Re: JSH: Good news!

On 1 Mar, 16:49, "amzoti" <amz...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 28, 7:19 pm, jst...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

[Snip useless dribble]

Like, imagine if say, Andrew Wiles were serious about desperately
wanting a real answer for Fermat's Last Theorem and really believed
he'd found one, if there were a hint of a clue that he was wrong,
would he hide from it? Or would he chase it down to be sure?

What if instead he and his colleagues just tried to deny, until
brought down by brilliant research in another area, where they still
at first tried to deny?

Could anyone doubt that they were cons all along?

James Harris

Mr. Harris,

would it surprise you to know that such an issue was identified by a
reviewer, was made very public and Wiles worked with one of his former
students to resolve the issue?

See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_last_theorem

Here is a snippet.
---
Upon hearing about Ribet's proof of the Epsilon conjecture Andrew
Wiles, who had been fascinated by Fermat's Last Theorem since age ten
and had experience with elliptic curves, immediately set out to prove
Taniyama-Shimura, and therefore Fermat's Last theorem. Yet he did so
in almost complete secrecy, working for a full seven years with
minimal outside help, contrary to how most mathematics is done today.
In 1993, Wiles announced his proof over the course of three lectures
delivered at Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences on June
21, 22, and 23. He amazed his audience with the number of ideas and
constructions used in his proof . Wiles had reviewed the proof with a
Princeton colleague, Nick Katz, beforehand. Still, the proof turned
out to contain a flaw, namely, an error in a critical portion of the
paper which gave a bound for the order of a particular group. After
seven years of work, the proof was invalid.

Wiles and his former student Richard Taylor spent about a year trying
to revive the proof, under close scrutiny by the media and
mathematical community. In September 1994, they were able to resurrect
the proof with some different, discarded techniques that Wiles had
used in his earlier attempts. Wiles found that he could work with
associated Galois representations. In the process he developed ideas
from Barry Mazur on deformations of Galois representations. The final,
correct proof uses the standard constructions of modern algebraic
geometry, which involve the category of schemes.

Because Wiles's proof relies mainly on techniques developed in the
twentieth century, most mathematicians agree that Wiles's proof is not
the same as Fermat's proof. Most mathematicians believe that Fermat
did not actually prove the theorem or that his proof was flawed like
other early attempts. However, there are other mathematicians who
believe that Fermat really did prove the theorem with seventeenth-
century techniques, and who continue to search for an elementary
proof.
---

So, as you continue to propagate your lies - at least do it in such a
way that no one can else can take two seconds to realize who the real
liar is here.

If your method is so f-ing good, get off your lazy ass and factor ANY
(including past ones) of the RSA challenge numbers. Oh thats right -
you haven't got a f-ing clue of how to actually do that with your
millionth bogus method! I did have a good laugh becuase you claim you
are factoring small numbers (big f-ing deal - random gcd methods can
do the same)!

Have a great day!

I think JSH actually solved the problem in the late 90s but realised
that people would call him a crank and debunk him or steal his idea,
so wise by experience he secretly sent the solutions to the russians
or chinese, and now he is just fucking around with everyone who wants
to know how he did it.

I am known for drawing stange conclusion though lol.
Maybe in China he is a great hero by now lol, oh sorry could not
resist.

JT

.

Quantcast