda been your first clue that you were a crank.
John Gabriel was far more intelligent and knowledgeable than anyone in the Peanut Gallery, none of whom had any idea what his perspective was, or why he was in error (hint: the derivative requires a line in two dimensions in its limit). And he had made a real effort to study the foundations of mathematics with respect to his arguments..

Neverfly has not a clue... to anything involving more than high school math and physics, and the titles of articles in popular science for the general public, and doesn't understand even those.

8. ## Re: John Gabriel

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
John Gabriel was far more intelligent and knowledgeable than anyone in the Peanut Gallery, none of whom had any idea what his perspective was, or why he was in error (hint: the derivative requires a line in two dimensions in its limit). But he had made a real effort to study the foundations of mathematics with respect to his arguments..

Neverfly has not a clue... to anything involving more than high school math and physics, and the titles of articles in popular science for the general public, and misunderstands even those.
You make these claims as if by merely saying the words makes it True. The problem, Chuck, is that the record stands. While you may be able to "get away" with editing your ancient posts, you cannot edit the posts of others. The record in the threads stands where the people you call the "morons" and "peanut gallery" refuted John Gabriels posts step by step and methodically.
And whenever they did, this Brilliant Genius countered by Flood Posting to drown out their refutations.
This Brilliant Genius you respect and admire is the Laughing Stock of all science and Mathematics forums. His claims and assertions have been refuted in countless places across the web by dozens if not more real and knowledgeable mathematicians and mathematical enthusiasts. His mistakes, logical flaws and assumptions have been exposed many, many, many times by not only a Few Active participants on this forum, but in far, far greater numbers across the internet and you are not one of them. Your refutation... was Incorrect. You got it Wrong.
But you will just claim that everyone else, the scientists, the professional mathematicians, the physicists and all other respondents are members of the Peanut Gallery. Just like Gabriel, you will claim all others are Morons. Oh, you will deny that in this moment... But if all of them came over here, registered in and talked to you for five minutes- YOU WOULD.

9. ## Re: John Gabriel

Originally Posted by Neverfly
You make these claims as if by merely saying the words makes it True. The problem, Chuck, is that the record stands. While you may be able to "get away" with editing your ancient posts, you cannot edit the posts of others. The record in the threads stands where the people you call the "morons" and "peanut gallery" refuted John Gabriels posts step by step and methodically.
And whenever they did, this Brilliant Genius countered by Flood Posting to drown out their refutations.
This Brilliant Genius you respect and admire is the Laughing Stock of all science and Mathematics forums. His claims and assertions have been refuted in countless places across the web by dozens if not more real and knowledgeable mathematicians and mathematical enthusiasts. His mistakes, logical flaws and assumptions have been exposed many, many, many times by not only a Few Active participants on this forum, but in far, far greater numbers across the internet and you are not one of them. Your refutation... was Incorrect. You got it Wrong.
But you will just claim that everyone else, the scientists, the professional mathematicians, the physicists and all other respondents are members of the Peanut Gallery. Just like Gabriel, you will claim all others are Morons. Oh, you will deny that in this moment... But if all of them came over here, registered in and talked to you for five minutes- YOU WOULD.
John Gabriel was wrong in a very fundamental way (pre-calculus, analytic geometry), which I showed in my "toast" post in this forum (no one else did it, everyone else was trying to figure out why the algebra was wrong). Calculus without analytic geometry is absurd, and even though John understood enough to be skeptical about infinitesimal limits, he introduced a third "m" variable in his "new derivative" which invalidated the definition of slope in calculus (actually a "third" dimension), which I referred to early on as a possible interpretation in differential geometry - not really, but I thought John should look at it.

Your hyperbole about my claims is dishonest (especially in a moderator). I may be wrong, of course, and I welcome technical discussion about my perspective instead of donkey braying from the very few blithering Villlage Idiots in the echo chamber of the Peanut Gallery.

The Peanut Gallery has only three or four residents, none of them knowledgeable mathematicians or physicists except for one religious fanatic who doesn't believe in dimensions at all, which is equivalent to his asserting that he is the Higgs boson as the "god" particle. It is your idiotic arrogance about your own technical incompetence that attempts to align yourself with "all other physicists and mathematicians" ; sorry, Neverfly, you don't belong in that club, since there are very few people with you in the isolation of the Peanut Gallery.

Unfortunately, two of the moderators in this forum are firmly embedded in the Peanut Gallery, both of whom either have closed threads when they were proven wrong or irrelevant, or banned contributors to the forum they didn't understand (including John Gilbert and myself, although I'm not as frustrated as John was, since I know what I amd doing, and can discuss the implications of my perspective with any intelligent and knowledgeable person - none of whom are contributing to my threads - since there is no disagreement with what I am posting; the only disagreement is In the loud "Hee-Haws" emanating from the Peanut Gallery.)

10. ## Re: John Gabriel

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
John Gabriel was wrong in a very fundamental way (pre-calculus, analytic geometry), which I showed in my "toast" post in this forum (no one else did it, everyone else was trying to figure out why the algebra was wrong).
You claimed you showed the 'error" by making a slope graph which is mathematically, complete Gibberish.
No one else did that because they knew better than to refute his claims with gibberish. They resorted to using actual math, instead.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Your hyperbole about my claims is dishonest (especially in a moderator). I may be wrong, of course, and I welcome technical discussion about my perspective instead of donkey braying from the very few blithering Villlage Idiots in the echo chamber of the Peanut Gallery.
You do not welcome discussion. Every Single Discussion which results in you being shown that you are in error, that you misunderstand topics or that you have made assumptions you ran on far too long ends up with YOU braying about the Peanut Gallery. You call Any Member that refutes your claims a Fool, Moron or member of the Peanut Gallery. Any Person.
No, claiming I am dishonest for pointing to what you demonstrate- and the record stands- time and again is as absurd as your Line Slope graph.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
The Peanut Gallery has only three or four residents, none of them knowledgeable mathematicians or physicists except for one religious fanatic who doesn't believe in dimensions at all, which is equivalent to his asserting that he is the Higgs boson as the "god" particle. It is your idiotic arrogance about your own technical incompetence that attempts to align yourself with "all other physicists and mathematicians" ; sorry, Neverfly, you don't belong in that club, since there are very few people with you in the isolation of the Peanut Gallery.
The term "the God particle" is not a religious nomenclature. In fact, it's actually kind of an inside joke that went public and stuck. You have repeatedly stood by your claims that the Constant "c" is a variable. That is contrary to mainstream and established physics and demonstrates clearly you are utterly dumbfounded about Relativity.
You have applied the Time Dilation to a photon and you stand by this calculation to this day.
You mangle physics. You have no formal understanding of the basics and you try to self teach yourself, which would be fine if you were willing to learn. But instead, you grab assumptions at the start and then declare yourself wholly correct throughout and will accept no corrections.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
[/B]Unfortunately, two of the moderators in this forum are firmly embedded in the Peanut Gallery, both of whom either have closed threads when they were proven wrong or irrelevant, or banned contributors to the forum they didn't understand (including John Gilbert and myself, although I'm not as frustrated as John was, since I know what I amd doing, and can discuss the implications of my perspective with any intelligent and knowledgeable person - none of whom are contributing to my threads - since there is no disagreement with what I am posting; the only disagreement is In the loud "Hee-Haws" emanating from the Peanut Gallery.)
You project a lot. John Gabriel and yourself both received short suspensions not because the Evil Moderators were offended, but because Gabriel was Post Flooding and Trashing the board- he began to feel like he owned it and could destroy it however he pleased. You have been suspended for the Same Reason- and usually for lying.
Threads have been closed, but mostly because you throw temper tantrums in them and start telling people to "get the fuck out" of a free forum.

You are very delusional. Not just in your representations of the topics but your entire skewed view of reality. It comes back to your inability to accept where you are wrong, your inability to accept any correction: your math and physics posts are a mess because you refuse to allow anyone to teach you. And your views on why you have been corrected for your Piss Poor Behavior are equally as deluded. You discount and ignore what you have done and invent a reason why the Evil Moderators are out to get you.

You have become the Typical Crank. Full on 100% Crank. It's sad, really. Because I recall a time, years ago, now, when you used to listen. You used to make an honest effort. You didn't used to act so Crank-y.
It is almost as if this forum is not good for you. There are too few people around you. As time went by, you went on a downward spiral into crankhood.

Page 16 of 20 First ... 61415161718 ... 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
•