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

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

Mathematics does not have "context", anyway. It is not possible to take an equation out of context.

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

Originally Posted by Neverfly
Mathematics does not have "context", anyway. It is not possible to take an equation out of context.
Not for normal people. Village Idiots in the Peanut Gallery do it all the time. Especially those who don't understand vector spaces, or even dimensions. Or even Descartes....

Especially you (if you ever quote any mathematics at all - or physics), since you have no idea WTF I am talking about in the first place.

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

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Not for normal people. Village Idiots in the Peanut Gallery do it all the time. Especially those who don't understand vector spaces, or even dimensions. Or even Descartes....

Especially you (if you ever quote any mathematics at all - or physics), since you have no idea WTF I am talking about in the first place.
Says the guy that thinks you can apply the Time Dilation equation to a Photon and that the constant "c" is a variable.

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

Originally Posted by Neverfly
Says the guy that thinks you can apply the Time Dilation equation to a Photon and that the constant "c" is a variable.
Says the Village Idiot who has no idea what either the Time Dilation or a Photon really means, much less the set {c,v,t,t'}.

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

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Says the Village Idiot who has no idea what either the Time Dilation or a Photon really means, much less the set {c,v,t,t'}.
By your ATM assertions? Because your "Definitions" certainly are not Mainstream Physics.

You do Not Understand The Topics nor do you understand the math. You only pretend to and whenever someone else points out your errors in assumptions, you claim you know more than they do and call them a Village Idiot or a member of the Peanut Gallery as if merely Lying was all you needed to do to support your claims.

The problem is, you don't need to take One Village Idiots word for it. A simple search will result in many experts that teach actual sincere honest questioners on a regular basis:
https://www.quora.com/If-a-photon-tr...ntire-universe

The thing about Lorentz boosts, though, is that they transform inertial frames to inertial frames; all inertial frames have speeds relative to one another that are less than c. There is no Lorentz boost that can put an object into a frame with speed c relative to another. In fact, anything moving at speed c relative to one inertial frame is moving at speed c relative to every inertial frame. That is, something moving at the speed of light is never at rest. Which means no inertial frame can be defined which has speed c relative to anything.

What this means is that although the limit of the time dilation factor as speed tends to c (relative to some given inertial frame), there is no meaningful way to discuss how anything looks "from a photon's perspective" in special (or, for that matter, general) relativity. What we can say is that the spacetime distance* of the path travelled by a photon (through vacuum) is zero, but that the actual distance (and hence amount of time) the photon travels depends on the frame of reference.
It violates one of the postulates of relativity, that light from an observer always be at C. For a frame of reference to be at C, that would mean photons would be at rest and not moving at C.

Since photons are never at rest, it's not a valid reference frame.
I am driving my car at the speed of light and I turn on my headlights. What do I see?

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/70484.html
And of course:
Time dilation/length contraction

No, you think that "Light slows a photon down!"

You do not understand Relativity- at all. You are like Herbert Dingle; you grabbed a misconception and stubbornly refuse any correction. And now, you mangle the equations into Fermats Last Theorem. It's gibberish. Page after Page of .pdf Gibberish.
I mean not even 8 hours before this post, a series began in this thread where Grapes showed you, point blank, where your own claims contradict each other. Any sensible Village Idiot would have seen that these errors show his "proof" to be flawed as a whole.
But now you... You refuse to accept correction. This is not about Knowledge or progress or learning or understanding for you. Like John Gabriel, valid mathematics is substituted with gibberish in a desperate hope to seek validation by deceiving unwary people into thinking you are Smart, Special, Gifted and a Wunderkind.
It's the only validation you can muster because if you had any actual valid scientific knowledge, you would have been working in the field or maybe been an educator instead of Lying about it and claiming a false resume as you do.

Every time you cannot smooth over a spotted error in your pdf gibberish, you then claim it's "not relevant to your proof, anyway." Just how many pages of your pdf are not relevant to your proof?! Why did you include all that? What IS relevant? Where is the PROOF?! Is it hidden in Illuminati code in all that back and forth hogwash in the lengthy series of files?

You claim that you use the base mathematics used in Relativity to show your conclusions, yet you claim that the constant "c" is not a constant and try to apply the time dilation equation to a photon: Clearly your understanding of Relativity is not to be trusted. So how can anyone take your pdf seriously when it's demonstrably founded on such absurdities? Assuming they can FIND the "Proof" amid all the "irrelevant to the proof, anyway" meanderings and "equations to be taken out of context!"

I'd love to see an equation that can be taken out of context. It either applies or it does not, it either works or it does not. There is no 'Context' because unlike our imprecise verbal language, mathematics relies on Exact Values and results. If I say "3," then I must mean "3." I could not mean "2" or "4" depending on the tone I used when I said "3" or how I used "3" in a sentence.

6. ## 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). 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.
Actually I am better than you and him combined when it comes to mathematics. I knew what he was wrong about at every step and it had nothing to do with your claims about dimensions as they are irrelevant to the derivative.

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

Updated document, showing role of relativistic analysis more clearly in generating the independent basis vectors for the plane (a,b), and characterizing the Binomial Coefficients as coupling constants in rem(a,b,n), and why the Binomial Expression serves as an analogy to the metric tensor of GTR (where the coefficients are not derivatives using infinitesimal lengths as in differential geometry.

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

still same old crap that adds nothing.

9. ## Modules

Modules are completely irrelevant in the context of both Fermat's Theorem and the Binomial Theorem

Proof of Fermat's theorem doesn't need them, only vector spaces (which imply more than one dimension).

Fermat's theorem is lacking a multiplicative product. STR establishes the multiplicative product in each of the two bases for independent variables, and shows that the Binomial Expansion includes multiplicative products between independent variables, and so is complete.

So abstract modules are completely irrelevant to proving Fermat's theorem; they are totally unnecessary if one admits functions according to the normal rules of arithmetic. Arithmetic alone cannot have multiple dimensions, and in the context of Fermat's theorem, such a reduction is a reduction ad absurdum.

Just the declaration of the product ct is an example of multiplication not included in Fermat's expression.

Modules in this sense are a solution looking for a problem... they are not even thought widgets... and even to create a thought widget, there has to be something there; a rate of widget creation (call it c). And to declare an invariant one has to terminate the rate of widget creation by a scalar, t, so x = ct

Modules are a way of trying to analyze everything in terms of t without providing a c; c=0 means nothing is created, not even a thought widget.

A straight line has the equation y=Ax + b. For b=0, y=Ax. Even if A = 1, to declare two variables y=x, one needs two dimensions (y,x) unless the expression is a tautology. ().

Creating a basis in a single dimension for all possible scalar multiples is accomplished by

(the foundation of the so-called "time dilation" equation, except it is a relation between an initial multiplicative state (ct) a change of state (vt') and a final state (ct) of widget creation, thought process or not.

Dividing both sides by the final state (ct') yields the relativistic unit circle, thus defining sin and cos (if one multiplies by or a relation between squares geometrically, but abstractly it means that is independent of y = x, and the same is true of higher powers, which is why a basis of powers can form a linear system of polynomials with constant coefficients.

To establish a second independent widget, a second circle is needed, where the unit basis is provided in the same manner (with independent field variables c,v,t, and t') for each widget (as an independent number line)

The Binomial Expansion is then a function which can then be compared with Fermat's Expression , the latter of which has no multiplicative terms, and is thus the basis of a Presburger arithmetic.

(Note that the constructivist approach does not include powers; which in one dimension is a tautology as compared with where A is a scaling factor (a slope) even if A = 1.

Modules are just a complicated way of trying to ignore scalars by trying to provide a justification for powers in terms of counting (Peano's axions, group theory independent of dimension - distinguishable variables over two distinct fields).

Regarding polynomials (including Binomials ), independent variables, and Fermat's theorem vs. the Binomial Expansion, modules are an abstraction full of sound and fury and signifying nothing (except a tautologies).

(Latest addendum modified to include discussion above).

10. ## Re: Modules

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Proof of Fermat's theorem doesn't need them, only vector spaces (which imply more than one dimension).

Actually vector spaces does NOT matter to fermats last theorem and guess waht? Vector spaces can have 0 and 1 dimensions, so again demonstrating your ignorance.

Page 19 of 20 First ... 917181920 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
•