Wednesday, February 13, 2002
JSH: Enough distractions, back to the math.
Some of you may believe that there's a lot in contest when it comes to my proof of Fermat's Last Theorem but there isn't. What bothers me is an apparent refusal by people who argue with me to admit the truth. They just seem completely irrational to me.
For instance, consider the ring business which is the PRIMARY objection they raise over and over again, which I can explain easily with a simple polynomial-like expression:
(v^3+1)W^3 - 3vW - 2 = (sqrt(v+1)W+b1)(sqrt(v+1)W+b2)((v^2-v+1)W+b3),
where these people have apparently convinced many of you that for some odd reason it's impossible, or at least extraordinarily difficult to determine whether in any sense whether b1, b2, b3, b1 b2, b2 b3, or b1 b3 have a factor of 1/sqrt(v+1).
The argument goes something like this:
To talk about 1/sqrt(v+1) as a factor, it must be in the ring. But if it's in the ring, it's a factor of all members of the ring; therefore, talking of 1/sqrt(v+1) as a factor means that it must be a factor of the numbers.
And notice I've been talking about b1 b2, b2 b3, or b1 b3 because these people berated me for saying that b1, b3 and b3 didn't have a factor of 1/sqrt(v+1), and then there were people who claimed that even that didn't cover it, since they seemed to think that multiplying or adding to another member of the ring formed by adjoining the square roots of the integers to the integers might introduce 1/sqrt(v+1).
Yet, through this all, for months I've done a simple demonstration:
Let me remind you that the expression is
(v^3+1)W^3 - 3vW - 2 = (sqrt(v+1)W+b1)(sqrt(v+1)W+b2)((v^2-v+1)W+b3),
and now let me set v=-1, to get
3W - 2 = ((0)W + b1)((0)W+b2)((3)W+b3) = b1 b2 (3W + b3).
So, how many of you really believe that 1/sqrt(v+1) is in any way a factor of the b's?
Well, there's actually an interesting thing you might notice before you jump to any conclusions, and that is b1 b2. Maybe b1 has a factor of sqrt(v+1) and b2 has a factor of 1/sqrt(v+1), and there is an error at v=-1, so that you have to approach it.
Do you all believe that issue cannot be resolved, with all that "modern math" has to offer?
I guess you do.
The other objection to the proof depends on the assertion that somehow two expressions in two unknowns when neither expression is a multiple of the other in any way limits the values for the unknowns.
The equivalent assertion would be something like, given
x+ y = 1, and x+2y = 3, x and y can have an infinite number of integer values.
Well, it just so happens that in the proof the expressions are not so simple, so despite the fact that there are two unknowns with two expressions, many of you apparently have accepted an illogical position. I find that extraordinary.
How could you all apparently be convinced of something like that?
And that's it folks.
And I know that you pride yourselves on thinking I'm lying but you can verify that these are THE objections to my proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.
When people ask if anyone supports my claims they are basically saying that you all believe what they claim. I know that's silly as I think most of you haven't really paid attention as you've been convinced that I'm just some nut or attention seeker.
Well, if you had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, that people were getting credit for shooting down using illogic and insults, wouldn't that make you a bit nutty?
And don't you think you'd be trying to get some attention for your proof?
And given the behavior that I've seen for years from mathematicians on this newsgroup—what you've seen lately isn't that strange from my experience—why should I trust some unknown editor at a journal to not be of the same type?
Especially when maybe, eventually, one of you will see the truth at
http://www.msnusers.com/ProofofFermatsLastTheorem.
I certainly hope it's soon though as I'm getting tired of all these people getting their jollies from insulting me. I think some of them may be doing it because they think the proof is correct, and they won't be able to so easily get away with attacking me in the future. Or, maybe they know they can still verbally assault me, but that then they won't get the kind of applause they now do on sci.math. Then again, maybe they would. I think many of you would still applaud them even knowing that I solved Fermat's Last Theorem just because you hate me that much.
For instance, consider the ring business which is the PRIMARY objection they raise over and over again, which I can explain easily with a simple polynomial-like expression:
(v^3+1)W^3 - 3vW - 2 = (sqrt(v+1)W+b1)(sqrt(v+1)W+b2)((v^2-v+1)W+b3),
where these people have apparently convinced many of you that for some odd reason it's impossible, or at least extraordinarily difficult to determine whether in any sense whether b1, b2, b3, b1 b2, b2 b3, or b1 b3 have a factor of 1/sqrt(v+1).
The argument goes something like this:
To talk about 1/sqrt(v+1) as a factor, it must be in the ring. But if it's in the ring, it's a factor of all members of the ring; therefore, talking of 1/sqrt(v+1) as a factor means that it must be a factor of the numbers.
And notice I've been talking about b1 b2, b2 b3, or b1 b3 because these people berated me for saying that b1, b3 and b3 didn't have a factor of 1/sqrt(v+1), and then there were people who claimed that even that didn't cover it, since they seemed to think that multiplying or adding to another member of the ring formed by adjoining the square roots of the integers to the integers might introduce 1/sqrt(v+1).
Yet, through this all, for months I've done a simple demonstration:
Let me remind you that the expression is
(v^3+1)W^3 - 3vW - 2 = (sqrt(v+1)W+b1)(sqrt(v+1)W+b2)((v^2-v+1)W+b3),
and now let me set v=-1, to get
3W - 2 = ((0)W + b1)((0)W+b2)((3)W+b3) = b1 b2 (3W + b3).
So, how many of you really believe that 1/sqrt(v+1) is in any way a factor of the b's?
Well, there's actually an interesting thing you might notice before you jump to any conclusions, and that is b1 b2. Maybe b1 has a factor of sqrt(v+1) and b2 has a factor of 1/sqrt(v+1), and there is an error at v=-1, so that you have to approach it.
Do you all believe that issue cannot be resolved, with all that "modern math" has to offer?
I guess you do.
The other objection to the proof depends on the assertion that somehow two expressions in two unknowns when neither expression is a multiple of the other in any way limits the values for the unknowns.
The equivalent assertion would be something like, given
x+ y = 1, and x+2y = 3, x and y can have an infinite number of integer values.
Well, it just so happens that in the proof the expressions are not so simple, so despite the fact that there are two unknowns with two expressions, many of you apparently have accepted an illogical position. I find that extraordinary.
How could you all apparently be convinced of something like that?
And that's it folks.
And I know that you pride yourselves on thinking I'm lying but you can verify that these are THE objections to my proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.
When people ask if anyone supports my claims they are basically saying that you all believe what they claim. I know that's silly as I think most of you haven't really paid attention as you've been convinced that I'm just some nut or attention seeker.
Well, if you had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, that people were getting credit for shooting down using illogic and insults, wouldn't that make you a bit nutty?
And don't you think you'd be trying to get some attention for your proof?
And given the behavior that I've seen for years from mathematicians on this newsgroup—what you've seen lately isn't that strange from my experience—why should I trust some unknown editor at a journal to not be of the same type?
Especially when maybe, eventually, one of you will see the truth at
http://www.msnusers.com/ProofofFermatsLastTheorem.
I certainly hope it's soon though as I'm getting tired of all these people getting their jollies from insulting me. I think some of them may be doing it because they think the proof is correct, and they won't be able to so easily get away with attacking me in the future. Or, maybe they know they can still verbally assault me, but that then they won't get the kind of applause they now do on sci.math. Then again, maybe they would. I think many of you would still applaud them even knowing that I solved Fermat's Last Theorem just because you hate me that much.
# posted by James Harris @ 08:49 
