User talk:FerMATtos

Fermat's Last Theorem

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Fermat's Last Theorem, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your mail.

However, I can hardly understand your views.

Could you, please, let me know:

(1) Why the papers titled “FLT – The Mathemafia” and “FLT – Quadragesimo Anno” lack «reliable, published sources»?

(2) How and why my edit combines «published sources implying something that none of those two explicitly say»?

Thank you.

FerMATtos 2001:8A0:BB80:5200:4CF7:7974:4862:7968 (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your mail.

However, I can hardly understand your views.

Could you, please, let me know:

(1) Why the papers titled “FLT – The Mathemafia” and “FLT – Quadragesimo Anno” lack «reliable, published sources»?

(2) How and why my edit combines «published sources implying something that none of those two explicitly say»?

Thank you. FerMATtos (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your mail.

However, I can hardly understand your views.

Could you, please, let me know:

(1) Why the papers titled “FLT – The Mathemafia” and “FLT – Quadragesimo Anno” lack «reliable, published sources»?

(2) How and why my edit combines «published sources implying something that none of those two explicitly say»?

Thank you. FerMATtos (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptionally good sources. You didn’t cite a single source for that claim, and elementary proofs of FLT are typical crank mathematics things. We don’t give such things any weight here, due to their lack of reliable sourcing, see WP:DUE. Besides, we need a WP:SECONDARY source, not the author’s own word.

Given your username, I must demand per the conflict of interest guideline that you disclose any relationship you might have with the author, and inform you that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, such as a perceived wrongful rejection of the proof (which I just read and, despite not knowing about elliptic curves, can debunk straight away because it wrongly asserts that $x^{n}+y^{n}=(x+y)\sum _{i=0}^{n}x^{n-i}y^{i}$ when it is missing the necessary alternation of signs on the right and also wrongly asserts that $(x+y)\Vert z^{n}\implies x+y\Vert z$ and $(x+y)\Vert z\implies (x^{n}-z^{n})/(x-(x+y))=\sum _{i=0}^{n-1}x^{n-i-1}(-1)^{i}(x+y)^{i}$, neither of which follow at all) –in simpler terms, this polynomial division result implies nothing about FLT). Please do not continue advocating this on Wikipedia, or you may be blocked from further editing.—Jasper Deng (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I  divide Jasper Deng’ message, for which I thank him, in three main parts:  (i) «Elementary profs of FLT are typical crank mathematics things» and, worst, he has read the proof at issue and concludes that,   in short,  it «implies nothing about FLT»; (2) I «didn’t cite a single source for that [exceptional] claim»; and (3) «given my username», I am asked to «disclose any relationship with the author».

I now reply to all these questions.

(1) Jasper Deng didn’t understand the proof he claims to have «read», not (duly) interpreted. However, he is not the first person to whom that happens: for some reason the author of such proof has published in 2013 a paper containing his “Closing argument” on the subject (link: <https://www.academia.edu/5252071/>), in which he definitely proves the irrationality of the reasoning that others before Jasper and as wrongly as he have carried out. In fact, prominent math professors exhibiting a sound pedagogical background consider that one to be a «great», «perfect» proof of FLT. Let me quote just two scholars: an American, Douglas Clements, in October 2017 (attachment 1), and an European, Bruno D’Amore, in December 2015 (attachment 2);

(2) But, of course, the problem here is not the fact of Jasper Deng, a software engineer, not being sufficiently qualified to referee math papers, just because Wikipedia is not the proper field for a discussion on the validity of any proof in the realm of number theory or else and, what is much more important, I did not mean that at all. As a matter of fact, what my (censored) edit means is to let the free world currently informed and taught by Wikipedia know that:

(a)  «In September 1981, an under-40 Portuguese economist specializing in financial mathematics, Carlos C. de Matos, sent to Paulo Ribenboim, then the “greatest authority on the Fermat theorems”, an elementary proof of FLT, which the renowned Canadian Brazilian number theorist considered should be presented to the Göttingen Mathematical Society, in view of the Wolfskehl Prize», and this information has the most genuine source possible: “FLT - Quadragesimo Anno” (link: https://www.academia.edu/62129006/), pp. 29-30;

(b) but «that German Academy had adapted Paul Wolfskehl’s will and replied, in a circular letter, that only published proofs would be examined», and this information has the most genuine sources possible: “FLT - Quadragesimo Anno”, p. 5, and “FLT - The Mathemafia” (link: http://www.academia.edu/4241888/), p. 81;

(c) and that «“amateur” mathematician published in September 2013 on the Academia.edu platform a work telling the sad story of the practical impossibility of the publication of his proof  in a major  math journal, titled ‘FLT - The Mathemafia”; and in December 2021 he posted the paper ‘FLT - Quadragesimo Anno”, in which, forty years post factum, he regrets the refusal of both Andrew Wiles and the International Mathematical Union to acknowledge the validity of his “truly marvellous”, prior proof», and this is a thoroughly documented information: “Quadragesimo Anno”, pp. 2-23, 41-44, and “The Mathemafia”, pp. 47-48, 40.

  It is therefore admissible, I do franklyadmit, that the edit at issue should have been posted in the section ‘Mathematical history’, instead of ‘Prizes and incorrect proofs’;

(3) Since the beginning, on the first day of the current Chinese Year of the Rabbit, I did my best to put it clear that I am the author of that proof of FLT: that’s why I adopted the username FerrMATtos. What is the problem about that? Forty years of a permanent fight against the almighty math publishing industry coupled with the IMU establishment have told me that nobody else is willing to let this most disagreeable truth for some VIP flourish in the fresh air of the freedom of speech. So, I beg to ask: is it not considering situations like this one that Wikipedia promptes their Fifth pillar: no rules carved in stone? Is this not a remarkable exception?

I would like to have an answer to these observations of mine. FerMATtos (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I also happen to have a degree in mathematics. But I don’t need one to debunk the proof, which only shows that $z\neq x+y$ and nothing else. Resorting to argumentum ad hominem won’t help your case.

Since you have explicitly said you do not wish to play by Wikipedia’s policies, despite copious links that you clearly did not read, you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I am therefore referring this situation to WP:ANI.—Jasper Deng (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The truth is that you also don’t know what «ad hominem» means. I didn’t attack you, but your explicit demonstration of incapacity to understand a logico-mathematical proof… You are not a Paulo Ribenboim! I’ve had enough from you… It seems to be that you make a living out of«this», so long! FerMATtos (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Salvio ^giuliano 10:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)