| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Archimedes Plutonium" |
| Date: |
11 Feb 2005 10:14:20 AM |
| Object: |
Re: The counterexamples to FLT |
Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:29:21 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(most snipped)
I never took the time to see if I can reconcile my old flawed method of "building blocks of 2" for P-triples with my newfound wisdom that the Natural Numbers were the Adics. So this is a worthwhile new adventure trip to see why the Adics allow for a readily available supply of P-triples for exponent 2 but that the P-adics, N-adics do not allow for a easy and readily available P-triple for exponent 3 or exponent 4. So this is a
new adventure I never spent time on in the years past simply because I had much more important things to do.
The reconciliation question remains. Stated differently and perhaps more straightforward.
Question: If the Natural Numbers are the Adics, both the p-adics and n-adics all lumped together as one huge gigantic set. Where the old Counting Numbers used by mathematicians or the Natural Numbers embodied by the Peano Axioms were a mere sample, and a tainted and flawed sample of this huge Adic set. Where the Natural Numbers were some pick-and-choose elements of the 10-adics. And the Natural Numbers were the analogy of
Classical Newtonian Mechanics, a flawed mechanics, inside the true mechanics of Quantum Mechanics.
The question remains as to why it was so easy to find P-triples for exponent 2 and where all other exponents require an Infinite Integer to solve the P-triple?
For in Adics, all exponents have P-triple solutions to FLT, but why is it in exponent 2 that we easily and readily find P-triple solutions such as (3,4,5) whereas in say exponent 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 we need one of those "big integers" of Infinite Integers?
The expression a^n+b^n=c^n is true for all n, in 10-adics,
given the following values.
a= ...9977392256259918212890625
b= ...0022607743740081787109376
c= ...0000000000000000000000001
You see, if the Natural Numbers are a phony set just as Newtonian Mechanics is phony physics, then a question still remains. As to why it is so easy to get P-triples in exponent 2. In the above, only c = 1 is not an infinite leftward string.
Maybe I can answer my own question by referring to Newtonian Mechanics in that it is easy to solve problems because it has infinite space and infinite time and is Euclidean geometry whereas Quantum Mechanics is the true mechanics but has circular logic and the geometry is not Euclidean and has probabilistic answers. So that when we say in mathematics that (3,4,5) are P-triple answers to a^2 + b^2 = c^2 we are not being truthful
because we have not said which adic those numbers are. We have not said that the triple (3,4,5) are of the 10-adics and thus a false statement. Much like every Newtonian Physics answer has to be re-adjusted to its Quantum truth.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
| User: "Babylonian" |
|
| Title: Re: The counterexamples to FLT |
11 Feb 2005 03:21:52 PM |
|
|
As you have shown, multiple fartii in a nice cascade may be produced
from the reaction between ArsenicSulfo-Plutokryptonide and Plutonium
Sulfohydride to produce FlouroArgon-TitaniumIodide:
AsSPuKr + PuSH --> FArTiI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hammick" |
|
| Title: Re: The counterexamples to FLT |
12 Feb 2005 05:38:44 PM |
|
|
"Babylonian"
As you have shown, multiple fartii in a nice cascade may be produced
from the reaction between ArsenicSulfo-Plutokryptonide and Plutonium
Sulfohydride to produce FlouroArgon-TitaniumIodide:
AsSPuKr + PuSH --> FArTiI
LOL. Very nice. "Plus PuSH" is a beautiful touch :))
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
#115 Revisiting the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis for it is false as there are counterexamples; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards"
Natural-Numbers are equal to the All-Adics; and the geometry they form is pictured; counterexamples to the Riemann Hypothesis
is endless adding of 1 equivalent to Dedekind Cut method? Re: counterexamples to the Riemann Hypothesis
Re: the real proof of FLT and Natural Numbers parallelNewtonianMechanics versus Quantum Mechanics
Natural Numbers are the adics Re: disproof of FLT and the alleged Wiles
Re: "Pure math", physics, and FLT
Short proof of FLT, My hammer
[JSH] Re: "Pure math", physics, and FLT
| Re: This just in: elementary proof of FLT [not JSH]
Re: "Pure math", physics, and FLT
Re: Proof of FLT, prime counting, and error in mathematics, website
Re: "Pure math", physics, and FLT
Re: "Pure math", physics, and FLT
Re: Short FLT Proof, Analysis of recent objections
Re: "Pure math", physics, and FLT
|
|
|
