Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Any Cambridge math professor with dignity and integrity to publish No
Odd Perfect proof and Finitude of Perfect Numbers

Replies: 19   Last Post: Jan 28, 2014 12:26 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com

Posts: 9,273
Registered: 3/31/08
Re: When is a proof in mathematics actually a PROOF? #1466 Correcting Math
Posted: Jan 27, 2014 2:24 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Saturday, January 25, 2014 7:49:22 PM UTC-6, Port563 wrote:
> Top post again, same reason as before.
>
>
>
> 1) Yes, I am indeed a novice at mathematics. So is/was Andrew Wiles, Robin
>
> Chapman, Clive Tooth, Euler, Ramanujan, Fermat etc. I am in good company.
>
> I do not know whether you are a novice at mathematics.
>
>
>
> 2) The version of the theorem I looked at actually proved, after a lot of
>
> expenditure of effort, that every even perfect is not odd. Has this rather
>
> enormous chasm been bridged, or widened, then, in a later edition? If
>
> bridged, then I am prepared to look at v'n(n+1). Or have I erred?
>
>
>
> 3) A difference between you and JSH, IMO, is that later in his (relatively
>
> short, if yours is the metric) career, he became more adept at concealing
>
> his brilliancies, forcing the refuter to work a little harder to find them.
>
> I am not talking about minor, remediable ones, which he naturally expected
>
> his unpaid critics to fix for him, and further which had the bonus of tiring
>
> them out and demoralising them.
>
>
>
> You don't do this. Thank you. However, you use many more words than JSH
>
> did. You are a "concepts" person. That is very good, IMO, but when
>
> unaccompanied by sufficient skills, can lead to very unusual conclusions,
>
> and makes you harder to cope with.
>
>
>
> 4) Please answer the question I put to you as to whether the alleged proof
>
> of Pythagoras' theorem I provided was, in your opinion, a valid proof, or
>
> not.
>
>
>
> 5) I will then say more on the topic of FLT via Beal's, as promised. At a
>
> simple level, I am willing to summarise now by saying there is no surprise,
>
> given the precarious tightrope walked by Wiles, that he didn't encounter
>
> Beal nor did Beal follow from continuing his work. While of course I
>
> understand only small and often disjoint fragments of his proof, I can
>
> conceptually see (easily!) how the Taniyama-Shimura-Weil conjecture,
>
> semistable elliptics and the like do not involve Beal.
>
> A proof of Fermat by other, simpler means may well exist, and such a one may
>
> well resolve Beal en-passant or by extension. It is virtually impossible to
>
> conceive
>
> that FLT is provable by techniques available in Fermat's day. If they were,
>
> why
>
> didn't Fermat prove it? Maybe the margin note was by way of a joke, or
>
> maybe a slip -
>
> after making it, he discovered he didn't have a proof at all.
>
> But the fact that the ultracomplex route found by Wiles does not, in no way
>
> suggests anything unusual to me. If it had also dealt with Beal, I would
>
> have thought it even more extraordinary than it already it, as elliptic
>
> curves (e.g., y^2 = x *(x - a^n) * (x + b^n) and deployment of modular
>
> function techniques thereon really have nothing whatsoever to do with Beal.
>
> Things may sound terribly similar in maths while being utterly different in
>
> nature and proof. An example are Goldbach's Weak and Strong Conjectures.
>
>
>
> 5+1) Further to your question - I am both going to continue to be, and not
>
> going to continue to be, a "suppressionist hatemonger". This is possible
>
> due to the nature of statements made about the properties of one or more
>
> elements of a null set.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Archimedes Plutonium" <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a7724b40-e004-4f1d-9a5e-c57c5d814211@googlegroups.com...
>
> When is a proof in mathematics actually a PROOF? #1466 Correcting Math
>
>
>
>
>
> The below is important, because apparently the novice of Port563 does not
>
> know when a proof in mathematics is really a proof, and not some "consent
>
> bandwagon agreement".
>
>
>
> On Saturday, January 25, 2014 5:02:36 AM UTC-6, Port563 wrote:
>

> > I will top-poast, as referencing the past is no point here.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "Yes" or "No" would have sufficed, AP, not some long rant. That is all I
>
> >
>
> > asked for. Why did you avoid the question? Are you scared?
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> You seem to be scared of giving AP credit for good and valuable work done.
>
> If I built a house for you, would you then be like what you are now--
>
> refusing to pay or accept, because it is more important for you to suppress
>
> than to give credit where credit is due? Would you try to squirm and squeeze
>
> out of paying; like what you are doing with my No Odd Perfect proof.
>
>
>
> You seem to refuse to believe or even attempt to understand the method that
>
> I used to prove No Odd Perfect.
>
>
>
> A Even Perfect divisors are grouped into the two groups:
>
>
>
> 1/2 group 1/2 group
>
>
>
> If we reduce the Even Perfect, in the first round of reduction, we remove
>
>
>
> the 3 as a divisor if the number has a 3 divisor and have 1/3 of 1/2 leaving
>
> 1/6 as seen in 6 Even Perfect
>
>
>
> in the second round of reduction we remove 4 as a divisor if the number has
>
> 4 as a divisor and have 1/4 of 1/6 = 1/12 as seen in 28 as Even Perfect
>
>
>
> in the third round of reduction we remove the 8 if the number has a 8
>
> divisor and have remaining 1/2 x 1/4 x 1/8 x 1/16 as seen in 496 or 8128 as
>
> even perfect.
>
>
>
> The point is that in Even Perfects the numerator of both groups is 1.
>
> The numerator in a Odd Perfect has a 2 in the 2/3 grouping or the 4/5
>
> grouping or the 6/7 grouping etc.
>
>
>
> So, perhaps the reason Port563 cannot understand the proof of No Odd
>
> Perfect, is that he is unwilling to even try to understand the proof.
>
>
>
> In the first round of reduction of a Odd Perfect we
>
> have 5 if 5 is a divisor and to remove it we have 1/5 of 2/3 which is 2/15.
>
>
>
> In the second round we have 7 if 7 is a divisor and we have in the reduction
>
> 1/7 of 2/15. Etc. etc.
>
>
>
> The point is here, that the 2 never goes away and we are left with the fact
>
> that an Odd Perfect number has a 2 divisor which is impossible.
>
>
>
> So, there, Port563, can you understand that? Or are you, point blank
>
> refusing to understand or accept anything that I offer. Are you going to
>
> continue to be a suppressionist hatemonger?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Since you seem to believe Wiles' proof is defective, I will amend my
>
> >
>
> > question.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Here it is.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Let us assume, subject to the usual Euclidean axioms, that Pythagoras'
>
> >
>
> > theorem is accepted as true. It really isn't controversial.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Some time later, XYZ publishes the statements:
>
> >
>
> > -----------------------
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 1 = 1
>
> >
>
> (snipped)
>
>
>
> No, the Pythagorean theorem does not work in your rantings, because the
>
> Pythagorean theorem once proved gave other mathematical results surrounding
>
> the proof. It conformed to such things as that 3,4,5 was a right-triangle
>
> and so should the triangle 6,8,10, or 9,12,15. The proof, never required a
>
> Katz like bloke A, then a Taylor like bloke B, then a Faltings type bloke C
>
> to say " I accept and agree that it is a proof" The proof required that
>
> surrounding math on the subject was shown to be related and given meaning by
>
> the method of proof. Does Wiles's FLT relate to any surrounding math?
>
>
>
> Now, take the case of my No Odd Perfect proof, does my method show that all
>
> Deficient numbers miss by being perfect by no less than "2 amount" and that
>
> such odd numbers exist, such as 3 and 9? Does my method show that all
>
> Abundant numbers are spaced by a addition of 630 amount because 2/3 of 945
>
> is 630? Yes of course. In other words, my method of proof conforms to all
>
> the facts surrounding Deficient and Abundant Numbers. My proof method is
>
> active. And to tell that my No Odd Perfect proof is true, is simply see how
>
> much of the surrounding math it solves and enlightens. A true proof in math
>
> according to AP, needs not one single "other human" to confer validity. But
>
> the proof method itself confers validity because it solves surrounding
>
> problems.
>
>
>
> According to Port563, a proof in mathematics is all about how many deluded
>
> other people of math jump up and down and attest to it being a valid proof.
>
>
>
>
>
> So, what the suppressor Port563 needs to learn is that a proof in
>
> mathematics such as FLT, is not the bandwagon of folk someone gathers around
>
> themselves of Katz, Taylor, Faltings, Coates, Ribet, Singh, O'Connor,
>
> Robertson all jumping up and down shouting "proof proof". No, that is not a
>
> proof in mathematics, but what is a proof is whether the method of the
>
> proof, proves surrounding issues that are related to the statement of the
>
> conjecture.
>
>
>
> In the case of Wiles's FLT. Is it able to prove Beal, or get started on
>
> Beal?
>
> The answer is that Wiles's method is in utter isolation of mathematics and
>
> is deaf dumb and silent on Beal.
>
>
>
> That means, no matter how many math professors jump up and down in agreement
>
> with Wiles, that Wiles has nothing for a proof of FLT.
>
>
>
> Here is a true proof of FLT and how the method conquers not only FLT but
>
> also Beal:
>
>
>
> Detailed Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem and then Beal's conjecture
>
>
>
>
>
> I am going to reverse the order of the proofs, by proving FLT, Fermat's Last
>
> Theorem first and then using that same method, prove Beal conjecture. Why am
>
> I doing this reversal? Because, well, I was hunting down FLT, and only
>
> happened to stumble upon a Beal proof first. But secondly, I want to show
>
> how, a valid proof in logic and mathematics, is able to make other proofs or
>
> make more truths known about the topic in hand. If you prove Beal, you
>
> automatically prove FLT. But I want to show how the method used, must prove
>
> both. And it is this huge flaw of Wiles's alleged FLT, that makes his method
>
> a fakery of mathematics.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am going to prove FLT using the technique of Condensed Rectangles. I am
>
> going to prove FLT from purely the use of condensed-rectangles. Remember my
>
> history of FLT, I was stuck with pure FLT of its geometry using angles and
>
> triangles, when I switched to Beal and found the condensed-rectangle easily
>
> solves Beal. So, then, being logical, I needed to backtrack, for a proof of
>
> Beal by condensed rectangle should prove FLT by condensed rectangle. So here
>
> are the fruits of that labor.
>
> ______________________________________
>
> Detailed Proof of FLT using condensed-rectangles
>
> ______________________________________
>
>
>
> It is a construction proof method for we show that it is impossible to
>
> construct A+B = C inside of a specific exponent.
>
>
>
> Fermat's Last Theorem FLT conjecture says there are no solutions to the
>
> equation a^y + b^y = c^y where a,b,c,y are positive integers and y is
>
> greater than 2.
>
>
>
> The number Space that governs FLT is this:
>
>
>
> exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .}
>
>
>
> exp4 {1, 16, 81, 256, 625, 1296, 2401, 4096, 6561, 10000, . .}
>
>
>
> exp5 {1, 32, 243, 1024, 3125, 7776, 16807, 32,768, 59,049, 100,000, 161,051,
>
> 248,832, 371,293, . .}
>
>
>
> exp6 .....
>
> .
>
> .
>
> .
>
> .
>
>
>
> So in FLT we ask whether there are any triples, A,B,C in any one of those
>
> _specific exponents_ such that A+B=C. In FLT, our solution space is only one
>
> particular exponent such as 3 or 4, or 5 to hunt down and find a A,B,C to
>
> satisfy A+B=C.
>
>
>
> In the proof we use Condensed-Rectangles which is defined as a rectangle
>
> composed of unit squares of the cofactors of a number, except for 1 x number
>
> itself. So the number 27 in exp3 has Condensed Rectangles of 3x9 only. The
>
> number 125 in exp3 has condensed rectangles of 5x25 only, and the number 81
>
> in exp4 has condensed rectangles of 3x27 and 9x9.
>
>
>
> Now in the proof of FLT I am going to focus on two particular A and B where
>
> I have two condensed rectangles that share an Equal Side and where the A and
>
> B are of the same exponent:
>
>
>
> 2^3 + 2^3 = (2^4)
>
>
>
> 3^3 + 6^3 = (3^5)
>
>
>
> For as you can easily see in exp3 we have the A, and B of 8 and 8 which is
>
> condensed rectangles of 2x4 and we can stack either on the 2 side or the 4
>
> side in the one equation. And the 27 and 216 in the second equation, which
>
> are two condensed rectangles of 3x9 and 24x9 which we stack on the 9 side.
>
> But, now the question becomes, do we have a 16 condensed rectangle for the C
>
> in that of 2^3 + 2^3. Similarly, do we have a 243 condensed rectangle for
>
> that of a C in 3^3 + 6^3?
>
>
>
> So, here we have the proof of FLT using condensed-rectangles, for what we
>
> must show is that we can have a A and B but not all three of the A,B,C in
>
> the same exponent. Why is that? Because the demand of the A, B, C for A + B
>
> = C and having the same exponent will always deny the C to exist in that
>
> same exponent.
>
>
>
> 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4
>
>
>
> gets its 16 from out of exp3 because the next even number after 2 in exp3 is
>
> 4 and 4^3 places it as 4 times too large to satisfy A+B=C.
>
>
>
> In the case of 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 we need to get a 243 out of exp3 but the
>
> demand of the next larger number than 6 with a 3 factor is 9 so that we
>
> would need a 9^3 to get us a 243 but 9^3 gets us 729 which is 3 times larger
>
> than 243.
>
>
>
> So when confined to a single exponent, our C we need is going to be larger
>
> by at least a factor of 2 if even and a factor of 3 if odd.
>
>
>
> So, in all cases of A,B,C where we have a A+B as condensed rectangles we
>
> cannot achieve a C, due to the fact that whether the C is even it is going
>
> to be a factor of at least 2 larger than the required C, or if C is odd it
>
> is going to be at least a factor of 3 larger than what is needed for a C.
>
> The only solutions of A+B=C is when we are allowed different exponents, but
>
> when confined to a single exponent such as 3, we cannot have a A+B=C, hence
>
> FLT.
>
>
>
> Fermat's Last Theorem FLT is very easy to prove once you note that you need
>
> a different exponent for one of the A, B, C. That is about the only
>
> difference between proving FLT by condensed rectangles and proving Beal by
>
> condensed rectangles.
>
>
>
> QED
>
>
>
> Both proofs of FLT and Beal are based on a fact of geometry, that you can
>
> represent a number with its cofactors as the sides of a rectangle. And to
>
> prove either Beals or FLT is a simple matter of stacking two rectangles that
>
> have equal sides, A and B to produce a third rectangle C which has a side
>
> equalling the _shared side_ of A and B.
>
> ________________________
>
> DETAILED PROOF OF BEAL
>
> ________________________
>
>
>
> It is a constructive proof as was FLT.
>
>
>
> We make the table of all the numbers possible in the Beal Conjecture as the
>
> conglomeration of exponents of 3 or larger as this set:
>
>
>
> {1, 8, 16, 27, 32, 64, 81, 125, 128, 243, 256, . .}
>
>
>
> Here we have conglomerated exp3 and exp4 and exp5 etc etc into one set.
>
>
>
> We know Beal has solutions of A+B=C in that set for here are three examples:
>
>
>
> 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2
>
> 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3
>
> 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7
>
>
>
> What we need to prove is that all solutions have a prime divisor in common,
>
> ie all three rectangles have one shared side equal to one another.
>
>
>
> Definition of Condensed-Rectangle: given any number in the set of
>
> conglomerated exponents, we construct rectangles of that number from its
>
> unit squares whose sides are cofactors of the number. For instance,
>
> rectangle of 216 units as either 12x18 units, or 9x24 units, or 6x36 units
>
> or 3x72 units, or 2x108, but never a 1x216 units. We exclude 1 times the
>
> number as a condensed rectangle. So a condensed-rectangle is one in which it
>
> is composed of cofactors of the number in question, except for 1, and the
>
> number itself for 1x216 units is not a condensed-rectangle.
>
>
>
> Now for the constructive proof that Beal solutions must have a common prime
>
> divisor.
>
>
>
> We stack Condensed-Rectangles of the number-space that Beal's conjecture
>
> applies:
>
>
>
> Number Space:
>
> {1, 8, 16, 27, 32, 64, 81, 125, 128, 243, 256, . .}
>
>
>
> We convert each of those numbers into Condensed-Rectangles. If an A and B as
>
> condensed-rectangles have the same side such as 3x9 units and 9x24units
>
> wherein you stack them on their shared side of 9 and which matches another
>
> number of its condensed-rectangle such as 9x27 units, then you have a Beal
>
> solution of A+B=C. For if we were to take the 9 by 27 condensed rectangle it
>
> decomposes into 3x9 and 9x24.
>
>
>
> All stackable condensed-rectangles must have one side the same for the two
>
> rectangles to stack, in the case above it is the side 9 with its common
>
> divisor of the prime 3.
>
>
>
> If any other solution to Beal had A stacked upon B without a common side
>
> between them, then the figure formed cannot be a rectangle but something
>
> that looks like this:
>
> HHHHHHH
>
> HHHHHHH
>
> HHHHHHHHHH
>
> HHHHHHHHHH
>
>
>
> That is a 6-sided figure and a rectangle is only a 4 sided figure.
>
>
>
> So, in order to stack one rectangle A onto rectangle B to equal rectangle C,
>
> they all three must have a prime divisor for the side that is common to all
>
> three.
>
>
>
> QED
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Recently I re-opened the old newsgroup of 1990s and there one can read my
>
> recent posts without the hassle of mockers and hatemongers.
>
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
>
>
>
> Archimedes Plutonium


I do not know which of the two is more dumb than the other, Port--- or Wizard. Both use fake names, and anyone using a fake name, has mostly fake math, fake talk, and nonsense post, not worth the time in reading or holding a conversation with.

Grow up; post with a real name; and maybe you will get replies you ask for.


Date Subject Author
1/25/14
Read Any Cambridge math professor with dignity and integrity to publish No
Odd Perfect proof and Finitude of Perfect Numbers
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
1/25/14
Read Re: Any Cambridge math professor with dignity and integrity to publish No Odd Perfect proof and Finitude of Perfect Numbers
Port563
1/25/14
Read so many, so called mathematicians have too much subjectivity to not
be mathematicians
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
1/25/14
Read Re: so many, so called mathematicians have too much subjectivity to not be mathematicians
Port563
1/25/14
Read When is a proof in mathematics actually a PROOF? #1466 Correcting Math
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
1/25/14
Read Re: When is a proof in mathematics actually a PROOF? #1466 Correcting Math
Wizard-Of-Oz
1/25/14
Read Re: When is a proof in mathematics actually a PROOF? #1466 Correcting Math
Port563
1/27/14
Read Re: When is a proof in mathematics actually a PROOF? #1466 Correcting Math
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
1/27/14
Read Re: When is a proof in mathematics actually a PROOF? #1466 Correcting Math
Port563
1/25/14
Read Re: so many, so called mathematicians have too much subjectivity to not be mathematicians
Wizard-Of-Oz
1/25/14
Read Re: so many, so called mathematicians have too much subjectivity to not be mathematicians
Port563
1/25/14
Read Re: so many, so called mathematicians have too much subjectivity to not be mathematicians
Wizard-Of-Oz
1/25/14
Read Re: so many, so called mathematicians have too much subjectivity to not be mathematicians
Wizard-Of-Oz
1/25/14
Read Re: so many, so called mathematicians have too much subjectivity to not be mathematicians
Port563
1/27/14
Read Re: so many, so called mathematicians have too much subjectivity to
not be mathematicians
Marshall
1/27/14
Read Re: so many, so called mathematicians have too much subjectivity to not be mathematicians
Wizard-Of-Oz
1/27/14
Read Re: so many, so called mathematicians have too much subjectivity to not be mathematicians
Port563
1/27/14
Read Re: so many, so called mathematicians have too much subjectivity to not be mathematicians
Wizard-Of-Oz
1/28/14
Read Re: so many, so called mathematicians have too much subjectivity to not be mathematicians
Port563
1/25/14
Read Re: Any Cambridge math professor with dignity and integrity to publish No Odd Perfect proof and Finitude of Perfect Numbers
Wizard-Of-Oz

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.