tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2896819740098465917.post3085743531179664349..comments2024-02-05T10:28:25.472-08:00Comments on Transcendental Physics: RECENT DISCUSSION OF THE 1965 PROOF OF FERMAT'S LAST THEOREMEdward R. Closehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09760282480966828326noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2896819740098465917.post-46449411732662052312017-09-06T15:57:37.457-07:002017-09-06T15:57:37.457-07:00ok, you understood my comment, this (methodology) ...ok, you understood my comment, this (methodology) indeed is what i meant (thinking that it's not clear yet who is going in circles in this particular point of your proof, your friend, or maybe yourself, if you are using symbols sometimes in two different meanings (just a hunch).<br />As for deleting comment, i don't think i was rude when months ago i asked why you think your finding of gimmel correlates with 'consciousness' or something like that (for me it's just a rough model which may indicate gluons, or is the result of some other correlation); i also find it strange that you now have a model with 3 dimensions of consciousness, and now you are adding also some other ingredient of reality to the model, which is consciousness itself ? (gimmel). A bit overdone if you ask me, but you might find a way out in your philosophical reasoning (btw as long as i don't see the word 'cabibbo' i wont be rude i promise :) PS1 i'm lately interested in the thoughts of David Albert philosopher and physicist PS2 lately fyi i'm also active in environmental studies, eg. global warming, trying to write an essay about global risks; tedious work; i guess if we would discuss environmental matters rather than your spiritual hobbies we would agree much moreOLANESTI-MOLDOVAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09385127895580326820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2896819740098465917.post-11908546335436066352017-08-23T17:20:58.012-07:002017-08-23T17:20:58.012-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01397143216485998782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2896819740098465917.post-6155466296501807992017-08-22T11:53:03.846-07:002017-08-22T11:53:03.846-07:00I don't think I have ever deleted one of your ...I don't think I have ever deleted one of your comments, unless, of course it contained crude language, which you seem sometimes to like to use. But your analysis is interesting. I agree that if you start by looking for an error that you believe might lie behind methodological problems, rather than trying to understand the logic of the proof, it would be a waste of time.Edward R. Closehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760282480966828326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2896819740098465917.post-12235371304941870102017-08-14T10:06:07.533-07:002017-08-14T10:06:07.533-07:00hmm i see a methodological problem here, let's...hmm i see a methodological problem here, let's assume i (if i would look more into detail into the EC 'proof) that i would find a mistake, and thus refute the 'proof', then there are these scenario's <br />1) you EC would not accept my refutation; thus you -and later maybe some who support you- can endlessly claim you have found the 'best' (shorter) proof, even if it would be incorrect. <br />2) you (EC) see the problem, try to fix it, come up with some modification; refuting that again would take time, and in the meantime, you you -and later maybe some who support you- can endlessly claim you have found the 'best' (shorter) proof, even if it would be incorrect. <br />3) but if after a while i would again point out the mistake in your modification, then there are a few scenario's<br />a) you EC would not accept my refutation; thus you -and later maybe some who support you- can endlessly claim you have found the 'best' (shorter) proof, even if it would be incorrect. BACK TO 1) above<br />b) 2) you (EC) see the problem, try to fix it, come up with some modification; refuting that again would take time, and in the meantime, you you -and later maybe some who support you- can endlessly claim you have found the 'best' (shorter) proof, even if it would be incorrect. <br />c) but if after a while i would again point out the mistake in your modification, then there are a few scenario's: BACK TO 3) above (yes circular and endless spirals of thought)<br />CONCLUSION: this could lead to endless discussion. Thus it's safer for a spectator like me to look at what the math community at large is saying, namely, accepting the proof by Andrew Wiles, and dismissing all other 'proofs' as crank stuff. Meanwhile ofcourse it might be interesting for some odd math researchers, or math/sociology researchers to do a broad study on all (hundreds, or thousands) of crackpot 'proofs' but unless this leads to a clear result, another proof, accepted by the math community at large, i'm not going to waste my time on some other unconventional 'proofs', whether they may be true (very small chance) or not.<br />PS Now you EC can ofcourse delete this comment again, but i've saved it this time and if you delete it might popup some time elsewhere; lets say eg . on a certain ning forum, or something like that (youknowwhattamean)OLANESTI-MOLDOVAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09385127895580326820noreply@blogger.com