Why Wiles' "proof" of FLT is only a "math paradox"

Got a great idea? Tell the world about it here.

Moderators: mvs_staff, forum_admin, Marilyn

Why Wiles' "proof" of FLT is only a "math paradox"

Postby Albert 2016 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:48 am


Dear Friends,

At the end I think we can summarize the truth about Fermat’s Last Theorem (that I tried to show in my last papers)

https://www.academia.edu/34567537/As_Fe ... an_Theorem
as follows:

Wiles’ famous “proof” of 1995 is just a “mathematical paradox”, because FLT – as the great Carl Gauss suspected – can be both “proved and disproved”.

I very simply tried to prove why Gauss was right, whereas Wiles/Fermat were wrong.
The point is that the solution of FLT ( a^n + b^n = c^ n) is coincident with the old Pythagorean theorem, namely a^2 + b^2 = c^2, n index cannot be larger/different than 2, and this is the CORRECT premise/assumption by Pierre de Fermat. OK
And yet, Pythagorean theorem refers to the PHYSICAL MEASURE of rectangular triangles, to calculate/measure hypotenuses.

The point is that NO theorem/algorithm involving the measurement of a physical/geometrical entity can be performed through integer Z numbers only!

Any physical measures of physical entities always need REAL NUMBERS!
Only as an APPROXIMATE way of simplification (for elementary/middle school children) we use to describe Pythagorean theorem through integer triples: 3-4-5, 5-12-13, 8-15-17, etc.
But the correct way to describe Pythgorean Theorem is through REAL NUMBERS, such as in the trigonometric identity: sin α^2 + cosα^2 = 1, where sinus and cosine are of course REAL NUMBERS, (0.851245.... etc.) not integers.

So, the error by Fermat and Wiles was in not realizing that the premise/assumption of proving a physical/geometrical theorem involving PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS through Z integers only, and not through real R numbers, is FALSE/INCORRECT.

That’s the reason why Fermat’s Last Theorem is someway “half-true/half-false”, it can be both “proved and disproved” as the great Gauss was suspecting, and I showed.
Proving FLT just through integer numbers is like proving calculus (which by definition needs infinitesimals (dx)) through just integer numbers, it makes no sense, it could be just a “mathematical paradox”.
So, Wiles’ “proof” of 1995 is just a “mathematical paradox”.

But what is more exactly a “mathematical paradox”?

It is a FALSE/UNPHYSICAL - “purely mathematical proof” - of a phenomenon linked to the PHYSICAL WORLD, that “forgets” 1 (or more) physical and necessary parameter/assumption/premise.
For instance, ZENO’s paradox of Achilles and the tortoise motion, in a purely abstract mathematical way (through infinite series) is a mathematical paradox, because it “forgets” physical velocity (v = s/t) of Achilles and the tortoise, and examines only mathematical spaces. But this leads to a paradox, because the steps by Achilles, in a “purely mathematical way” – without any connection with time and velocity - can be interpreted as both an infinite series converging to 1 (1/2 + ¼ + 1/8…+ ½^n) , so Achilles will manage in reaching the tortoise, AND an infinite series diverging to infinity ( = ½ + 1/3 + ¼ + 1/5 + …1/n) and this way Achilles NEVER reaches the slow tortoise.
And also, Banach-Tarski paradox of the 2 spheres, “forgets” that in our physical world points and segments ALWAYS possess physical dimensions/sizes. And so – by setting the unphysical premise/assumption that points have no dimension, you can derive 2 IDENTICAL SPHERES from 1 = the mathematical “miracle” of multiplication of spheres!

And also, you can mathematically “prove” that 500-1000 years ago Earth was overpopulated by TRILLIONS of inhabitants, through the mathematical paradox of ancestors.
As any of us has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc., you can calculate that in the past, in just 10-20 generations, our Earth was overpopulated thousands, millions, etc. times more than today.
It is a mathematical paradox that “forgets” the empirical/physical and necessary premise that we are all RELATED to other persons, the more we look back to the past, the more people and their families were related each other.
So, Fermat and Wiles “FORGOT” that it is impossible to measure physical/geometrical entities through integer Z numbers only, we need R REAL NUMBERS.
Any physical objects are made up by atoms, whose sizes can be measured just through REAL NUMBERS, and this is well known by calculus and quantum mechanics.

Sorry for Wiles, he didn’t prove anything, he just described a mathematical/unphysical paradox.
Please, show me that I’m wrong, if you can. I admit my mistakes. I offered a FREE 4 days’ stay at Grand Hotel Villa Serbelloni, (Como Lake) http://www.villaserbelloni.com/ to the first person proving that we can measure physical/geometrical entities (including rectangular triangles of course ) in our real world ONLY through integers, and WITHOUT real numbers.
I think I’ll have to wait for a long time….

Alberto Miatello

September 22, 2017.
Albert 2016
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:54 am

Re: Why Wiles' "proof" of FLT is only a "math paradox"

Postby Albert 2016 » Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:56 am

By the way…

I read a page of a guy whose name is Herb Weiner.


Among his several wrong statements, he wrote:

“Just because a tool is inappropriate for one task does not mean that tool is inappropriate for all other tasks. If we reject Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, must we also reject Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?”


This guy – who does not know physics, as he is an expert in information technology - has no idea that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (despite the embarrassing attempt to back it last year, exactly 100 years after its publication (what a coincidence!) , through the alleged “discovery” of “gravitational waves” by LIGO interferometers ) was rejected innumerable times as unphysical, and totally inconsistent with QUANTUM MECHANICS (that, conversely, was experimentally confirmed innumerable times).

(By the way, Quantum Mechanics is Euclidean)

http://www.numdam.org/article/AIHPA_198 ... _259_0.pdf

This guy should read what the great NIKOLA TESLA was thinking about Einstein’s relativism: “Einstein’s theory of relativity is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men, but they are meta-physicists rather than scientists.”
And this guy should read also the 3789 publications against Einstein’s relativism collected by the G.O. Mueller Research Project. And those who criticized relativism have been top scientists!

Albert 2016
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:54 am

Return to Great Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests