My Math Forum Math has a big problem...
 User Name Remember Me? Password

 Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum

 November 22nd, 2016, 10:24 PM #1 Banned Camp   Joined: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,028 Thanks: 24 Math has a big problem... Math has a big problem... 1 is equal to 1 x 1, to 1x1x1...x1 (till a finite number of times)... And going elsewhere in the real wolrd, for example on a cartesian plane, 10 or 10x1 or 1 or 10 x 0.1 ... can be exactly the same think, just scaled. But I use this ambiguos geometrical trick to solve Fermat and Beal... The only unambiguous numbers... are the Irrationals, so just when well be able to works with them as our new "primes", we will understand how real physic world works... Since I was non considered, due to my lack of rigour, I will try to be as sarcastic as possible with stupids who think they hold the truth since they are good Abstract Algebra players... With all respect to those lost, or are losting, their life making genuine research... The academic math wolrd is a castle made of brick, lies and betrayals ...as any other castle in the history was... Very unhappy to be considered just a donkey... when we, all, are just humans... Thanks Ciao Stefano Last edited by complicatemodulus; November 22nd, 2016 at 10:28 PM.
 November 22nd, 2016, 10:35 PM #2 Senior Member     Joined: Sep 2015 From: USA Posts: 1,657 Thanks: 842 You haven't got anything better to fill your days with than to post incomprehensible babble on here?
 November 22nd, 2016, 11:04 PM #3 Banned Camp   Joined: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,028 Thanks: 24 And you have nothing to do better than discuss of infinity and infimus here on this little grain of dust ? Try tounderstand, try tounderstand, try tounderstand.... in pace...
 November 23rd, 2016, 03:42 AM #4 Math Team   Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,094 Thanks: 2360 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra You sound like Mobel. I don't see any mathematical problem in anything you said. Why should it be a problem that $10 \times \frac1{10}=1\times 1= 1$? We'd have a whole load more problems if this weren't true. The same sort of thing is true for irrational numbers. There is no particular reason why mathematics should give us any more than an approximation of the real world because it is founded on axioms that are observations. If there is a lack of rigour to your work, that is your problem not anyone else's. Nobody at all is under any obligation to provide it for you. The fact that you don't understand what you are doing doesn't make it correct. Nor does it make it incorrect, but it does drastically reduce the utility of your work and the interest it generates.
November 23rd, 2016, 04:19 AM   #5
Math Team

Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,659
Thanks: 652

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by complicatemodulus The only unambiguous numbers... are the Irrationals, so just when well be able to works with them as our new "primes", we will understand how real physic world works...
What the heck do rational/irrational numbers have to do with Physics?? You were saying the same thing in the electron thread. There is no link at all with experimental results and irrational numbers. Measured numbers always have some level of indeterminacy due to real world equipment so they have no specified value beyond a certain number of decimal places. Thus we can't say if a measured number is rational or irrational.

-Dan

November 23rd, 2016, 04:24 AM   #6
Math Team

Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,659
Thanks: 652

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by complicatemodulus Since I was non considered, due to my lack of rigour, I will try to be as sarcastic as possible with stupids who think they hold the truth since they are good Abstract Algebra players...
Another question. Ignoring the insult in the quote I have to wonder about something. The ZF axioms give us a set of conditions such that we can both define the number 1 and a binary operation +. That starts us off with the counting number system, that gives us the integers, which gives us rational numbers, then finally the irrationals and the real number line.

Without the Algebra how can you define the irrationals?

-Dan

November 23rd, 2016, 06:44 AM   #7
Banned Camp

Joined: Dec 2012

Posts: 1,028
Thanks: 24

Quote:
 Originally Posted by v8archie You sound like Mobel.
No pls !!!!

Quote:
 Originally Posted by v8archie [*]I don't see any mathematical problem in anything you said. Why should it be a problem that $10 \times \frac1{10}=1\times 1= 1$?
As told once we pass from numbers, to real world this make real think confused:

You agree that if 1 (in our unknown real world) is a distance, it is equal to 1x1 that is an area ?

It means we don't know with numbers if we are talking of a distance, or of an area.

Pls don't put it in brawl, I won't make concerning, at the moment, that the area is an infinite sum of 1 long lines while, unfortunately, some math say it is -1/12.

I would like to rest feet on the ground saying just that in our math, when we stick it on an cartesian plane,

1 it's an height, but also equal to 1x1 area,

...and realizing that I become able to crack Fermat the Last cryptic equation...

Quote:
 Originally Posted by v8archie We'd have a whole load more problems if this weren't true.[*]The same sort of thing is true for irrational numbers.[*]There is no particular reason why mathematics should give us any more than an approximation of the real world because it is founded on axioms that are observations.
The point becomes too long to be discussed here... I'm putting an atomic bomb under "actual math" based scientific method... but it's also clear we have no other way, at the moment...

Just a question: you agree that when we wrote 1, we are writing $1,\overline{00}$ ?

And this has implications...
[*]If there is a lack of rigour to your work, that is your problem not anyone else's. Nobody at all is under any obligation to provide it for you. The fact that you don't understand what you are doing doesn't make it correct. Nor does it make it incorrect, but it does drastically reduce the utility of your work and the interest it generates.[/list][/QUOTE]

I did my best, I try to be honest and calm... I won't say that there are just stupid readers don't understand and accept my proof... I simply note that I've back no (close to ZERO !) answers.... and since we are talking of one of the most importante problems in math 2 choice: or I'm clearly in wrong (and i think not since numbers works), or too many "professors" are thinking and trying to use my work to post a new proof without putting me in the References (I already discover some)

I spent 8 years on that... Now I'm little more skilled about my errors, and seems to me that the big part of the work I rewrite several times, it's correct (english a part for the moment).

But till my re-formulation of FLT and Beal will not be accepted (proved or disproved it's less important !) I have to knock elsewhere to wake up sleeping minds...

After consuming my fingers... I decide to use sarcasm...

With all respect for thoose as you and others here really work on that pls answer me on that:

It' clear we have the "4th formulation" of Fermat the last writing:

$\displaystyle C^n= 2*\sum_{X=1}^{A}(X^n-(X-1)^n) + Delta$

and or:

$\displaystyle C^n= 2*\sum_{X=1}^{B} (X^n-(X-1)^n) - Delta$

where:

$\displaystyle Delta= \sum_{X=A+1}^{B} (X^n-(X-1)^n)$

Why Arxiv refuse it ?

Thanks
ciao
Stefano

Last edited by complicatemodulus; November 23rd, 2016 at 07:35 AM.

November 23rd, 2016, 06:57 AM   #8
Math Team

Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,659
Thanks: 652

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by complicatemodulus 1 it's an height, but also equal to 1x1 area,
A brief comment here: Technically when you are calling 1 as a distance you need to include a unit. So 1 m is what you are looking at for distance and 1 x 1 m^2 for the area. This is not pure Math because it is applied to a physical concept. Physical concepts have little or no meaning in Mathematics.

-Dan

November 23rd, 2016, 07:29 AM   #9
Banned Camp

Joined: Dec 2012

Posts: 1,028
Thanks: 24

Quote:
 Originally Posted by topsquark A brief comment here: Technically when you are calling 1 as a distance you need to include a unit. So 1 m is what you are looking at for distance and 1 x 1 m^2 for the area. This is not pure Math because it is applied to a physical concept. Physical concepts have little or no meaning in Mathematics. -Dan
Ok, yes, and we have to deal with that when we make or we think we are making "pure" math...

But also search for a better way to better represent our physics models...

I'm dreaming of a new math as I dreamed about the two hands clock...

$\displaystyle A^2 = \sum_{X=1}^{A} (2X-1)$

It's equal on a graph, both, to a sum of bar with zero thichness, or columns height (2X-1), base 1.

This make the difference... When we talk of areas we immediately see we are squaring a derivate...

and if a condition is that the area must be an integer, and we have an upper limit that is an irrational (fixed by the initial conditions) will be clear to all that such limit can be rised by our Sum, nor the area bellow the derivate till that irrational cannot be fulfitted with integer columns... (except in one case when we can pull out the irrational "part" from the sum, for example $(\sqrt 2)^2$ haveing back an integer).

Thanks
ciao
Stefano

Last edited by complicatemodulus; November 23rd, 2016 at 07:36 AM.

November 23rd, 2016, 09:21 PM   #10
Senior Member

Joined: Sep 2016
From: USA

Posts: 229
Thanks: 122

Math Focus: Dynamical systems, analytic function theory, numerics
Quote:
 Originally Posted by complicatemodulus Math has a big problem... 1 is equal to 1 x 1, to 1x1x1...x1 (till a finite number of times)... And going elsewhere in the real wolrd, for example on a cartesian plane, 10 or 10x1 or 1 or 10 x 0.1 ... can be exactly the same think, just scaled. But I use this ambiguos geometrical trick to solve Fermat and Beal... The only unambiguous numbers... are the Irrationals, so just when well be able to works with them as our new "primes", we will understand how real physic world works... Since I was non considered, due to my lack of rigour, I will try to be as sarcastic as possible with stupids who think they hold the truth since they are good Abstract Algebra players... With all respect to those lost, or are losting, their life making genuine research... The academic math wolrd is a castle made of brick, lies and betrayals ...as any other castle in the history was... Very unhappy to be considered just a donkey... when we, all, are just humans... Thanks Ciao Stefano
I'm all for self learning mathematics but the problem is when someone reads a wikipedia article and thinks this means all the experts are wrong. This post is unmitigated crazy from start to finish. To name a few obvious problems:

1. There is no geometric ambiguity. Green doesn't specify a car or a house either but this doesn't mean the concept of green is ambiguous.

2. The irrationals aren't prime. Unlike the naturals, the reals are a field which as you have noticed means they have some nice properties for solving equations. This also means they have no primes. irrational or otherwise. 3 isn't prime in the reals, nor is 2, 31, or anything else (except for 0 according to a few authors).

3. You almost certainly haven't solved FMT or Beal's conjecture and I will absolutely guarantee you haven't solved both.

Spend more time reading respectable texts and less time inventing crazy.

 Tags big, math, problem

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post azzey Algebra 6 December 29th, 2011 02:26 PM azelio Algebra 1 October 24th, 2010 10:05 AM Ghuraba Algebra 6 November 23rd, 2009 07:01 PM caitz Algebra 2 September 23rd, 2009 11:30 PM codename211 Math Events 11 August 8th, 2007 08:30 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top