"Fermat's Last Theorem" Disproved?
in [Math]
|
From: jose l on 9 Aug 2010 16:06 On 9 ago, 11:31, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The idea that geometrically, a cube is the square of a square really > fascinates me, even though it may be technically wrong. Without adjectives, IS WRONG. > Somehow I know that I am correct in a certain sense. All right. Find the "certain sense" (if any), and then come back. Meanwhile ..., please stop the nonsense. Jose L. Sanchez-Gsrrido
From: porky_pig_jr on 9 Aug 2010 17:20 On Aug 9, 4:06 pm, jose l <jose.sanchezgarr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > All right. Find the "certain sense" (if any), and then come back. A little green man who lives in his head told him he's correct.
From: cjcountess on 10 Aug 2010 12:09 Now to show some aspects of the multi dimensionality of the natural units c and c^2 In linear mathematics, 1x1=1. In geometry, 1 unit length in linear direction x 1 equal unit length in 90 degree angular direction = 1 square unit. In dynamics engineering, 1 velocity vector x 1 equal and 90 degree angular velocity vector creates circular motion through balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces with acceleration a=v^2/r. This is the first equality between v^2 and v^circled. On the quantum level c^2 is energy in circular and or spherical motion. This is how energy attains rest mass at the mathematical conversion factor of c^2 in equation (E=mc^2). And as deBroglie realized (E=hf=mc^2) at level of electron, which he also rightly projected to be a wave just like a photon, only with more momentum. Bohr discovered that wave length of electron equals circumference of circle with momentum of a multiple integer of (h/2pi). Compton also realized that wavelength of photon and electron was separated only by momentum. Now if this wave makes 2 rotations at right angles to each other in order to complete one wave cycle, as empirical evidence also pointed to,, its momentum is said to be (h/2pi/2) indicating that it is (spin1/2). That equates the c ^sphered with c^circle and c^2. And sense the electron is a standing spherical wave, it is 3 dimensional, and may well be considered c^3, and so this is where the cube comes in. And last but not least, c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction, which gives rise to a trajectory which might be called the hypotenuse of a triangle with c x c as the 90 degree angular legs, and fact that this does seem to obey Pythagorean Theorem, while at same time shattering Fermat's Last Theorem, is where the triangle comes in. Because c x c or c^2 produces a standing spherical wave, making two rotations at right angles to complete one wave cycle, making it standing spherical wave of spin 1/2, and -1 charged, if the wave spins counter to its trajectory, is where I got the idea that c is (natural unit sqrt of natural unit -1). These are same dimensions as electron, and it would be highly improbable that all these attributes are produced by this model if it did not correspond to the electron. Looking at c^2 as c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction which create a 90 degree arc trajectory also directly matches geometrical description of sqrt -1 that I encountered later except that I make the 90 degree arc trajectory constant to create a circle and make the amplitude also constant so that circle make two rotations at right angles to each other to make 3D spherical wave. This just happens to directly match description of electron. someone spudnik I think, also suggested that (c=sqrt2), this is also interesting According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2 which states: The square root of 2, often known as root 2, is the positive real number that, when multiplied by itself, gives the number 2. Geometrically the square root of 2 is the length of a diagonal across a square with sides of one unit of length; this follows from the Pythagorean theorem. How is it that 1x1=1 can jump to 1 unit length x 1 unit length = 1 square unit? I think something analogous happens when one squares a square of 1 unit, or does it? If we take 3x3 or 3^2 geometrically, we get a square with 3 squares in horizontal direction x 3 squares in vertical direction which = 9 squares, and furthermore, if we cube that by turning the squares on its side and multiply it the same measure we get 27 squares. But if we increase it to forth power we get 81. OK I get that and realize my mistake about squaring a square when viewed this way. But now lets take a square of 1 unit, the kind of which sqrt2 come from, and square that. What does that equal? Conrad J Countess
From: spudnik on 10 Aug 2010 13:24 you don't give us any kind of an experimental verification, perhaps because you only have your toe in it. the surface of the sphere is pi*d*d, and it is four times the surface of the great circle -- a thing that Bucky apparently didn't know, oddly enough. it is pretty laughable, taht you'd think that you are dysproving F"L"T, because it is clear from the available stuff that it was the key to his method (along with the fact that he basically created numbertheorie, foo .-) --les ducs d'Enron! http://tarpley.net --Light, A History! http://wlym.com
From: Virgil on 10 Aug 2010 15:54
In article <d6592326-9a1c-4766-9f82-ca7a8358ae6b(a)a18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, cjcountess <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Now to show some aspects of the multi dimensionality of the natural > units c and c^2 > > > In linear mathematics, 1x1=1. > In geometry, 1 unit length in linear direction x 1 equal unit length > in 90 degree angular direction = 1 square unit. But in geometry, as elsewhere 1 unit is different from the number 1. For example. 1 can always be added to and the result is always 2 but one unit cannot be added to one unit unless the units are comaptible, and even then the result need not be two units unless the units are al the same. 1 metre plus 1 gram is nonsense, but 1 plus 1 is always sensible. 1 metre plus 1 inch is possible but the result is not 2 of any standard unit even though 1 plus 1 is 2. Thus numbers are normally unitless, though they may be used to count units. |