Prev: In a Consistent System, Can a True Sentence Imply a False One?
Next: the most simple statement of Riemann Hypothesis #699 Correcting Math
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 18 Jul 2010 15:30


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(all else snipped)
>
> But that leaves me in a funny position, for it leaves me only with FLT
> to complain about that it has no proof until a precision definition of
> finite versus infinite-number is given as 10^500 or
> thereabouts. When I had RH to include with FLT, I felt a bit better of
> a stronger case. But now it looks as though FLT is the only one
> standing that demands and crys out for a precision boundary definition
> of finite versus infinite. But maybe, just maybe the nonmath
> conjecture of engineering called the NP conjecture is mincemeat once
> 10^500 is made the boundary.
>

No, I am wrong above. Although I found proofs of No Odd Perfect
Number, Perfect
Numbers, Twin Primes, Goldbach and Riemann Hypothesis and found them
without
call for a boundary between finite-number and infinite-number as that
of say 10^500
there are alot of problems in mathematics that require the boundary,
and FLT just
happens to be the most severe number theory case. All of mathematics
needs that boundary
but that boundary is very noticeable for geometry especially geometry
of the small
and tiny because Euclidean geometry axiom of parallel is violated with
absolute-continuity
for you have all the axioms inconsistent. Once the upper boundary is
defined at
10^500 then the lower boundary of 10^-500 is defined and so the range
of consistent
mathematics lies within those boundaries.

So let me take a talking tour through how modern day math fake proofs
are appraised.

Of course we have FLT, Fermat's Last Theorem and it has solutions to
all exponents n:

        The expression a^n+b^n=c^n is true for all n,
 given the following values.
     a= ...9977392256259918212890625
     b= ...0022607743740081787109376
     c= ...0000000000000000000000001

When 10^500 as boundary is defined then FLT has no solutions to
exponent 3 or greater.

For Poincare Conjecture: here is a case where absolute-continuity was
assumed. But Physics never had absolute-continuity and quantum
mechanics forbids it in the Uncertainty Principle.
So why mathematics gets away with ludicruous hypocrisy? When math
insists on absolute-continuity that there is always a new point
between any two given points causes all the geometry axioms to be an
inconsistent set of axioms for one can construct a Euclidean triangle
with angle sums of two angles equal to 180 degrees. So the Poincare
Conjecture was
never true and needs a restatement in light of the fact that 10^-500
are gaps to the next point.

For Kepler Packing Problem: is a clear case of where both 10^500 and
10^-500 are important
issues in packing. In Old Math, clumsy minded mathematicians blurted
out "pack infinite space" as if you can pack infinity and treat it as
some type of a container. The concept of packing means there is a
container to do the packing in. Infinity is no container. This alone
should have alerted people working on this problem. As I exposed in
very many posts to sci.math that the hexagonal closed packing of a
single sphere surrounded by 12 other spheres
is a maximum packing in "free space" where boundaries of the container
are a distance away
but once you get to the boundaries, that modifications to the
hexagonal closed packing are needed and that we have what I called
Oblong closed packing to make a denser packing.
So the reason Kepler Packing was never proved and never will be proved
in its ill-defined condition of "packing infinity" without a reference
to the boundary between finite and infinity
at 10^500 or 10^-500.

The 4-Color Mapping was never a mathematical problem but one of art or
sensibility. It was
always merely the 2-Color Mapping because given just two colors, we
express all information,
whether drawing a mapp or even writing words, or even TV in black and
white or photos in
black and white. The 4 Color Mapping has nerds believing that they can
make a map without
ever having boundary lines. Only nerds of math would think that
countries or property owners
can get along by having their borders, not lines, but colors oozing up
to some sort of imaginary
line. So there never was a 4 Color Mapping in mathematics, but there
always was a 2 Color Mapping for which black and white suffice to
color any and every picture or map. Proof: Jordan curve theorem. And
the proof is simply a one liner-- Jordan Curve theorem. Now how does
10^500 impact 4 Color Mapping? It does so on the small of 10^-500 that
the 4 Color Mapping is psycho-babbling-math when it expects people to
imagine borders rather than a line to be the
border. And thus the counterexample that shows Appel & Haken's is a
fakery and not mathematics is the handing over of every mapp of the
globe has black lines to tell apart the colored interiors, so that was
what? Five, yes 5 Color Mapping that Appel and Haken did. For
lunatic mathematics, the 4 Color Mapping would be on most everyone's
top ten list of lunatic
mathematics.

Summary: Mathematics is in deep trouble, is in the weeds and is the
worst shaped science
of the 21st century. All the other sciences that were started and
created back in Ancient Greek times have out grown every Ancient Greek
musing over their subjects and have cleared out and answered any
questions of their science. We hardly recognize any physics or
chemistry
or biology of modern day with that of Ancient Greek ideas of physics,
chemistry or biology.
But the one science that is sloth like or at snail's pace of improving
and correcting itself is
mathematics. The reason for this pitiful slowness of mathematics is
that it is the only science that is not determined for its truth
appraisal by a committee of old men. All the other sciences
appraisal is determined by objective experimentation. So when a group
of old men in mathematics decides that Appel and Haken has 4 Color
Mapping or that Hale has Kepler
Packing or that Wiles has FLT, well another millenium of fake math has
come our way.

We only have to look at the decades of the 1980s and 1990s when
physics had the claim of
test tube cold fusion by Pons and Fleischmann and mathematics had
Wiles with his fake FLT
to see the difference between a lousy science and a good working
science. In the good working science, objective experimentation solved
the test tube fusion misclaims and solved it
in a matter of a few years. Whereas for mathematics, well, we now have
a huge fakery on the
mantle of mathematics in the forms of Wiles FLT, Hale's Kepler
Packing, Appel and Haken's
4 Color Mapping, and the list goes on and on.

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: Archimedes Plutonium on 18 Jul 2010 15:57

> But the one science that is sloth like or at snail's pace of improving
> and correcting itself is
> mathematics. The reason for this pitiful slowness of mathematics is
> that it is the only science that is not determined for its truth

I wish that "not" had not slipped in there. I omitted it from the
original with a "sic" sign.

"the only science that is determined for its truth"

> appraisal by a committee of old men. All the other sciences
> appraisal is determined by objective experimentation. So when a group
> of old men in mathematics decides that Appel and Haken has 4 Color
> Mapping or that Hale has Kepler
> Packing or that Wiles has FLT, well another millenium of fake math has
> come our way.
>
> We only have to look at the decades of the 1980s and 1990s when
> physics had the claim of
> test tube cold fusion by Pons and Fleischmann and mathematics had
> Wiles with his fake FLT
> to see the difference between a lousy science and a good working
> science. In the good working science, objective experimentation solved
> the test tube fusion misclaims and solved it
> in a matter of a few years. Whereas for mathematics, well, we now have
> a huge fakery on the
> mantle of mathematics in the forms of Wiles FLT, Hale's Kepler
> Packing, Appel and Haken's
> 4 Color Mapping, and the list goes on and on.
>
> 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
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: In a Consistent System, Can a True Sentence Imply a False One?
Next: the most simple statement of Riemann Hypothesis #699 Correcting Math