Harristotelian Logic

Some of you may honestly be confused about whether or not I've presented a short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, whether or not there's a counter example or counter argument to my proof, and whether or not people have been caught in actual lies about the proof.

Unfortunately, I'm quite certain that mathematicians have strong motivations not to tell you the truth. While I admit it's quite possible that many mathematicians have not heard of the short FLT Proof, I'm also very suspicious to the extent that I point out that they may simply believe that not saying anything is not only a potent weapon against anyone knowing the truth, but it might seem like the best defense for the future.

So, if you're someone who prides themselves on knowing the actual truth versus political or social "truths" then you may wonder what hope you have here, especially if you don't know a lot of number theory.

I suggest your common sense is a good start, along with a consideration of the facts NOT in dispute.

You may wonder about relevance of some of these facts, but I've chosen them and their order quite deliberately.

1. I did find a way to count prime numbers that is not in any established reference, which is easily verifiable. It is also easy to check anyone claiming that is not true by asking them to provide the reference, and then simply looking.
   
   The prime counting function I found is
   
   dS(x,y) = (pi((x/y), y-1) -pi(y-1, sqrt(y-1))[pi(y, sqrt(y)) - pi(y-1, sqrt(y-1))],
   
   S(x,1) = 0.
   
   And pi(x, y) = floor(x) - S(x, y) - 1, and you get S by summing dS from y = 2 to sqrt(x).
   
   though
   
   dS(x,y) = (pi((x/y), (sqrt(x/y)) - pi(y-1, sqrt(y-1))[ pi(y, sqrt(y)) - pi(y-1, sqrt(y-1))]
   
   when sqrt(x/y) < y-1, makes for faster calculation.
   
   Here pi(x,sqrt(x)) gives the prime count for x.
   
   For instance pi(10,sqrt(10)) will give you 4, corresponding to 2, 3, 5 and 7.
   
   Now it should be easy enough to see if that's in any reference, and please note there is NOT dispute about whether or not it works.


2. Most of the short FLT proof I've presented has been verified as being correct, including points that had been controversial. Here the important thing is to pay attention to those claiming some error has been found.
   
   For me that's an important point because I was a central figure in arguments that went on for MONTHS, and even when I was vindicated time and time again, these same people would keep acting as if they'd never been wrong!!!
   
   Verifying that is something that could take a bit of effort, so it's not as easy as the prime counting function.
   
   However, I did make it somewhat easy for you by separating out a key argument as "Area One" so you can just go to groups.google.com and do a search where I am the author on the sci.math newsgroup for the first mention of the phrase "Area One" and you will see me talking quite a while back about what I was going to do, and what it would show.
   
   Then you can see how long the arguing went on, and most importantly who I argued with.
   
   Of course, you may know that a "proof" can be mostly correct and still be wrong, but what's fascinating here is that certain people have clearly been caught arguing against results before they were independently shown to be proven, pausing, and then arguing against those same results later!
   
   If you don't believe it, be sure to read what I said when I first started talking about "Area One" in posts, and pay attention to what actually happened over a period of months.


3. Despite my prime counting function not being in any reference, the same people who are telling you that the short FLT Proof is wrong, are usually claiming that the prime counting work is unimportant, or in even more bizarre cases, claiming that I haven't presented anything new!
   
   Now I've contacted leading mathematicians by email, and for important reasons I'm keeping their names and the complete contents of those emails private, and what I've been told by them is not that it's not new, but that they don't think it's important.
   
   Also, they keep talking about fast prime counting, and what I have is not the fastest around, though I still believe that algorithms based on it can be.
   
   What's important here is for you to ask yourselves, how unimportant could a method for counting PRIME NUMBERS truly be such that mathematicians don't seem bothered with it NOT being published?
   
   Here the proper assessment, I strongly suggest, is that it is VERY important, which is why mathematicians, to my knowledge, aren't talking about it.
   
   Here what you believe probably depends on whether or not you're one of those "conspiracy people" who suppose that it is possible aliens landed at Roswell and the government covered it up, and those who think it's complete hogwash.
   
   Personally, since I mentioned it, I don't think aliens crash landed at Roswell, but I'm hoping some of you will smell the possibility of a conspiracy of silence here.
   
   Now I hope those three points are a start.
   
   Some of you may labor under the misapprehension that what is happening is strange historically, but it's not.
   
   You may have seen the life of Evariste Galois mentioned or read my post linking John Nash's schizophrenia to lack of proper recognition, based on an established psychological theory called the double bind theory, which you can easily enough look up on the web to see that I didn't make it up.
   
   Do you think that intelligent people—people intelligent enough to get doctorates in mathematics—really don't know the profound effect that simply ignoring a person's work can have on that person?
   
   Maybe those who repeatedly post in reply to me at least acknowledging the existence of my work are better than that shadowy majority of mathematicians who by now may know much about it, but realize that their most potent and vicious weapon—is silence.