Prev: Amazing Principles - Grigory Perelman and Poincare Conjecture
Next: Russian mathematicians rejects $1 million prize
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 1 Jul 2010 15:56
Theorem: In old-math, geometry had well-defined finite-line versus
infinite-line but
Algebra or Number theory was ill-defined with its finite-number versus
infinite-number
and that is why mathematics could never prove Twin Primes, Perfect
Numbers,
Goldbach C. , Fermat's Last Theorem, Riemann Hypothesis and thousands
of
number theory conjectures. In this theorem, we show there never can be
constructed a infinite-line in geometry since the other half of
mathematics, the old-math never well defined
infinite-number versus finite-number.
Proof: Since old math does not recognize infinite-numbers, that no
matter how many finite number of line segments we put together, they
still will never
summon into an infinite-line-ray. However, if a precision definition
is given in
mathematics for geometry or algebra saying that finite-number means
all numbers less than 10^500 and 10^500 and beyond are infinite-
numbers.
Well, with that definition we can build an infinite-line-ray in
geometry by
adding together 10^500 units of line-segments of finite line segments
building
an infinite-line-ray. QED


So mathematics at this moment is in an awfully messy and precarious
position. The
Geometry side of mathematics is far more perfect in its definitions
and has its house
in a superb order. The Number or Algebra side of mathematics is
horribly messy, stained
and dirty with never any precision definition of what it means to be a
finite-number
versus a infinite-number. It is the reason why Mathematics has never
been able to prove
the oldest conjecture on record-- Perfect Numbers Conjecture and the
second oldest
conjecture-- Twin Primes. Math, the old math will never prove these
two conjectures nor the
thousands of others such as Riemann Hypothesis, so long as mathematics
is lethargic and
ignoring the definition of finite-number versus infinite-number.

Now everyone is going to carp and complain that, whoa, 10^500 does not
feel like infinity.
But then everyone never thought about Physics all that much. That
there is no physical
existence of anything beyond 10^500 or below 10^-500. There is no time
available of 10^500 seconds. Noone and nothing can count to 10^500.
Our best computers can never deliver a set
of the first 10^500 primes. Our best computers can never verify
Goldbach or FLT or Riemann
Hypothesis out to 10^500.

Beyond 10^500 has no Physical Meaning, and yet, when I say that this
number is excellent
pick as the boundary between finite and infinite, we hear the
screaming and shrieking of
nattering nutter ivory towered professors of mathematics. Those
professors never understood
or learned Physics and all they did was live in a idealistic Platonic
world. They were more
philosophers and religionists rather than being scientists where math
is but the science of
precision. Those professors of mathematics truly belong more in the
psychology department
of the Universities rather than in the science-math departments.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
From: Transfer Principle on 2 Jul 2010 00:57
On Jul 1, 12:56 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Theorem: In old-math, geometry had well-defined finite-line versus
> infinite-line but Algebra or Number theory was ill-defined with
> its finite-number versus infinite-number and that is why
> mathematics could never prove Twin Primes, Perfect Numbers,
> Goldbach C. , Fermat's Last Theorem, Riemann Hypothesis and thousands
> of number theory conjectures.

I haven't posted in the AP threads in a while, since I usually
avoid the Atom Totality threads. But now that AP has returned
to Correcting Math, I will return to participating.

> However, if a precision definition is given in
> mathematics for geometry or algebra saying that finite-number means
> all numbers less than 10^500 and 10^500 and beyond are infinite-
> numbers.

So obviously, AP has returned to his 10^500-infinity idea.

> It is the reason why Mathematics has never been able to prove
> the oldest conjecture on record-- Perfect Numbers Conjecture and the
> second oldest conjecture-- Twin Primes.

The "Perfect Numbers Conjecture"? Is this the conjecture that
all perfect numbers are even, or the conjecture that there
exist infinitely many even perfect numbers? I would guess the
latter, since I fail to see how the former has anything to do
with the 10^500-infinity theory, and the latter is analogous
to the Twin Primes Conjecture.

Actually, I take that back. I suppose that one could include
10^500 by stating, "if no odd perfect number less than 10^500
exists, then no odd perfect number exists." As of now, it's
proved that no odd perfect number less than 10^300 exists, so
we still have 200 orders of magnitude left to go before we
reach AP's limit.

> Our best computers can never verify Goldbach or FLT or Riemann
> Hypothesis out to 10^500.

AP appears to be saying here that if a conjecture states that
infinitely many natural numbers satisfy some property, then
we only need to check to see whether 10^500 naturals satisfy it
before declaring the conjecture true, and if the conjecture is
that no natural numbers satisfy some property, then we only
need to check to up 10^500.

Obviously, this claim fails in standard theory ("Old Math.") Let
me chew on this for a while...
From: Marshall on 2 Jul 2010 09:09
On Jul 1, 9:57 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 12:56 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Theorem: In old-math, geometry had well-defined finite-line versus
> > infinite-line but Algebra or Number theory was ill-defined with
> > its finite-number versus infinite-number and that is why
> > mathematics could never prove Twin Primes, Perfect Numbers,
> > Goldbach C. , Fermat's Last Theorem, Riemann Hypothesis and thousands
> > of number theory conjectures.
>
> I haven't posted in the AP threads in a while, since I usually
> avoid the Atom Totality threads. But now that AP has returned
> to Correcting Math, I will return to participating.

It's a match made in heaven!


Marshall
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Amazing Principles - Grigory Perelman and Poincare Conjecture
Next: Russian mathematicians rejects $1 million prize