#15# new book "Correcting Present Day Mathematics...." (19) Proof of the Poincare Conjecture
- From: "a_plutonium" <a_plutonium@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Feb 2007 11:18:49 -0800
a_plutonium wrote:
Correcting the Logic of these mistakes in mathematics
(1) Infinity exists in only one unique form, and proof thereof
(2) Peano Axioms are gap ridden and self contradictory
(3) Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, Indirect Method
Proof of most of the World's unsolved Math Problems due to the fact
that Natural Numbers are these 0,1,2,3, ...., ...999999
(4) Riemann Hypothesis
(5) Fermat's Last Theorem
(6) generalized FLT (known as Beal's conjecture)
(7) Goldbach Conjecture & hundreds of the Erdos problems in Number Theory
(8) Infinitude of Twin Primes and Quadrapole Primes
(9) Infinitude of 4-primes, 6-primes, 8-primes,....
(10) Infinitude of Perfect Numbers
(11) Infinitude of primes of form (2^n) +1
(12) the number 1 is the only odd perfect number
I will prove those above listed 4-12 by the key fact that the
Natural-Numbers are this set:
0 , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11, ........., .....9999996,
....999997, ......999998, .....9999999
I will also prove these unsolved problems of mathematics:
(13) Kepler Packing
(14) 4-Color-Mapping
(15) 2-Color-Mapping
(16) proofs of Traveling Salesman Problem,
and suggestions on Kobon Triangle, Harborth
Graph, Orchard-Tree-Planting Problem, Dodecahedral Conjecture, Local
Density
Conjecture. And a new Conjecture for the Continuum of maximum density
Kepler Packing from 0% to 100%
(17) Anatomical pattern analysis of recent modern day mathematical
fake-proofs
(18) NP Problem
And demonstrate what I feel is my best contribution
to mathematics theory that geometry has instrinsic
numbers as coordinates and that geometry is
unified and a mirror reflection of physics
(19) Poincare Conjecture
(20) Riem geom union Loba geom = Eucl geom
(21) and because numbers form geometry and likewise, geometry forms
numbers that this is true:
positive Adics union (negative Adics) = Reals
This proof uses both old and new math for the Poincare
Conjecture,
and, I did point out our ill-defined and ill-conceived
definitions of what
"dimension" is.
The concept of "dimension" must be got out of
quantum physics which
does a superb job of proving that any dimension other
than 3rd
dimension yields the thoroughly wrong Classical
Physics of Newtonian
physics. See my old posts concerning physics and how
it clears the
driftwood and deadwood that is the math definition of
dimension.
And the trouble that is with math is that math is so
much slower in
revising and revamping what is wrong and imprecise
within math. And
another sick thing about math is that it yet does not
realize that
physics is more important to math and not the other
way around. Because
ultimate truth comes from atomic physics and quantum
mechanics since the
universe in total is one atom of 231PU. So then, even
math itself comes out of
physics. Before the Atom Whole theory of 1990, it was
the prevalent notion
that physics will reduce to math and that math is the
floor, the basic
foundation. That was a wrong and conceited idea, and
more to the truth is that
quantum mechanics and the physics of the atom is the
ultimate foundation of all
knowledge and wisdom. For even math itself comes out
of and is
derivative of atomic knowledge. To give just a brief
example, why is pi and
e between Whole Reals? And if a Maker of the Universe
made everything,
why not make the two most important numbers as Whole
Reals such as pi =
to 3.00... and make e = 2.000... ? Well, the answer is
that numbers
themselves are a reflection of our Maker, that our
Maker is an atom of
Plutonium and its characteristic is such that it has
22 subshells in 7
shells in Rational Form,
wherein 19 subshells are occupied by electrons
at any given
moment, thus the circumference of 231Pu is 22
subshells in a diameter of 7
shells or 22/7 and 19/7 are the atomic collapse of the
wavefunction
into Rational numbers for pi and e. In the uncollapsed
wavefunction they
are the exact irrational numbers of pi and e. But here
I am straying to
far from the topic of "dimension".
Physics has already proved that any dimension other
than 3rd
dimension is wrong, and yet math can go on and on with
fake ideas and
fob them off, because math is highly academic and
highly institutional
and highly conservative and does not have the tests
and desire to
change that a physics experiment insists and urges and
demands change.
Math can keep a fakery like Kempe's 4 color mapping or
like Appel and
Haken's 4 color mapping or like Wiles and Taylor FLT
going for decades, even
centuries past when they should be chit-canned. Math
moves at a snails
pace compared to physics.
The 4th dimension and higher are like an optical
illusion, and young
math people are brainwashed into thinking that always
another
perpendicular gives a new and higher dimension which
can be formed even though
our minds stop at visualizing with the 3rd dimensional Space.
This is a sad
reflection that math rarely listens to physics, and
people in math go
on teaching and believing this conservative trash
season after season
because noone places pressure on the math house like a
physics
experiment places pressure on the fake ideas within
the house of
physics. Math people need to pay attention to physics
much more
than they presently do.
Subject: 3rd dimension only
Date: 15APR1994, 06:51:50 GMT
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
"Quarks,atoms,and the 1/N expansion" PHYSICS TODAY
July1980. "Large-N quantum mechanics and classical
limits" by Laurence
Yaffe PHYSICS TODAY Aug1983.
I claim the correct definition and
understanding of 'dimension'
will come from Quantum Physics.
The point of those references is that whenever we do
Physics Experiments involving higher Spatial dimensions
from 3rd dimension yields Classical Newtonian Mechanics
which is wrong mechanics. We we do the same experiments
in 3rd dimension yields the true mechanics of Quantum
Mechanics.
Implies that for Quantum Mechanics and the Schroedinger
Equation, that
only 3rd Dimension works. Not 4th or higher dimension
and nothing below
3rd dimension works. Only 3rd dimensions works to make
Quantum
Mechanics work. And these are physics experiments
which are the highest form of truth in the world.
The Schroedinger Equation works for 3rd dimension
only. In 4th
dimension or higher then the results come out to be
Classical Newtonian
Physics which is wrong physics. Classical Physics is
just an
approximation of Quantum Physics, which to all known
experimentation is
true. What I am doing with this information about QM
and dimension is
to derive a better definition of dimension for math.
By implementing
these ideas I would keep the old definition of
dimension for math. For
physics, I would use the old math definition also -- 3
perpendicular
axes for 3rd dimension-- but throw out any notion of
4th dimension or
higher. The 4th dimension and higher were science
fiction and math
fiction.
In physics, because of QM, there exists only
3rd dimension. Now
for math, since math is more abstract than physics, we
can continue to
have the old definition of dimension as perpendicular
axes, but there exists
no 4th dimension or higher (even in abstraction). We
can dream about
Santa Claus all we want and imagine him, the same goes
for 'dimension'.
In reality there is no Santa Claus and in reality only
the 3rd
dimension exists therefore there is never any need to
bring up the idea
of a 4th dimensional whatever. Because there is no 4th
dimension. For
math, dimensions 4th and higher are
nonexistent.
Proof of the Poincare Conjecture
This proof was copyrighted to the early 1990s,
and especially of the use of infinite iteration
of roots of any
positive Real number always converges to the number 1.
Later on, circa 1993-1994 I would find out that p-adics also
have infinite iteration of roots that converges to both 0 and 1.
There are many reasons why PC is so easy to grasp as
a conjecture but
tremendously difficult to prove and why it was
outstanding for 100
years. Here to enumerate a few.
(1) Math definition of dimension has never been
understood nor resolved
to this date. In physics only the 3rd dimension makes
sense where
experimentation has shown that any dimension other
than 3rd leads to
the wrong physics of Newtonian Classical. That alone
should have
alerted the math community that there definition of
higher dimensions
were pure illusions, fire breathing dragons.
(2) As if dimension definition was not enough of a
bugaboo, but the
concept of "completion with a point at infinity" to
make the Eucl plane
into a sphere. Math people once they hear this idea
they sheepishly
accept it as clear as broad daylight. But we should
require a proof of
this. Prove that the Eucl plane can be point
compactified for it to turn
into a sphere? Point deletions are always possible,
but point
compactification is silly. Where do Plane
compactifiers propose to put
that point? I ask you, where do you attach it?
(3) The idea that the Euclidean plane can be infinite
in reach is not a
true idea. One must prove it first if it is true. I
believe it is false
by the following argument on Reals or the Complex
plane. The infinite
Euclidean Plane is a contradiction in terms. The
Euclidean Plane to
exist must exist as a finite plane. Proof. The
Euclidean Plane is
represented by Descartes coordinate system of Real
numbers. For an
Infinite Euclidean Plane implies that there exists at
least one Real
number which is both infinite string leftwards and
rightwards of the
decimal point. No individual Real number exists which
is an infinite
string both leftwards and rightwards simultaneously
of the decimal
point. Hence, no infinite Euclidean Plane. When
the Euclidean
Plane is made to be infinite, it automatically reverts
into a
Riemannian sphere because it is my claim that Adics =
Riem geometry and
that Reals are finite leftwards but Adics are infinite
leftwards.
POINCARE CONJECTURE (PC) PROVED
Brief description of proof. PC rests on the
fact that the
infinite iteration of roots of any positive Real
number always
converges to the number 1. And for ADICS the infinite
squaring of any
ADIC when converted to base 2 converges to 2 points,
both ...00. and
....01. These convergences are the SIMPLY CONNECTED.
NOTE: All topological objects of the sphere are
determinable as
Riemannian geom objects OR, as positive Real number
objects. In this
way the iteration of roots or the squaring of any Adic
in base 2 is the
simply connected.
The statement which I claim is not a
well-formulated statement
of the Poincare Conjecture1 is this. The 3-sphere, the
space obtained
by completing R3 by a point at infinity, is the only
closed
3-dimensional space whose fundamental group is
trivial. I assert this
Poincare Conjecture is not a well-formulated
conjecture, it is a fuzzy
idea, only the notion of a conjecture.
I give a well-formulated Poincare Conjecture
as follows:
Riemannian geometry is the only geometry which is
simply connected
where positive Reals forms a positive Gaussian
curvature or the Adics
are Riemannian geometry.
PROOF OF THE WELL-FORMULATED POINCARE
CONJECTURE.
All topological objects of the sphere are
determinable as
Riemannian geom objects or, as positive Real number
objects. In this
way the iteration of roots or the squaring of any Adic
in base 2 is the
simply connected. It is
easily proved that a function built on the infinite
iteration of roots
of any positive Real number always converges to the
number 1. For
example, you take any positive Real number, then you
take successive
square roots, successive cube roots, successive
quadratic roots and so
on, of that number, then the convergence of all of
these iterative
roots sequences, all of these iterative roots, is to
the number 1. But
the iterative roots function does not work with any
negative numbers,
since imaginary numbers come into action, and negative
numbers occur in
all geometries except Riem. Where Riem. geom is
positive gaussian
curvature and so no negative curvature (no negative
number) can occur
in Riem. geometry. Thus the iterative roots sequence
is the simply
connected concept of every loop shrunk to a point,
which means there
are no holes in the geometry. So for Riem. geom, every
loop can be shrunk
to the number 1. But every other geometry except
Riem. geom has negative
numbers and thus there exists loops in them which are
impossible to shrink
to a point. Q.E.D.
------------
The above was mostly posted in the 1990s, but now let me
make some comments on the above from the standpoint of
here and now in February of 2007. I really like the Poincare
Conjecture because of its beauty and elegance. It escapes
the Natural-Numbers = p-adics for the most part because
someone could have proven it prior to the Natural-Numbers
= p-adics revolution. They could have spotted that iterative
roots is the essence of the Poincare Conjecture and thence
have reformulated the conjecture. But I like it also because
the Poincare Conjecture leads into my best mathematics
that Riem Geom + Loba Geom = Eucl Geom
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Problem on Closed intervals Algorithm...Challenge!
- Next by Date: how to prove: a measureable set problem
- Previous by thread: Pairing, Infinity and NBG
- Next by thread: Re: #15# new book "Correcting Present Day Mathematics...." (19) Proof of the Poincare Conjecture
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
