Fermat's Last Theorem simple proof impossible?
in [Math]
|
From: DRMARJOHN on 20 May 2010 05:52 > On May 19, 9:42 am, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> > wrote: > > > > I've been waiting for someone to point to a > place > > > that needs revision. > > > > > I already told you "a place that needs revision". > > > Your entire > > > discourse is essentially unintelligible, mostly > > > because you are using > > > your own private terminology in place of > standard, > > > well-known > > > terminology, because you are imprecise, and > because > > > you do not explain > > > what you mean in a comprehensible manner. Simply > put: > > > it is all > > > meaningless to your readers. That's why nobody is > > > pointing out a > > > specific place that "needs revision": because the > > > entire thing lacks > > > any meaning, as far as I am concerned > > > > > > In this approach I've suggested, one can > visualize > > > two types of curved surfaces. If the y-axis is 0 > to > > > 1.00, and the x-axis the sequence of A^n and B^n > to > > > the Nth power, e.g., .5^2, .5^3, .5^4...5^N. > > > > > See? "Sequences" don't define "surfaces", curved > or > > > otherwise, at > > > > In my imprecise way I suggesting a curved surface. > > "Imprecision" has no business in mathematics; as to > you suggesting "a > curved surface", it seems plain to me that you have > simply no idea or > notion what "curved surface" means in mathematics, > and instead > continue to insist on using your own personal > quasi-definitions and > notions. So you are *not* communicating, you are > engaging in a two- > party monologue. > > >It contains all the points of the irrational "roots" > of the infinite 0< R >1 >(is that correct? something > like € 0 - 1?). > > No, it's not correct. "0 < R > 1" means "all R that > are simultaneously > larger than 0 and larger than 1", that is, all R that > are larger than > 1. > Yes, yes: 0< R <1. > Your use of quotation marks around "roots" again > betrays your > insistence on going by your own private language and > notions. >How can you think that a typo is "private language?" I typed a " before I went online, and the Drexel program read that as ?. > You are not communicating, you are engaging in an > extended monologue. > > > >When I say visualize I am also hinting to an > intuition--I know that is >imprecise. > > It is not merely imprecise. It is USELESS NONSENSE to > anyone who reads > it, because you are unwilling to engage in > communication. > > > > > > least not when one uses those words in the > *USUAL*> *MATHEMATICAL* way. > > > So either you are using them in a secret, private > > > way, or else you are > > > speaking nonsense. > > > > > At this point, my suggestion is that you tell > > > yourself that we are all > > > a bunch of closed-minded bigots who don't pay any > > > attention to you, > > > and console yourself that way. Because, frankly, > you > > > are talking a lot > > > but you aren't saying anything. > > > > You have paid attention. Did I not ask a question, > does a certain > statement give a finite or an infinite number? > > Asking a question, in and of itself, does nothing. > Your "questions" > are grounded in nonsense and imprecise language, and > as such cannot be > answered in any meaningful way, just like "How is a > duck different?" > may very well be a question, but cannot be answered. > > For example: statements don't GIVE anything, neither > a "finite number" > nor an "infinite number". So the question is > meaningless nonsense. > > > Someone who also said they did not understand a > thing I said, gave the > > correct answer, revealing they did understand. > > Non sequitur. Someone may stumble on what you > consider to be the > correct answer without understanding what it is you > are talking > about. > > > Maybe that was not you, maybe it was Gerry. > > Can't be bothered to check, right? Why should you > work at it? > > > > I do not need to be consoled. In one of my answers > I wrote about being 80 years old, I've lived a > successful life, and I still live a full enjoyable > life. I do not need you to understand. I write these > fumblings > > Please correct your spelling. It's not "fumblings", > it is "nonsense". > > > > because I learned from my parents to give to > society. > > Stop fooling yourself, you aren't "giving to > society". You are > engaging in narcissistic monologues full of nonsense. > > > > What I write may not contribute to science, but I > persevere because my brain enjoys the work, just like > it did when I excelled at college (CCNY) Calculus (to > me, it was like reading a language I already knew) > and graduate school statistics (at U of Chicago, PhD > 1963). > > Am I supposed to be impressed? > > > I would not say closed-minded, rather that any > scientist is constrained by what he has learned, and > it is not easy to look into some one elses "out side > the box," particularly when he does not know your > langauge. As a psychologist, I do understand > something of how the brain works in problem solving. > I also just sense--in my vague intuitive way--that > someone is crunching the numbers because of my > fumbling--and they may come up with an understanding > of FLT.> -- > > As a mathematician, I can tell you that your > knowledge of psychology > is not helping you in any way, and that you are just > fooling yourself > into thinking you are making a sensible contribution. > Despite your > words about not needing to "console" yourself, all of > the above is > nothing but self-consolation, telling us how great > you are and that > you *do* know what you are doing, and it's the rest > of us who don't > get it. So you are not just fooling yourself about > the quality of > your, ehr, "mathematics", you are also fooling > yourself in your *own* > field of study. Nice to know you engage in the same > waste of time in > the field you are *supposed* to be good at, not just > the one you are > incompetently attempting to participate in. > > -- > Arturo Magidin > Your diatribe would shock your students, if they read these postings. At 9:10 a.m. I posted the conversation with Gerry that revealed he understood me. Both of you have given me correct ways to say things. I do not want to give up on you. Is it too risky to take my approach seriosly? You say nothing about my other posting of 5-19. There is a chance that I am onto something. Would it embarrass you if you overlooked an insight? It embarrassed me to state any of my academic background. I wished for you to consider what I am posting, to think I have some qualification. The ? appears on the posting even though on my computer I used ", that was before I went online. I used the copy keys to place it in the posting. Martin Johnson
From: Arturo Magidin on 20 May 2010 14:55 On May 20, 8:52 am, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > > Your diatribe would shock your students, You are not my student, and you should not presume to speak for them. How would your patients feel about the contempt you exhibit for the subject matter you are pretending to pontificate on (mathematics)? > if they read these postings. At 9:10 a.m. I posted the conversation with Gerry that revealed he understood me. Your claim is a nonsequitur. >Both of you have given me correct ways to say things. I do not want to give up on you. Is it too risky to take my approach seriosly? I have no idea what "your approach" is. It's not about risk, it's about your unwillingness to explain yourself, and the contempt you are showing for the subject matter. If you truly believe that two Calculus courses you took decades ago, plus training in a *completely separate* discipline gives you the credentials to conduct mathematical research, then you are exhibiting contempt for the latter. It would be like me claiming that the two years of psychology I took in high school (in Mexico, at a level comparable to introductory courses in college in the US) plus my experience thinking (while practicing a mathematician) put me in a position to conduct psychology research without bothering to even try to learn the language used to communicate, expecting you to conform to my approach. How would you feel about that? How would you feel about someone who, having taken two semesters of basic chemistry, declares that this understanding of the processes that are involved in an internal combustion engine qualifies them to participate in formula 1 car races? I do not understand "your approach". Rather than explain it, you have simply repeated the same statements, adding provisos that you realize that it is "imprecise", but failing to make any attempt at fixing that. There is no "risk" to me whether you succed or fail, just like there is no risk to me whether *anyone* succeeds, fails, or attempts anything to do with number theory. > You say nothing about my other posting of 5-19. There is a chance that I am > onto something. Now you are solidly in persecuted crank territory. > Would it embarrass you if you overlooked an insight? It would affect me in absolutely no way. I am not a number theorist, nor am I responsible for translating the doodlings of a neophyte into correct mathematical language, no matter how old or how highly he thinks of himself (with or without reason). >It embarrassed me to state any of my academic background. Really? Because rather you sounded like you were blowing your trumpet. None of your academic background was in any way relevant to the subject at hand, yet you thought it was important to put it out there. > I wished for you to consider what I am posting, I did. And I did not understand it. In response, you have accused me of dishonesty elsewhere. >to think I have some qualification. What you provided does *not* show that you have *any* qualification for conducting mathematical research. This does not detract from your right (or possible ability) to conduct that mathematical research, but the onus continues to be on you to make yourself intelligible, not on others to try to imbue your nonsense with sense. In fact, the "qualifications" you provided indicate to me that you have *no* relevant qualifications for what you are attempting, and that if you think the information somehow establishes you do have "credentials", that suggests you me that you don't know what you are talking about in this either. Meanwhile, since you have accused me of dishonesty elsewhere, I'll simply reiterate my suggestion that you cross the river Styx. -- Arturo Magidin
From: Gerry Myerson on 20 May 2010 19:05 In article <1410770379.193835.1274363559902.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org>, DRMARJOHN <MJOHNMAR(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > Is it too risky to take my approach seriosly? You say nothing about my other > posting of 5-19. There is a chance that I am onto something. Would it > embarrass you if you overlooked an insight? If I came up to you and said I had a promising approach to one of the great questions of psychology, and if it came out in the course of our conversation that I didn't know the difference between a man and a mantelpiece, would you think there was any chance that I was onto something? Yet it has come out in the course of our con- versation here that you don't know the difference between a cube and a cube root. There is no chance that you are onto something. This should not stop you from thinking about mathematics, enjoying it, learning it, etc. - but it should stop you from...well, consider this quotation, generally attributed to Mark Twain: "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." Oh, and speaking about saying nothing about your other posts of 19 May - so far as I know, you've said nothing about my posts where I prove that you are wrong about the relative speeds of convergence of (.8)^n and (.9)^n. A person with integrity would acknowledge his/her mistake, thank the other for pointing it out (and perhaps even admit that it makes the whole approach a nonsense). And it takes integrity to do mathematics. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: Gerry Myerson on 20 May 2010 19:14 In article <8090d69f-5f90-4eee-aa0b-ab0fceaa8273(a)e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Arturo Magidin <magidin(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > > I've been waiting for someone to point to a place that needs revision. > > I already told you "a place that needs revision". Your entire > discourse is essentially unintelligible, mostly because you are using > your own private terminology in place of standard, well-known > terminology, because you are imprecise, and because you do not explain > what you mean in a comprehensible manner. Simply put: it is all > meaningless to your readers. That's why nobody is pointing out a > specific place that "needs revision": because the entire thing lacks > any meaning, as far as I am concerned > > > In this approach I've suggested, one can visualize two types of curved > > surfaces. If the y-axis is 0 to 1.00, and the x-axis the sequence of A^n > > and B^n to the Nth power, e.g., .5^2, .5^3, .5^4...5^N. > > See? "Sequences" don't define "surfaces", curved or otherwise, at > least not when one uses those words in the *USUAL* *MATHEMATICAL* way. > So either you are using them in a secret, private way, or else you are > speaking nonsense. > > At this point, my suggestion is that you tell yourself that we are all > a bunch of closed-minded bigots who don't pay any attention to you, > and console yourself that way. Because, frankly, you are talking a lot > but you aren't saying anything. "Part of the reason for the success of mathematics is that a mathematician generally knows what other mathematicians are talking about, which is not something you can say about just any field. If you ask mathematicians to define a term such as 'group', you are going to get virtually identical definitions from all of them, but if you ask psychologists to define 'love', you will probably get several variations that depend upon the school of psychological thought to which the respondent adheres." ---James D Stein, How Math Explains the World, page 170. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: Ostap Bender on 21 May 2010 04:06
On May 20, 6:52 am, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > > On May 19, 9:42 am, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> > > wrote: > > > > > I've been waiting for someone to point to a > > place > > > > that needs revision. > > > > > I already told you "a place that needs revision". > > > > Your entire > > > > discourse is essentially unintelligible, mostly > > > > because you are using > > > > your own private terminology in place of > > standard, > > > > well-known > > > > terminology, because you are imprecise, and > > because > > > > you do not explain > > > > what you mean in a comprehensible manner. Simply > > put: > > > > it is all > > > > meaningless to your readers. That's why nobody is > > > > pointing out a > > > > specific place that "needs revision": because the > > > > entire thing lacks > > > > any meaning, as far as I am concerned > > > > > > In this approach I've suggested, one can > > visualize > > > > two types of curved surfaces. If the y-axis is 0 > > to > > > > 1.00, and the x-axis the sequence of A^n and B^n > > to > > > > the Nth power, e.g., .5^2, .5^3, .5^4...5^N. > > > > > See? "Sequences" don't define "surfaces", curved > > or > > > > otherwise, at > > > > In my imprecise way I suggesting a curved surface. > > > "Imprecision" has no business in mathematics; as to > > you suggesting "a > > curved surface", it seems plain to me that you have > > simply no idea or > > notion what "curved surface" means in mathematics, > > and instead > > continue to insist on using your own personal > > quasi-definitions and > > notions. So you are *not* communicating, you are > > engaging in a two- > > party monologue. > > > >It contains all the points of the irrational "roots" > > of the infinite 0< R >1 >(is that correct? something > > like 0 - 1?). > > > No, it's not correct. "0 < R > 1" means "all R that > > are simultaneously > > larger than 0 and larger than 1", that is, all R that > > are larger than > > 1. > > Yes, yes: 0< R <1. > > > > > Your use of quotation marks around "roots" again > > betrays your > > insistence on going by your own private language and > > notions. > >How can you think that a typo is "private language?" I typed a " before I went online, and the Drexel program read that as ?. > > You are not communicating, you are engaging in an > > extended monologue. > > > >When I say visualize I am also hinting to an > > intuition--I know that is >imprecise. > > > It is not merely imprecise. It is USELESS NONSENSE to > > anyone who reads > > it, because you are unwilling to engage in > > communication. > > > > least not when one uses those words in the > > *USUAL*> *MATHEMATICAL* way. > > > > So either you are using them in a secret, private > > > > way, or else you are > > > > speaking nonsense. > > > > > At this point, my suggestion is that you tell > > > > yourself that we are all > > > > a bunch of closed-minded bigots who don't pay any > > > > attention to you, > > > > and console yourself that way. Because, frankly, > > you > > > > are talking a lot > > > > but you aren't saying anything. > > > You have paid attention. Did I not ask a question, > > does a certain > > statement give a finite or an infinite number? > > > Asking a question, in and of itself, does nothing. > > Your "questions" > > are grounded in nonsense and imprecise language, and > > as such cannot be > > answered in any meaningful way, just like "How is a > > duck different?" > > may very well be a question, but cannot be answered. > > > For example: statements don't GIVE anything, neither > > a "finite number" > > nor an "infinite number". So the question is > > meaningless nonsense. > > > > Someone who also said they did not understand a > > thing I said, gave the > > > correct answer, revealing they did understand. > > > Non sequitur. Someone may stumble on what you > > consider to be the > > correct answer without understanding what it is you > > are talking > > about. > > > > Maybe that was not you, maybe it was Gerry. > > > Can't be bothered to check, right? Why should you > > work at it? > > > > I do not need to be consoled. In one of my answers > > I wrote about being 80 years old, I've lived a > > successful life, and I still live a full enjoyable > > life. I do not need you to understand. I write these > > fumblings > > > Please correct your spelling. It's not "fumblings", > > it is "nonsense". > > > > because I learned from my parents to give to > > society. > > > Stop fooling yourself, you aren't "giving to > > society". You are > > engaging in narcissistic monologues full of nonsense. > > > > What I write may not contribute to science, but I > > persevere because my brain enjoys the work, just like > > it did when I excelled at college (CCNY) Calculus (to > > me, it was like reading a language I already knew) > > and graduate school statistics (at U of Chicago, PhD > > 1963). > > > Am I supposed to be impressed? > > > > I would not say closed-minded, rather that any > > scientist is constrained by what he has learned, and > > it is not easy to look into some one elses "out side > > the box," particularly when he does not know your > > langauge. As a psychologist, I do understand > > something of how the brain works in problem solving. > > I also just sense--in my vague intuitive way--that > > someone is crunching the numbers because of my > > fumbling--and they may come up with an understanding > > of FLT.> -- > > > As a mathematician, I can tell you that your > > knowledge of psychology > > is not helping you in any way, and that you are just > > fooling yourself > > into thinking you are making a sensible contribution. > > Despite your > > words about not needing to "console" yourself, all of > > the above is > > nothing but self-consolation, telling us how great > > you are and that > > you *do* know what you are doing, and it's the rest > > of us who don't > > get it. So you are not just fooling yourself about > > the quality of > > your, ehr, "mathematics", you are also fooling > > yourself in your *own* > > field of study. Nice to know you engage in the same > > waste of time in > > the field you are *supposed* to be good at, not just > > the one you are > > incompetently attempting to participate in. > > > -- > > Arturo Magidin > > Your diatribe would shock your students, if they read these postings. At 9:10 a.m. I posted the conversation with Gerry that revealed he understood me. Both of you have given me correct ways to say things. I do not want to give up on you. Is it too risky to take my approach seriosly? You say nothing about my other posting of 5-19. There is a chance that I am onto something. Would it embarrass you if you overlooked an insight? It embarrassed me to state any of my academic background. I wished for you to consider what I am posting, to think I have some qualification. Qualification? Well, you took a college calculus and a statistics for poets class. Is it a lot? Well, it is more than my house cleaner, but less than most waiters working at restaurants here in Palo Alto. > The ? appears on the posting even though on my computer I used ", that was before I went online. I used the copy keys to place it in the posting. Maybe your time would be better spend psychoanalyzing your keyboard? |