Re: JSH: Math as a religion
- From: "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:59:14 +0100
"mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx" <mensanator@xxxxxxx> writes:
[Piggybacking -- I only get about half of JSH posts here for some
reason. It makes archiving darn difficult, I tell you what.]
> jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
[...]
>> The reason the rules are broken with my result is that among other
>> things it proves that Andrew Wiles didn't prove Fermat's Last Theorem,
>> as it takes away the wrong usage of Galois Theory.
Yeah, and everyone here has an awful lot invested in Wiles and
Galois. No wonder we scheme to protect them.
But I keep forgetting something. You keep mentioning Dedekind's
mistake and how your work reveals that mistake. But could you do your
humble archivist a favor? Just state as clearly as possible:
(1) What Dedekind's mistake is. I know it's in the theory of ideals,
but which of the theorems of this theory is mistaken?
(2) Where did Dedekind make the mistake?
Thanks much.
--
"Not all features that are found on the Security tab are designed to
help make your documents and files more secure." --Microsoft on Office
security features (after it was pointed out by a third party that a
certain password setting is easily bypassed.)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: JSH: Math as a religion
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: JSH: Math as a religion
- References:
- JSH: Math as a religion
- From: jstevh
- Re: JSH: Math as a religion
- From: jstevh
- Re: JSH: Math as a religion
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: JSH: Math as a religion
- From: jstevh
- Re: JSH: Math as a religion
- From: mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx
- JSH: Math as a religion
- Prev by Date: L^1[0,1] question..
- Next by Date: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Previous by thread: Re: JSH: Math as a religion
- Next by thread: Re: JSH: Math as a religion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|