What do you make of this guy?
Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates
 3.14159265...
 Irrational (?)
 Posts: 2413
 Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
 Location: Ajax, Canada
What do you make of this guy?
http://www.coolissues.com/mathematics/
I am sleepy to read his stuff, will tommorow, what do you all think?
Check out his attempted proofs of FLT, RH etc.
I am sleepy to read his stuff, will tommorow, what do you all think?
Check out his attempted proofs of FLT, RH etc.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha"" Chris Hastings
Token wrote:The "proof" of Goldbach's conjecture is hilarious throughout. This is a joke, right? Seriously, no one could possibly believe they have solved all these huge problems so easily.
Haha, the "proof" of GC takes a whole three sentences.
From what I understand of the proof, the author is claiming that if every even number > 2 can be described as the sum of two primes, then GC holds.
Another good threesentence proof is the "Proof of the Twin Primes Conjecture Using Euclid's Logic". It's just that easy!
This dude can't be serious. His proof of Goldbach's conjecture doesn't prove anything, he begins the proof by assuming that GC is true, and then uses that fact to show that... GC is true.
His Logic:
1. assume GC true
2. introduce p=ab
3. combine GC and p=ab
4. rewrite and reduce to GC
umm... what does that prove again? Oh thats right, nothing.
I forget the name of the logical fallacy exactly, but basically what he does is say "GC is true, because GC is true."
I'm not going to read the other ones right now, I can't imagine his 2 page proof of Fermat's Last Theorem proves anything either, other than the fact that the author is... well lets not go there.
*EDIT*
I just reread that post, and yeah thats basically what he is saying, if GC is true, then GC is true.
His Logic:
1. assume GC true
2. introduce p=ab
3. combine GC and p=ab
4. rewrite and reduce to GC
umm... what does that prove again? Oh thats right, nothing.
I forget the name of the logical fallacy exactly, but basically what he does is say "GC is true, because GC is true."
I'm not going to read the other ones right now, I can't imagine his 2 page proof of Fermat's Last Theorem proves anything either, other than the fact that the author is... well lets not go there.
*EDIT*
From what I understand of the proof, the author is claiming that if every even number > 2 can be described as the sum of two primes, then GC holds.
I just reread that post, and yeah thats basically what he is saying, if GC is true, then GC is true.
ehiunno wrote:I can't imagine his 2 page proof of Fermat's Last Theorem proves anything either, other than the fact that the author is... well lets not go there.
It's not quite as bad as his proof of GC  he does at least use some first year undergraduate maths. His error comes in failing to understand that properties which hold for finite sums do not necessarily hold for the limit of those sums. Oh, and he misses the fact that multiplying a number that is less than one by an unspecified integer could cause it to become larger than one.
The best part is the separate article about Wiles' proof of FLT. The general theme is a complete failure to understand absolutely everything about the proof. Clearly he's read about it, but hasn't bothered to look up what most of the longer words mean.
I just *love* it how this guy claims that there are no natural numbers such that a^x + b^y = c^z, where x,y,z>2 (his "proof" of Beal's conjecture), and how he quotes Marylin Vos Savant's words that since you can "square a circle" in hyperbolic geometry, you can't use it to prove FLT. I suspect a fat hoax lurking here.
Edit: http://petitionforcertiorari.coolissues.com/01438.htm Oh damn, did he _sue_ AMD? I'm not familiar with English/American law terminology, but it seems he tried to patent something terribly obvious but lost the court case... He also published books on _philosophy_. My, my. this guy is quite a celebrity for someone who doesn't seem to exist outside of his web page
Edit: http://petitionforcertiorari.coolissues.com/01438.htm Oh damn, did he _sue_ AMD? I'm not familiar with English/American law terminology, but it seems he tried to patent something terribly obvious but lost the court case... He also published books on _philosophy_. My, my. this guy is quite a celebrity for someone who doesn't seem to exist outside of his web page
Last edited by demon on Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:19 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Apparently the guy has a book or two (selfpublished under "Rcs Associates"), a patent on a "gravitational mass detector", a publication in IEEE, and a bunch of rants on patent reform and law. Looks like another independent inventor with a lot of ego.
wow.
I really wish I had more information about this guy. It seems like there is no way he could be joking at this point, but the scariest part is that there are books that cite his books, and other patents that cite his patent. Thats extrememly odd. For a minute I thought he might just be a high school kid who was a bit over enthusiastic but at this point theres no way. Strange in deed.
I really wish I had more information about this guy. It seems like there is no way he could be joking at this point, but the scariest part is that there are books that cite his books, and other patents that cite his patent. Thats extrememly odd. For a minute I thought he might just be a high school kid who was a bit over enthusiastic but at this point theres no way. Strange in deed.
 3.14159265...
 Irrational (?)
 Posts: 2413
 Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
 Location: Ajax, Canada

 Posts: 64
 Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:50 pm UTC
 Contact:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests