Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Message from discussion Two fatal defects of Wiles' proof of FLT
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Dirk Van de moortel  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 11:07 am
Newsgroups: sci.math
From: "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:07:15 +0100
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 11:07 am
Subject: Re: Two fatal defects of Wiles' proof of FLT
Edgar E. Escultura <escultu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
  1117368396.14753.1257416680869.JavaMail.r...@gallium.mathforum.org

> Two Fatal Defects of Andrew Wiles’ Proof of FLT
> By E. E. Escultura

> 1) The field axioms of the real number system are inconsistent; Felix Brouwer and this blogger provided counterexamples to the
> trichotomy axiom and Banach-Tarski to the completeness axiom, a variant of the axiom of choice. Therefore, the real number system
> is ill-defined and FLT being formulated in it is also ill-defined. What it took to resolve this conjecture was to first free the
> real number system from contradiction by reconstructing it as the new real number system on three simple consistent axioms and
> reformulating FLT in it. With this rectification of the real number system, FLT is well-defined and resolved by counterexamples
> proving that it is false. (Main reference: Escultura, E. E., The new real new real number system and discrete computation and
> calculus, Neural, Parallel and Scientific Computations, 17 (2009), 59 – 84).

> 2) The other fatal defect is that the complex number system that Wiles used in the proof being based on the vacuous concept i is
> also inconsistent. The element i is the vacuous concept: the root of the equation x^2 + 1 = 0 which does not exist and is denoted
> by the symbol i = sqrt(-1) from which follows that,

> i = sqrt(1/-1) = sqrt 1/sqrt(-1) = 1/i = i/i^2 = -i   or

> 1 = -1 (division of both sides by i),

> 2 = 0,  1 = 0, i = 0, and, for any real number x, x = 0,

> and the entire real and complex number systems collapse. The remedy is in the appendix to the paper, The generalized integral as
> dual to Schwarz distribution, in press, Nonlinear Studies.

> Another example of a vacuous concept is the greatest integer. Let N be the greatest integer. By the trichotomy axiom one and only
> one of the following axioms holds: N < 1, N = 1, N > 1. The first inequality is clearly false. If N > 1, then N^2 > N,
> contradicting the choice of N. therefore N = 1. This is the original statement of the Perron paradox and it is blamed on the
> vacuous concept N. In general, any vacuous concept yields a contradiction.

> E. E. Escultura
> Research Professor
> V. Lakshmikantham Institute for Advanced Studies
> GVP College of Engineering, JNT University
> Madurawada, Vishakhapatnam, AP, India
> http://users.tpg.com.au/pidro/

On Usenet he can write whatever he wants about his current
title, but it looks like the institute forced him to include the
Emeritus qualifier on his website :-)

Yes, people like this are allowed on the street.

Dirk Vdm


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2010 Google