### Thursday, July 29, 1999

## JSH: Help with my proof of FLT

I've gotten only just a few reasonable emails, but they are enough for me to seriously consider getting to the task of making my proof of FLT more readable.

For anyone who approaches it before the changes, here's some points.

I talk about integer factors of imaginary numbers (I use imaginary instead of complex when I'm talking about numbers that aren't real, since complex includes reals). I was brought to task about this in an email.

However, in this case, finally I'm right. I'm using the relation u = fk.

u is an integer and f and k are imaginary. k>f, with k = rf* (f* - complex conjugate)

r must be an integer.

So, I can speak of integer factors of imaginary k's (as I do), since I'm actually talking about r.

I would strongly suggest that anyone thinking of looking at the proof would look at my post of a proof of Case 1. The Case 1 proof, while not necessary for the general proof, shows the techniques I'm using. It is also clearer since it's some of the latest that I've done and I understand things myself much better now.

In fact, as they say about Wiles' proof, I've been able to simplify things greatly from the original. I just have to get the motivation to do make the webpage as understandable (although, it is readable now, with effort).

I can also finally make a statement that I've made so many times over the past four years (and been wrong) that it has become meaningless, but I'll make it anyway.

The proof is correct.

Thanks to the people who've looked at what I have up to now.

I can put all of this out without feeling guilty because I'm convinced that this time it is correct, so it's worth the effort expended in looking it over.

Of course, being human I do err, but there's over three months of looking this thing over now, and my confidence is rising rapidly.

For anyone who approaches it before the changes, here's some points.

I talk about integer factors of imaginary numbers (I use imaginary instead of complex when I'm talking about numbers that aren't real, since complex includes reals). I was brought to task about this in an email.

However, in this case, finally I'm right. I'm using the relation u = fk.

u is an integer and f and k are imaginary. k>f, with k = rf* (f* - complex conjugate)

r must be an integer.

So, I can speak of integer factors of imaginary k's (as I do), since I'm actually talking about r.

I would strongly suggest that anyone thinking of looking at the proof would look at my post of a proof of Case 1. The Case 1 proof, while not necessary for the general proof, shows the techniques I'm using. It is also clearer since it's some of the latest that I've done and I understand things myself much better now.

In fact, as they say about Wiles' proof, I've been able to simplify things greatly from the original. I just have to get the motivation to do make the webpage as understandable (although, it is readable now, with effort).

I can also finally make a statement that I've made so many times over the past four years (and been wrong) that it has become meaningless, but I'll make it anyway.

The proof is correct.

Thanks to the people who've looked at what I have up to now.

I can put all of this out without feeling guilty because I'm convinced that this time it is correct, so it's worth the effort expended in looking it over.

Of course, being human I do err, but there's over three months of looking this thing over now, and my confidence is rising rapidly.

### Thursday, July 22, 1999

## Plausible deniability fading

One of my favorite terms from my time with the government is "plausible deniability". It basically has to do with how you can explain why you ignored something or why you did nothing or basically why you aren't responsible.

In other words, its another term for "covering your ass" (CYA).

This post is just a friendly warning that plausible deniability (PD) is fading for most of you. You might want to look at my latest posts on my proof of FLT and save yourself from long, painful hard looks in the mirror and embarrassing attempts at explanation later. "Bu, bu, but he was just some crank!!!"

("Ounce of prevention...")

Of course, this applies only to the "pure" math folks. Practical people will have PD for quite some time yet.

(As you can see, I sort of miss all the military acronyms. Hey, I almost missed one,

"ounce of prevention" (OOP). Very useful stuff. Verdad?)

In other words, its another term for "covering your ass" (CYA).

This post is just a friendly warning that plausible deniability (PD) is fading for most of you. You might want to look at my latest posts on my proof of FLT and save yourself from long, painful hard looks in the mirror and embarrassing attempts at explanation later. "Bu, bu, but he was just some crank!!!"

("Ounce of prevention...")

Of course, this applies only to the "pure" math folks. Practical people will have PD for quite some time yet.

(As you can see, I sort of miss all the military acronyms. Hey, I almost missed one,

"ounce of prevention" (OOP). Very useful stuff. Verdad?)

### Wednesday, July 21, 1999

## JSH: Hammer

To my surprise, the simplest approach has failed. My belief was that if you came up with something true then that should be enough for it to become known especially if it were important.

Today, I saw a post where someone claimed an error with my proof and then condescendingly said they wouldn't point it out but that it'd be better if I found it myself. And that I could if I really tried.

I think that funny since there is no error. My statements that there might be one were simply my being practical and openminded.

The ways that people are taught (or not taught) to think are bad enough that I am certain that the future survival of the human race is in serious doubt, and it's so amazing how certain so many of them are of themselves. (Any of you heard of De Bono? Guess who's techniques I've followed closely. I don't just make these methods up!)

I'm beginning to wonder about large areas of human knowledge where people are "certain". At least in science there's reality to often check what is true and what is wishful thinking. Unfortunately, in "pure" math, you fellows police yourselves. Frankly, I don't trust you. Perti Luonesto makes better points in that area, so I won't say more now.

In any event, you can bet that once this proof is known that you'll not get good press from me. But, hey, I've made serious efforts to be sure that you'd know that well ahead of time. Luckily for me, I get the fun and easy job from here on out.

You guys created the Hammer and gave it all its power. So it's only fair that it'll be on your heads.

Today, I saw a post where someone claimed an error with my proof and then condescendingly said they wouldn't point it out but that it'd be better if I found it myself. And that I could if I really tried.

I think that funny since there is no error. My statements that there might be one were simply my being practical and openminded.

The ways that people are taught (or not taught) to think are bad enough that I am certain that the future survival of the human race is in serious doubt, and it's so amazing how certain so many of them are of themselves. (Any of you heard of De Bono? Guess who's techniques I've followed closely. I don't just make these methods up!)

I'm beginning to wonder about large areas of human knowledge where people are "certain". At least in science there's reality to often check what is true and what is wishful thinking. Unfortunately, in "pure" math, you fellows police yourselves. Frankly, I don't trust you. Perti Luonesto makes better points in that area, so I won't say more now.

In any event, you can bet that once this proof is known that you'll not get good press from me. But, hey, I've made serious efforts to be sure that you'd know that well ahead of time. Luckily for me, I get the fun and easy job from here on out.

You guys created the Hammer and gave it all its power. So it's only fair that it'll be on your heads.