Fermat's Theorem Disproved !
<div class="IPBDescription">quantum mechanics applied to mathematics</div> (ripping the link from another forum)
<a href='http://home.mindspring.com/~jbshand/ferm.html' target='_blank'>Fermat's Last Theorem : Disproved !</a>
Obviously Andrew Wiles must have made a mistake somewhere , or he was just too close minded to include quantum mechanics in his reasoning <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://home.mindspring.com/~jbshand/ferm.html' target='_blank'>Fermat's Last Theorem : Disproved !</a>
Obviously Andrew Wiles must have made a mistake somewhere , or he was just too close minded to include quantum mechanics in his reasoning <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
*head explodes*
103.0000314 does not equal 103, no matter how close it is. Bending the laws of mathematics to suit your theory is bad practice.
If you ask me, I would say the whole thing is a load of rubbish. Look at the way he talks in the first few paragraphs:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I mean, there's this theorem named after you... Hell yeah, you're going to tell them you proved it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The gentleman that published it obviously is pretty good... That was neat. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That does not strike me as the way a mathematic and quantum physics genious would talk.
Then there is this bit here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Obviously, the probability that, say, the number 10 is equal to 11 is very very small, although it is thought to have happened in June of 1952.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This guy did research into "Jello Mold Topology" and he is now claiming that 10 has a chance of being equal to 11?. Hang on, the next bit is even better!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->....any given number has a high probability of being equal to itself<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, REALLY? This guy has just discovered what the rest of us knew all along!
His arbitrary group of numbers: "Bunch of Idios." Sounds a lot like "Bund of Idiots" to me.
It just gets rediculous from here on:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The slightest hint of color might throw the calculations way off.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What?? The type of monitor has no effect on the calculations the CPU is performing!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I knew that I couldn't use anything built after 1991, the last recorded palindromic year<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What has the <b>year</b> got to do with anything?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I chose a 285<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate to rain on his parade, but there is no such thing as a 285. Intel only made "X86" computers: 8086, 186, 286, 386, 486 and eventually the pentium.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A mysterious bug kept making it lapse into a primitive form of WordPerfect<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me get this straight. A bug is turning a number calculating program into Word processing software?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Success came at one stroke before midnight<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What a wonderful coincidence.
-----
To sum it all up, the whole thing is a hoax. Look at the evidence, and decide for yourself. I for one am not convinced.
Yeah, sure it works, if you create a whole new "theroem" for it. But the same thing can be said for anything.
Load of rubbish.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Obviously, the probability that, say, the number 10 is equal to 11 is very very small, although it is thought to have happened in June of 1952. But remember, quantum mechanics is screwy, and the obvious is sometimes unapparent. The probability that the number 10 is actually 10.5 is alot higher than the probability that it is 11, and as we approach 10 itself, the probability gets higher and higher. The idio becomes significant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One might have also thought that this theory would have been published somewhere other than a personal site had it been either widely accepted or somewhat true...
No.
It proves 1 thing- Humans have more power than we give ourselves. And it also proves a lot of numbers incorrect. Like 10 turning into 11. It can also explain odd phenomenon- because something that someone cought ON VIDEO(I saw a video of it in my my Physics class), of something suddenly moving on its own about 5 feet. It was a 25 lb steel block. And you didn't see it move- it just dissappeared and at the same moment appeared 5 feet to the left on the screen. The original tape has been studied to make sure people didn't tamper with it- they didn't.
Freaky stuff.
in fact, it used to be called Fermat's Conjecture before the actual proof, and since it's been called an actual theorem.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you have a source for this? I don't know where you heard this, but I can assure you that it is nonsense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And it also proves a lot of numbers incorrect. Like 10 turning into 11. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What?
*head explodes* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> long acedemic year?
Err, no. I'm sorry, I don't make stuff up. Doesn't happen. K? And the disrespect should not happen.
I myself have no proof, but its been done in many tests- one such was done by whoever wrote that damned "Alice in Quantumland" book, and many others proving that one correct are there, just gotta find one. I'm not gonna bother because I'm lazy as hell and don't feel like it. Maybe tommorrow if you pester me Moultano(and only moultano).
And the way it proves 10 can equal 11 is quite wierd, and is only proven once in a GREAT while, because frankly, you can't force it. It just happens. But basically it involves the Nonexistent Particles suddenly existing, because they got enough energy to exist long enough to absorb more energy and exist fully and permanently. So basically, yeah- it appears out of thin air.
If you want a good explanation of all this, I suggest picking up that "Alice in Quantumland" book. Its all contained there.
And as I said before: Don't disrespect me on boards I am known and respected on unless you want someone like me or countless others who actually know what their talking about to come along and not flame you, but rip you to shreds with facts.
Happens to a lot of folks on these boards.
This struck me as funny... we're on a forum, not living in tha 'hood, hehe.
<!--QuoteBegin-Narfwak+Jun 24 2004, 05:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Narfwak @ Jun 24 2004, 05:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Obviously, the probability that, say, the number 10 is equal to 11 is very very small, although it is thought to have happened in June of 1952. But remember, quantum mechanics is screwy, and the obvious is sometimes unapparent. The probability that the number 10 is actually 10.5 is alot higher than the probability that it is 11, and as we approach 10 itself, the probability gets higher and higher. The idio becomes significant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, 64 cubed plus 94 cubed equals 103 cubed, with a 0.000026 percent error lower than the expected result. He may have disproved Fermat's theorem for nonintegers of some sort, but it hasnt been disproven for integers, which is where the trouble lies anyway.
all you gotta do to disprove it is provide a set of numbers that fit the equation. and 64^3+94^3=103.00003142^3
Me or countless others who actually know what their talking about to come along and ... rip you to shreds with facts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. Facts like:
1) I myself have no proof...
2) It's weird... It just happens.
3) So basically, yeah- it appears out of thin air.
But seriously, I don't mean any disrespect to you or your thosands of loyal followers. I personally disbelive in some of quantum mechanics. I've read some books... I DON'T belive them all. And I'm certainly not going to paraphrase the ones I do belive and then ask you kindly to read them as my defense for an argument.
And to set the record strait, I was defending you from moultano who said, "I don't know where you heard this, but I can assure you that it is nonsense." My statement was that you had a source, but the source is fudged.
Me or countless others who actually know what their talking about to come along and ... rip you to shreds with facts. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. Facts like:
1) I myself have no proof...
2) It's weird... It just happens.
3) So basically, yeah- it appears out of thin air.
But seriously, I don't mean any disrespect to you or your thosands of loyal followers. I personally disbelive in some of quantum mechanics. I've read some books... I DON'T belive them all. And I'm certainly not going to paraphrase the ones I do belive and then ask you kindly to read them as my defense for an argument.
And to set the record strait, I was defending you from moultano who said, "I don't know where you heard this, but I can assure you that it is nonsense." My statement was that you had a source, but the source is fudged. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmmm, discounting mathimatical fact... Infact that is a hobby of mine, for instance 10=11.
Quaunaut, I didn't mean to flame you before, but I've taken a bit of quantum physics, and some of the things that you were saying are wrong or mischaracterized. It makes no difference what is "observing" the interaction, whether it be a human, a bird, a video camera whatever. The act of observation is in that sense irrelevant. It is the act of measuring something as a distinct value that transforms something from its waveform distribution into an observable value.
The statement that 10 can be equal to 11 is flat out false. Quantum physics does not describe the rules of math or formal logic, only physics. Yes particles can appear out of empty space. No that does not mean that 10 can be equal to 11.
The wikipedia article on quantum mechanics is pretty good for an overview if you are interested. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics</a>
Was going to say that but moultano beat me to it. Fermat theorem is not based on quantum physics but on euclidian mathematics!
Things appearing out of thin air? Yeah. Happens. I don't know why- no one explained "Why" something dissappears when it fully runs out of energy, or the such. A lot of things in it didn't make sense, but so far no one has proved it wrong on any front, so I'm gonna stand by it till someone does.
And Blobby, my reason for getting hostile, is that when you say someone pulled facts out of their rectal area, your basically calling them a lying imbecile. I don't appreciate that.
And frankly, the whole "e-posse" thing doesn't happen. My thing is, I can prove my points(well, at least enough to prove them- not enough to elaborate, sadly), and putting down what I say isn't a good idea when its a firm and held truth that people know I don't "Pull facts out of my rectal area."
Ironic really, with how much it defies all common sense.