Fermat's "Last" Theorem Disproved?
in [Math]
|
Prev: 'Relativistic' "Doppler" shift
Next: Intersection of Complex Submanifolds (Incl. Self-Int.) is positive
From: Virgil on 2 Aug 2010 14:52 In article <1e346815-40f6-41f5-ae8e-7140087a1257(a)w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, cjcountess <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 5:05�pm, Virgil <Vir...(a)home.esc> wrote: > > In article > > <28020d59-d50f-4360-8c08-8eb085236...(a)m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, > > OK: so you want to give me a math lesson, but you'll settel for a > spelling leson > > > "interger" should be "integer" > > "soul" should be "sole" > > > > > Just what do you think is the difference between being an "interger" � > > and a not being an "interger"? Is it so much different from being an > > integer? > > > > Numbers do not have any implicit unit of measurement associated with > > them. If a unit of measure is to be associated, it must be explicit or > > at least implicit in the particular usage, which is NOT the case in FLT. > > If the object is to square a value than the implicite unite must be a > length or something analogous to a length. That would still be nonsense, even if your "than" were "then" and your "unite" were "unit". > > > > > Why are they not weights or angles or something other than distances? > > On the quantum level these unites can indeed be unified What have "quantum levels" to do with pure numbers. > > > It may be that in physics or engineering all numbers are assumed to have > > some associated unit of measurement tied to them, but FLT and the > > Pythagorean Theorem are in mathematics, and not in either physics or > > engineering. And in mathematics, numbers are ordinarily assumed to be > > without any units attached. > > Ordinarily assumed to be, you say, but not nessesarily all the time. > So what about the exceptions? > > > So why are you assuming otherwise? > > Because I am looking for the exceptions. If you wish to try and prove or disprove a statement that only involves numbers with no units then you are to allowed to impose units on them as a part of your proof. What holds for measurements need not hold for pure numbers. And FLT is about pure numbers. > > I think I"ve proved my point You think wrongly. > > > Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 2 Aug 2010 20:07 On Aug 2, 2:52 pm, Virgil <Vir...(a)home.esc> wrote: > In article > <1e346815-40f6-41f5-ae8e-7140087a1...(a)w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, > That would still be nonsense, even if your "than" were "then" and your > "unite" were "unit". So you still want to play with words because your numbers won't cooporate > If you wish to try and prove or disprove a statement that only involves > numbers with no units then you are to allowed to impose units on them as > a part of your proof. What holds for measurements need not hold for pure > numbers. > > And FLT is about pure numbers. And as I showed you, the numbers are not pure, they are geometric and include lengths > > I think I"ve proved my point > > You think wrongly. > Oh yeah, well lets get something straight. You mean to tell me that all I have to do is prove that the unites are not dimensionless and the theorem is disproved, or must at least be reworded? Conrad J Countess
From: Virgil on 2 Aug 2010 21:49 In article <ff9460f6-62b6-48cd-94bd-cd5c178f8b62(a)l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, cjcountess <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 2, 2:52�pm, Virgil <Vir...(a)home.esc> wrote: > > In article > > <1e346815-40f6-41f5-ae8e-7140087a1...(a)w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, > > > That would still be nonsense, even if your "than" were "then" and your > > "unite" were "unit". > > So you still want to play with words because your numbers won't > cooporate Did you mean "cooperate"? > > > If you wish to try and prove or disprove a statement that only involves > > numbers with no units then you are to allowed to impose units on them as > > a part of your proof. What holds for measurements need not hold for pure > > numbers. > > > > And FLT is about pure numbers. > > > And as I showed you, the numbers are not pure, they are geometric and > include lengths You will not sully MY numbers. They started pure and will stay pure. > > > > I think I"ve proved my point > > > > You think wrongly. > > > > Oh yeah, well lets get something straight. > > > You mean to tell me that all I have to do is prove that the unites are > not dimensionless and the theorem is disproved, or must at least be > reworded? You would at least have to prove that no number can ever be dimensionless, which, since it is not true, would be difficult to prove.
From: cjcountess on 3 Aug 2010 11:32 THE CONVERGENCE of QUANTUM and INTEGER NUMBERS Looking at the idea of dimensionless integers, it seems that the reason they are called dimensionless is because they can be applied to any unite such as (length, mass, time, and so on ...), but the reason for their universality may not be because they are dimensionless, but because of the very opposite reason that, they include all dimensions. As an example: on the quantum level of particles, these particles such as electrons, are said to be dimensionless point particles and probability waves. This is in part because they are to small to measure directly. But with newer research, it is seen to be logical and mathematical, that these particles are fully dimensional, and as such provides a basic measure of all dimensions, length, mass, charge, time, temperature, and so on. If this is the case, than the idea of so called pure numbers, concerning non dimensional integers, and the idea of quantum particles as basic unites of measure, merge here. This is because, it is here that we can see that, just as quantum particle can provide basic measurement of any, or at least multiple, unites, it is not because they are dimensionless, but the very opposite fact that they provide the basic unite where all these unites converge. Therefore as such, these particles as well as there pure number counterparts, or analogies, are not dimensionless but instead multidimensional. Conrad J Countess
From: Virgil on 3 Aug 2010 15:34
In article <53f3038c-59f4-4fa7-8c56-6372ee107103(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, cjcountess <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > THE CONVERGENCE of QUANTUM and INTEGER NUMBERS > > Looking at the idea of dimensionless integers, it seems that the > reason they are called dimensionless is because they can be applied to > any unite such as (length, mass, time, and so on ...), but the reason > for their universality may not be because they are dimensionless, but > because of the very opposite reason that, �they include all > dimensions�. Nonsense. Units may be certainly appended to numbers but if all numbers already "include" all units then 2^2 would have to represent 2 kilograms to the 2 meters power and simultaneoulsy 2 dynes to the 2 ohms power, etc.. |