Fermat Last Theorem and Riemann Hypothesis theological proof

[questfortruth]

Okay, on to the paper. First, you say that multiple journals have rejected your article. What did the editors say in their rejections? It's important to note their criticisms, respond to them with revisions to your paper, and follow their suggestions. Have you tried presenting a poster at an international or even a regional conference to get feedback from others in the field?

The response is simple and deadly: "the paper is interesting, but the journal has limited valume, it means: the journal can not publish all good papers, that are coming to review: the volume of a month is finite." My own explanation: I am cursed.
My city has no such places, to travel to Tartu? Too many efforts.

 

[questfortruth]

I'm giving your "proof" an F.

Can I have it on hardcopy paper with signature?

 

[Polymath257]

The observer interpretation of Quantum Mechanics -- is my title of the paper, rejected in all journals.

And for good reason.

 

[Polymath257]

The response is simple and deadly: "the paper is interesting, but the journal has limited valume, it means: the journal can not publish all good papers, that are coming to review: the volume of a month is finite." My own explanation: I am cursed.
My city has no such places, to travel to Tartu? Too many efforts.

That is how they politely turn you down. A good enough paper would get published. They are simply saying yours isn't good enough.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, but to pick 4 right numbers out of infinite set is not possible, if to pick it blindly.

Are there solutions of n^m + 1 =m^n ? Yes, m=3, n=2. And only those.

Are there any solutions of n^m=m^n? Yes, n=2, m=4, or vice versa. And only those.

So it is possible for an equation to have only one possible solution.

Picking 'blindly' is not well defined.

 

[Polymath257]

Can I have it on hardcopy paper with signature?

Why would you want that? Go to any university math class and turn it in. You can get the F easily enough that way.

 

[questfortruth]

Your "proof" hinged on the silly notion that because theorems were described as "found" that autoMAGICALLY meant that the had to be a MAGIC repository that "held" them until they were "found".

That is a very silly argument of semantics. You are attempting to bootstrap the accidental usage of the word "found" into some Cosmic Meaning.

100% without showing a single reason to do so.

According to the definition of Omniscience, there are two types of knowledge: found and not found.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The response is simple and deadly: "the paper is interesting, but the journal has limited valume, it means: the journal can not publish all good papers, that are coming to review: the volume of a month is finite." My own explanation: I am cursed.
My city has no such places, to travel to Tartu? Too many efforts.

Even if you live in remotest parts of Asia, Africa or South America, there should be a number of physics and general science organizations you can contact online to find nearby meetings and conferences, and to network with, and to find people in your field to read and suggest improvements upon your paper.

Rejection of first draft papers is close to 100 percent, no matter who they're by. NO ONE gets it right the first time, every time. So, how many journals did you submit to? Five, ten, twenty? And NONE of them gave you more than that unrealistically polite no thank you? Or did you just submit to one?

Most physicists utilize the pre-print posting site arXive to post draft papers to get comments and suggestions. I suggest doing so.

Relying on the theory that you're not getting published because of a witch...well...you need to take control of your life...

 

[questfortruth]

Are there solutions of n^m + 1 =m^n ? Yes, m=3, n=2. And only those.

Are there any solutions of n^m=m^n? Yes, n=2, m=4, or vice versa. And only those.

So it is possible for an equation to have only one possible solution.

Picking 'blindly' is not well defined.

Thus, if the constants in a equation are less of value than 1000, then it is more probable, that the solution will be found within -100...100, than outside of it.

 

[Polymath257]

Thus, if the constants in a equation are less of value than 1000, then it is more probable, that the solution will be found within -100...100, than outside of it.

I have many counter-examples for that also.

 

[questfortruth]

Most physicists utilize the pre-print posting site arXive to post draft papers to get comments and suggestions. I suggest doing so.

It is much more impossible to get through the moderation in arXiv, than to get accepted in Nature.
The arXiv demands the recommendation for each paper: endorsement from an endorser. Not every scientist is an endorser in arXiv.

 

[questfortruth]

I have many counter-examples for that also.

So, there is indifference where we can find counter-example in Fermat's Theorem. Thus, to find the counter-example is nearly impossible.

 

[Polymath257]

So, there is indifference where we can find counter-example in Fermat's Theorem. Thus, to find the counter-example is nearly impossible.

FLT has been proven. The paper you referred to in the OP asks what axioms, precisely, are required for the proof. The one given uses ZFC: standard set theory. The question is whether Peano arithmetic is enough and the OP suggests that it is.

Either way, it has been proved. There are no counter-examples.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It is much more impossible to get through the moderation in arXiv, than to get accepted in Nature.
The arXiv demands the recomandation for each paper: endorsement from an endorser. Not every scientist is an endorser in arXiv.

then you need to work on your networking in the field.

You say you are a graduate; your faculty should have been/should be your links in the field. So should your fellow students.

None of them can/will assist you? then there might be reasons for this, and I don't think it would be witch casting a curse on you.

And that the entire field is against you because you have discovered and are trying to speak the truth and they are organized to stop you is...well...very VERY unlikely. You need to consider the implications of THAT possibility.

 

[viole]

The humankind is not yet done with Fermat's Last Theorem: Colin McLarty, ``What does it take to prove Fermat's last theorem? Grothendieck and the logic of number theory,'' Bulletin of Symbolic Logic {\bf 16}(3), 359--377 (2010). It is not yet rigorously proven!

According to the definition of Omniscience, there are two types of knowledge: found and not found. But since the word KNOWLEDGE is defined as what someone knows, then there must be Omniscient Being (All-Knowing One). We all strive for omniscience. The moment you would know everything about everything, you would understand that the Omniscient Being exists. Therefore, accept now: Omniscient Being exists, and ask Him for the gift of Omniscience. If the All-Knowing One exists, then He knows about His existence. Therefore, among the knowledge that can be acquired, there is knowledge about the existence of the All-Knowing One.

The rejection of the Fermat's Last Theorem one way or another raises question of the 4 numbers (n,a,b,c=?) of the counter-example. Because there are infinite amount of integers, the probability to pick correct ones is absolutely zero. Thus, the Omniscient one can not answer the question of counter-example, if the Fermat's theorem is wrong. We came to contradiction, thus, the Fermat's Theorem is right.

The same line of reasoning proves the Riemann Hypothesis.

But the conclusion from everything must be done as follows: If Fermat's Theorem or the Riemann Hypothesis is not true, then it has an infinite number of counterexamples. And since a very huge array of numbers on the super-computer was substituted into these hypotheses, but a counter-example was not found (unlike cases n=1, n=2), the probability of the hypothesis being false is almost zero. For example, the density of counter-examples (due to the lack of information about the probability distribution function) is associated with the probability of a constant horizontal line. And if so, then indeed, the probability of failure of the hypotheses is completely calculable and is almost zero.

What you say is not even wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

According to the definition of Omniscience, there are two types of knowledge: found and not found.

Omniscience is incompatible with the current universe, sorry about that.

Quantum Mechanics appears to destroy the very basis for omniscience: that everything could be known in the first place, a fundamental requirement for omniscience to exist.

A deterministic universe cannot be known ahead of time.

Oh well. It was a nice effort.

 

[shunyadragon]

The observer interpretation of Quantum Mechanics -- is my title of the paper, rejected in all journals.

"The observer interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" is an interesting topic.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The observer interpretation of Quantum Mechanics -- is my title of the paper, rejected in all journals.

The paper you linked to in post #18 is "Physical Meaning of Quantum Mechanics"

This is somewhat different than "Observer Interpretation"

 

[Skwim]

The humankind is not yet done with Fermat's Last Theorem: Colin McLarty, ``What does it take to prove Fermat's last theorem? Grothendieck and the logic of number theory,'' Bulletin of Symbolic Logic {\bf 16}(3), 359--377 (2010). It is not yet rigorously proven!

Who says so? Gotta do more than present an irrelevant source page you pulled off JSTOR.

According to the definition of Omniscience, there are two types of knowledge: found and not found.

Whose definition? Your source please.

But since the word KNOWLEDGE is defined as what someone knows,then there must be Omniscient Being (All-Knowing One).

Why?

We all strive for omniscience.

Your evidence please.

The moment you would know everything about everything, you would understand that the Omniscient Being exists.

And the moment I know I can fly by flapping my arms I would know that a person who flies by flapping their arms existed, but so what? I can't fly by flapping my arms.

Therefore, accept now: Omniscient Being exists, and ask Him for the gift of Omniscience. If the All-Knowing One exists, then He knows about His existence. Therefore, among the knowledge that can be acquired, there is knowledge about the existence of the All-Knowing One.

Therefore? Therefore? Where the hell did you get "therefore" from? Sheeesh!

.

.
.

 

[questfortruth]

Omniscience is incompatible with the current universe, sorry about that.

Quantum Mechanics appears to destroy the very basis for omniscience: that everything could be known in the first place, a fundamental requirement for omniscience to exist.

A deterministic universe cannot be known ahead of time.

Oh well. It was a nice effort.

Add to Omniscience the Omnipresence in time and in space. I am alive in 2010, in 2015, in 2019. Why I am feeling to be in 2019, but not in 2015 as well?