Fermat's Polygonal Number theorem vs FLT?
in [Math]
|
Prev: If - this statement is used to open an exact proof p = np, if this is true or false, do this.
Next: Looking for: Functional Equation
From: Arturo Magidin on 7 May 2010 16:03 On May 7, 2:23 pm, fernando revilla <frej0...(a)ficus.pntic.mec.es> wrote: > Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > > He has never explained what he meant when he said > > that he had a proof > > that relies on an isomorphism between N and R. > > Once more ( perhaps not the last one): > > Some of you should change the criticism about Think Tank > proposal. He has explained upfrontly and indirectly that > he meant: > > "There exists an isomorphism between IN and a subset of IR" While I guess this is what he meant (and said so), I have not seen him anywhere "explaining" this, either indirectly or "upfrontly". I've seen him complain that people are getting "the facts" wrong; in fact, when I made the suggestion this might be what he meant and that perhaps he simply misspoke, he told me to "get the facts straight". I've also seen him claim that he has not made *any* mathematical mistake, and I haven't seen him saying what he "meant" to say, or even acknowledge (indirectly or tacitly), that what he *wrote* was incorrect. But, perhaps you can point me to the message where he made this "upfrontly" explanation, or one in which he made such an "indirect" explanation, after the fact? -- Arturo Magidin
From: Tonico on 7 May 2010 16:09 On May 7, 10:33 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > fernando revilla <frej0...(a)ficus.pntic.mec.es> writes: > > Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > > >> He has never explained what he meant when he said > >> that he had a proof > >> that relies on an isomorphism between N and R. > > > Once more ( perhaps not the last one): > > > Some of you should change the criticism about Think Tank > > proposal. He has explained upfrontly and indirectly that > > he meant: > > > "There exists an isomorphism between IN and a subset of IR" > > I honestly have no idea how you come to this conclusion. Perhaps you > could point me to a post where he stated or implied this? I might > have missed it. > Yes, me too. I've been following the answers Thinktank has been giving and I haven't seen anything like what Fernando says...a missed post? Perhaps, but then how did Fernando know it? Let's see if we can focus here: where, EXACTLY, did Thinktank explain ANYTHING at all about what he actually meant when he wrote about an isomorphism between the integers and the reals? Perhaps we all missed it...please Thinktank or Fernando: direct us all in the right direction. Tonio
From: fernando revilla on 7 May 2010 12:15 Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > I honestly have no idea how you come to this > conclusion. Perhaps you > could point me to a post where he stated or implied > this? I might > have missed it. For example: http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7059182&tstart=0 --- http://ficus.pntic.mec.es/~frej0002/
From: Tonico on 7 May 2010 16:32 On May 7, 11:15 pm, fernando revilla <frej0...(a)ficus.pntic.mec.es> wrote: > Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > > I honestly have no idea how you come to this > > conclusion. Perhaps you > > could point me to a post where he stated or implied > > this? I might > > have missed it. > > For example: > > http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7059182&tstart=0 > > ---http://ficus.pntic.mec.es/~frej0002/ Interesting: in the MathForum there's indeed a part where Thinktank says "...isomorphism between the integers and A SUBSET of the reals", yet that VERY SAME PART of that very same post appears, at least in groups.google.co,/sci.math, without the "subset" thing...perhaps he fixed that latter but the correction only appeared in the mathforum, or what happened? Whatever it was, many participants, and I among them, didn't see that correction. Tonio
From: fernando revilla on 7 May 2010 13:32
Hope this helps: Let P_s be a determined mathematical proposal based on a false statement s. Prove that: (a) P_s has no sense. (b) P_{¬ s} has sense or not depending on the relations of ¬ s with the complement of ¬ s relative to P_{¬ s} --- http://ficus.pntic.mec.es/~frej0002/ |