## What do you make of this guy?

For the discussion of math. Duh.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC

### 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.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

Token
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:07 pm UTC
Location: London
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.

MMoto
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:23 pm UTC
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 three-sentence proof is the "Proof of the Twin Primes Conjecture Using Euclid's Logic". It's just that easy!

ehiunno
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:46 pm UTC
Location: NN, VA
Contact:
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*
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.

Hix
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:46 pm UTC
ehiunno wrote:I forget the name of the logical fallacy exactly, but basically what he does is say "GC is true, because GC is true."

I believe that would be "begging the question."

Token
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:07 pm UTC
Location: London
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.

aguacate
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:29 pm UTC
Turing's 'conjecture' is false because it uses a proof by contradiction.

demon
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:13 pm UTC
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/01-438.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.

MMoto
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:23 pm UTC
Corollary: there are no Pythagorean triples.

Proof: follow the author's proof of FLT but take m=2.

demon
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:13 pm UTC
MMoto: Yeah, it's wonderful how he makes a broad "philosophical" statement that perhaps infinite sums and geometry are somehow complementary, yet equivalent theorems somehow may fail to hold in one of them.

Marbas
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:01 am UTC
Location: Down down down at the bottom of the sea
Contact:
This man's site makes me want to vomit and laugh at the same time. Is this a healthy reaction?
Jahoclave wrote:Do you have any idea how much more fun the holocaust is with "Git er Done" as the catch phrase?

iw
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:58 am UTC
Apparently the guy has a book or two (self-published 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.

ehiunno
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:46 pm UTC
Location: NN, VA
Contact:
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.

3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Yah see, I came across it looking at random "proofs" of RH, and wow, BOOKS?!
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

themandotcom
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:50 pm UTC
Contact:
lol, the Riemann Hypothesis proof is funny. I doubt that those infinite series even converge. And if they do, its not a very good number
e^pi*i=WHAT??