Oversight of all counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat, Part 3.

It is late at night, my computer clock says it is 1.01 on a Sunday night. But I am all alone so why not post this update? This post does not have much mathematical depth, it is all very easy to understand if you know what split complex numbers are.
In the language of this website, the split complex numbers are the 2D circular numbers, In the past I named a particular set of numbers complex or circular. I did choose for circular because the matrix representations of circular numbers are the so called circulant matrices. It is always better to give mathematical stuff some kind of functional name so people can make sense of what the stuff is about. For me no silly names like ‘3D Venema positive numbers’ or ‘3D Venema complex numbers’. In math the objects should have names that describe them, the name of a person should not be hanged on such an object. For example the Cayley-Hamilton theorem is a total stupid name, the names of the humans who wrote it out are not relevant at all. Further reading on circulant matrices: Circulant matrix.
I also have a wiki on split complex numbers for you, but like all common sources they have the conjugate completely wrong. Professional math professors always think that taking a conjugate is just replacing a + by a – but that is just too simplistic. That’s one of the many reasons they never found 3D complex numbers for themselves, if you do that conjugate thing in the silly way all your 3D complex math does not amount to much…
Link: Split-complex number.

This is the last part on this oversight of counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat and it contains only the two dimensional split complex numbers. When I wrote the previous post I realized that I had completely forgetten about the 2D split numbers. And indeed the math results as found in this post are not very deep, it’s importance lies in the fact that the counter examples now are unbounded. All counter examples based on modular arithmetic are always bounded, periodic to be precise, so professional math professors could use that as a reason to declare that all a bunch of nonsense because the real integers are unbounded. And my other counter examples that are unbounded are only on 3D complex & circular number spaces and the 4D complex numbers so that will be neglected and talked into insignificance because ‘That is not serious math’ or whatever kind of nonsense those shitholes come up with.

All in all despite the lack of mathematical depth I am very satisfied with this very short update. The 2D split numbers have a history of say 170 years so all those smart math assholes can think a bit about why they never formulated such simple counter examples to the last theorem of Fermat… May be the simplicity of the math results posted is a good thing in the long run: compare it to just the natural numbers or the counting numbers. That is a set of numbers that is very simple too, but they contain prime numbers and all of a sudden you can ask thousands and thousands of complicated and difficult questions about natural numbers. So I am not ashamed at all by the lack of math depth in this post, I only point to the fact that over the course of 170 years all those professional math professors never found counter examples on that space.

This post is just 3 pictures long although I had to enlarge the lastest one a little bit. The first two pictures are 550×825 pixels and the last one is 550×975 pixels. Here we go:

That was it for this post, one of the details as why this post is significant is the use of those projector numbers. You will find that nowhere on the entire internet just like the use of 3D complex numbers is totally zero. Let’s leave it with that, likely the next post is about magnetism and guess what? The physics professors still think there is no need at all to give experimental proof to their idea of the electron having two magnetic poles. So it are not only the math professors that are the overpaid idiots in this little world of monkeys that think they are the masters of the planet.

Oversight of all counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat, Part 2.

Post number 191 already so it will be relatively easy to make it to post number 200 this year. If you think about it, the last 190 posts together form a nice bunch of mathematics.
In this post we will pick on where we left it in the last post; we start with the three dimensional complex and circular numbers. In the introduction I explain how the stuff with a pair of divisors of zero works and from there it is plain sailing so to say. When back in Jan of this year I constructed the first counter example to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat I considered it a bit ‘non math’ because it was so easy. And when one or two days later I made the first counter example using modular arithmetic I was really hesitant to post it because it was all so utterly simple…
But now half a year later it has dawned on me that all those professional math professors live up to their reputation of being overpaid under performers because in a half year of time I could find not one counter example on our beloved internet. And when these people write down some calculations that could serve as a counter example, they never say so and use it only for other purposes like proving the little theorem of Fermat. It has to be remarked however that in the past three centuries of time, when people tried to find counter examples, they likely started with the usual integers from the real line and as such tried to find counter examples. Of course that failed and this is not because they are stupid or so. It is the lack of number spaces they understand or know about that prevented them in finding counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat.
If you do not know anything about 3D complex or circular numbers, you are not a stupid person if you cannot find counter examples to the last theorem. But you are definitely very very stupid if you do not want to study 3D complex numbers, if you refuse that it proves you have limited mathematical insights and as such likely all your other math works will be limited in long term value too.
While writing this post all of a sudden I realized I skipped at least one space where counter examples are to be found: It is on the space of so called split complex numbers. I did not invent that space, that was done by the math professors. The split complex numbers are a 2D structure just like the complex plane but instead of i^2 = -1, on the split complex plane the multiplication is ruled by i^2 = 1. Likely I will write a small post about the split complex number space. (Of course in terms of the language of this website, the 2D split complex numbers are the 2D circular numbers.)

This post is 8 pictures long, I kept on to number them according to the previous post so we start at picture number 11. They are all in the size of 825×550 pixels. I hope it is worth of your time. Here we go:

In this post I used only ‘my own spaces’ like 3D complex and circular numbers and the 4D complex numbers. As such it will be 100% sure the math professionals will 100% not react on it. Even after 30 years these incompetents are not able to judge if there is any mathematical value in spaces like that. Why do we fork out so much tax payer money to those weirdo’s? After all it is a whole lot of tax payer money for a return of almost nothing. Ok ok a lot of math professors also give lectures in math to other studies like physics so not all tax payer money is 100% wasted but all in all the math professors are a bunch of non-performers.

I think I will write a small post about the 2D split complex numbers because that is a space discovered by the math pro’s. So for them we will have as counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat all that modulo calculus together with the future post on the split complex numbers. Not that this will give a reaction from the math pro’s but it will make clear you just cannot blame me for the non reactive nature of the incompetents; the blame should go to those who deserve it… Or not?

May be the next post is about magnetism and only after that I will post the split complex number details. We’ll see, anyway if you made it untill here thanks for your attention and I hope you learned a bit from the counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat.

Oversight of all counter examples (until now) to the last theorem of Fermat.

Once more I estimated my writer skills too positive; I thought it takes only 7 to 8 pictures to pen down all counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat. But I had to stop because this post already is 10 pictures long. I organized the stuff around so called ‘levels’ so we have Level zero counter examples (the most basic ones) to level four counter examples (the most complicated ones) to the last theorem of Fermat.
We are now almost half a year further down the timeline since I looked at that video of Andrew Wiles and while looking at that video I already constructed the first counter example to the last theorem. And now we are about half a year further I have arrived at the conclusion that inside the math community there are no accepted counter examples known or discussed or whatever what they do with it. So I am not expecting my counter examples will find the place they more or less should have, acting as an adult is never within reach of the math professors.
Likely if you (as a math student or so) show these counter examples to one of your math professors, it might be it gets instantly rejected because ‘this is modulo calculus’ and has ‘nothing to do with the last theorem’. But in a pdf from Gerhard Frey (the guy from the Frey elleptic curve) I came across the next hilarious screen shot:

This is hilarious; Modulo arithmetic is allowed?????

Of course people like Andrew Wiles or Gerhard Frey will never ever react; they are perfumed princes and those high nobility people do not mingle with the plebs, farmers and peasants.
Does the absence of counter examples on the internet indicate that the math hot shots also have an absence of counter examples in their holy brain tissue? It looks like it, of course it is very well possible plenty of people found those counter examples in the past but they got only a fresh dose of what I experience for say 30 years: You get one 100% neglected all of the time. After all if you are an outsider like me, the collective of math professionals acts very much like a secretive incest club. Those kind of clubs are not very open to communication with the outside world. Not that math professors are pedophiles but the behavior is keeping things inside is very much the same.
An interesting question is if perfumed prince Andrew Wiles knows these counter examples. My guesstimate is no. And why is that? After the pictures of the main post I will show you that video from the Abel prize lecture and there you can see Andrew formulating the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat. He does it more or less in the following manner:

For integers x, y and z with xyz not equal to 0, it is impossible that
x^n + y^n = z^n. This for integers n > 2.

If Andrew would have knowledge in his brain about these counter examples likely he would have formulated it like this:

For positive non-zero integers x, y and z, it is impossible that
x^n + y^n = z^n. This for integers n > 2.

All counter examples I found in the last five months have the property that xyz = 0 because say the x and the y form a pair of so called divisors of zero. (The level zero counter examples do not have this property, but I did not find the level zero examples myself…) Now it could be that Andrew is as evil as he is smart and formulated it with the xyz not zero way in order to subtlelly exclude my wild math adventures. But in reality it is much more likely that Andrew is just another perfumed Princeton professor. So my estimate is and stays that Andrew is not aware of the rather simple counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat as found below…

Ok, this post is 10 pictures long and it only contains the stuff found that is based on modular arithmetic. In my view it is all rather basic and as such should explain itself. The main basis is that ‘divisor of zero’ stuff where two non zero numbers multiply to zero. For example if we take the real integers modulo 35, in that case if we multiply 5*7 we get 0 because 35 = 0 inside the ring of integers modulo 35. It’s all so basic that it makes you wonder once more: why is this not inside the math classes on universities? But for that answer you must ask the perfumed professors and the perfumed professors never answer because they are much more busy of getting a fresh stack of perfume. That’s life…
Have fun reading it

For me the only thing I learned while writing this post is that you can use that simple rule for writing 30^n mod 210 in stuff mod 7. It is the same kind of calculation as in the modified little theorem of Fermat and this is also a detail I could not find on the internet.
Oh yes now I am in a laughing mood: Can we prove the perfumed professors are indeed perfumed overpaid people? Yes we can: They will also not react of the modified or improved little theorem of Fermat. We will need a few years of time for that, but why should they react?

Ok, I promised you the video of a Princeton perfumed prince named Andrew Wiles, here it is and please pay attention to the way he formulates the present day formulation of the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat:

At only one minute into the video we observe that likely Andrew has no clue whatsoever about the above counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat:

Why this way of formulating the problem?

End of this post. Thanks for your long lasting interest in these details on the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat.

What is a Dyson-Harrap satellite?

A few days back the folks from scishow space came with a rather brilliant concept of a so called Dyson-Harrap satellite. I have to say I do not understand all the details, for example you can indeed catch a lot of electrons from the solar wind but how do you make a current with them that goes round? After all an electric circuit should be closed so that the electrons if they go round can lower their electric potential.
They Dyson in the name of this satellite is more or less a honorary name, may be you know that name from the concept of a Dyson sphere.
Anyway the goal is to harvest the energy as found in the solar wind and since scishow is nice to watch, it is still a show and who not forget all kinds of important stuff like ‘Is the solar wind electrically neutral’ meaning there are as much electrons as protons? And if you catch it with a solar sail, where do the protons go? Well suppose it is all possible: you can catch solar wind and use that to make a closed electrical loop. Below you see a scetch of how this supposedly must work:

The blue line is a copper strip or wire and the current through it creates a cylindrical magnetic field. And because scishow is always more show as sci they simply say: “The electrons get deflected by the magnetic field and therefore create more electrical current”. Just like the solar wind ‘avoids’ the earth and people say “The earth magnetic field deflects the solar wind particles”. So we are supposed to believe that deflection explains why electron are attracted in the picture above while the earth pushes them away…
Of course electrons are magnetic monopoles, they come with a south pole or a north pole charge and as such they are always accelerated in the direction of the magnetic field lines. For example that explains why the earth pushes the solar wind away and it also explains why the electrons that make the aurora’s have the speed they have. They ionize the atmosphere because they have enough speed by the acceleration done by the earth magnetic field. So because we can see the aurora’s that detail alone shows that electron just cannot be magnetic dipoles as the idiots & retards from physics want you to believe.

Look at the picture above: The electrons enter that cylinder shaped magnetic field. According to their magnetic charge they are accelerated in the direction of the magnetic field lines or against that direction. So they go either left curved or right curved with respect to that blue copper wire. Now why do they go to the center? Very simple: There is the magnetic field stronger so of course they like to go there.

Compare that to nuclear fusion tokamak style: Why does the plasma not hit the wall in the beginning? Well the magnetic fields in those torus shaped vessels is stronger in the middle and this is why in the first few seconds they do not slam into the walls. But this post is not about the plasma instabilities in nuclear fusion reactors tokamak style, if the idiots & retards from plasma physics are that smart, they can figure it out for themselves. After about six years of explaining that electrons can’t be magnetic dipoles, what do the shitholes, idiots & retards from plasma physics do? Of course they do nothing, likely they make jokes among themselves as why I am the idiot & retarded person.
Well in 2025 it is expected first fusion plasma for the ITER thing and we will see who is laughing after that future colossal failure…

Sometimes I wonder if my own brains work so differently that it is me who is the crazy one. But I have a tendency of using logic, for example this website is about 3D comples numbers. Math professors think that 3D complex numbers do not exist. It is just another example of how people just don’t use logic but only emotion or if you want ‘group think’. Of course 3D complex numbers exist, you just do an imaginary component j to the third power and you get minus one: j^3 = -1. Just like the complex plane where you can find all your math fruits by using logic and i^2 = -1.
But math professors do not want to do that because they are rather retarded imbeciles too.
After so much social classifications, why not take the time and think a bit about the next satellite concept? Here is the vid:

To be honest I liked the video because it is so refreshing. For the time being I classify it more as science fiction and not a serious thing. Just like math professors are not a serious thing after 30+ years of total neglect of say 3D complex numbers.

Ok, the next post will be an oversight of all those counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat. And oh oh oh, when I think about it: The math professors in 350 years of time have never ever found a good bunch of counter examples using only modulo arithmetic. Talking about a bunch of inbread retarded imbeciles, they even cannot explain stuff like:

2^3 mod 6 = 2 &
3^2 mod 6 = 3. (This is the little theorem of Fermat modified a bit.)

Even basic stuff like that, the math professors have no clue whatsoever but they think they are brilliant…
Let’s leave it with that my dear reader.
See you in the next post. (On 20 June added a small proof for the above modified little theorem of Fermat:)

The proof in the next picture is so simple that may be it is better to replace the factors 2 and 3 by p and q representing two different prime numbers for use in the modified little theorem of Pierre de Fermat. In the background of the picture you see two math professors discussing the details of the little proof to the modified little theorem. They seem to disagree on something, I do not have a clue whatsoever as why they seem to disagree. Is there something wrong with my little modification of the little theorem? May be it is better to leave the math professors alone. After all if you want to be a happy person you should not mingle with idiots all of the time. That does not bring happiness…

Without the two math professors it looks like this:

Ok, let this be the real end of this post. Thnx for your extra attention and in the next post I will try to give an oversight of all counter examples to the last theorem of Fermat I found during this year.

Two things and a proof that the 4D complex rationales form a field.

I finished the proof that was originally meant to be an appendix to the previous post. And I have two more or less small things I want to share with you so lets get started with the first thing:

Thing 1: Tibees comes up with a very cute program of graphing 3D surfaces. It’s name is surfer, the software is very simple to use and it has the giant benefit of making graphs from implicit equations like
f(x, y, z) = 0. For example if you want the unit sphere in 3D space you must do x^2 + y^2 + z^2 – 1 = 0. Now for this website I always used an internet applet that uses ray tracing and by doing so over the years such graphs always look the same. But this surfer program has cute output too and it has the benefit you don’t need to be online. Here is how such a graph looks, it is the determinant in the space of 3D complex numbers, to be precise it shows the numbers with a determinant of 1:

By the way, the surface of this graph is a multiplicative group on it’s own in 3D space. I never do much group stuff but if you want it, here you have it. And for no reason at all I used GIMP to make one of those cubes from the above graph. It serves no reason beside looking cute:

The Tibees female had a video out last week where she discusses a lot of such surfaces in three dimensional space using that surfer software. And she is a pleasant thing to look at, it is not you are looking at all those extravert males drowning in self-importance only lamentating shallow thoughts. The problem posed in the video is an iteresting one, I don’t have a clue how to solve it. Title of the video: The Shape No One Thought was Possible. It is a funny title because if you start thinking about all the things that math professors thought were not possible you can wonder if there is enough paper in the entire universe to write that all out..
Link to the Surfer program in case you want to download & install it:
https://www.imaginary.org/program/surfer.

So far for thing 1.

Thing 2: The last weeks it is more and more dawning on me that all those centuries those idiots (the math professors) did not find counter examples to the last theorem of Fermat. Nor was there any improvement on the little theorem of Fermat. Only Euler did some stuff on the little theorem with his totient function, but for the rest it is not much…
Well since Jan of this year I found many counter example to the last theorem of Fermat and in my view I made a serious improvement on the little theorem of Fermat.
So is the improvement serious or not?
Here is a picture that shows the change:

So it’s modulo ap instead of modulo p.

On a wiki with a lot of proofs for the little theorem of Fermat they start with a so called ‘simplification’. The simplification says that you must pick the number a between 0 and p. So if you have an odd prime, say a = 113, does the little theorem only make sense for exponents above 113?
And can’t we say anything about let’s say the square 113^2?

With the new version of the little theorem we don’t have such problems any longer. Here is a screen shot from the start of that wiki, the upper part shows you the improvement:

Here is a link to that wiki that is interesting anyway.

If you follow that link you can also scroll down to the bottom of the wiki where you can find the notes they used. It is an impressive list of names like Dirichlet, André Weil, Hardy & Wright and so on and so on. All I want to remark is that non of them found counter examples to the last theorem nor did they improve on the little theorem of Fermat. Now I don’t want to be negative on Dirichlet because without his kernel I could never have crafted my modified Dirichlet kernel that is more or less the biggest math result I ever found. But the rest of these people it is just another batch of overpaid non performers. It’s just an opinion so you don’t have to agree with it, but why do so many people get boatloads of money while they contribute not that much?

End of thing 2.

Now we are finally ready to post the main dish in this post: the proof that the subset of four dimensional rational numbers form a field. Math professors always think it is ‘very important’ if something is a field while in my life I was never impressed that much by it. And now I am thinking about it a few weeks more, the less impressed I get by this new field of four dimensional complex numbers.
Inside the theory of higher dimensional complex numbers the concept of ‘imitators of i‘ is important: these are higher dimensional numbers that if you square them they have at least some of the properties of the number i from the complex plane. They rotate everything by 90 degrees or even better they actually square to minus one.
Well one of the imitators of i in the space of 4D complex number is dependent of the square root of 2. As such it is not a 4D rational complex number. That detail alone severely downsizes my enthousiasm.
But anyway, the next pictures are also a repeat of old important knowledge like the eigenvalue functions. Instead of always trying to get the eigenvalues from some 4×4 matrix, with the eigenvalue functions with two fingers in your nose you can pump out the eigenvalues you need fast. This post is six pictures long each size 550×825 pixels.
Here we go:

Yes that is the end of this post that like always grew longer than expected. If you haven’t fallen asleep by now, thanks for your attention and don’t forget to hunt the math professors until they are all dead! Well may be that is not a good idea, but never forget they are too stupid to improve on the little Fermat theorem and of course we will hear nothing from that line of the profession…

Inverses for the field of 4D complex rationales.

This year starting in January I found more and more counter examples to the last theorem of Fermat. As a by product when we looked at the stuff on the 4D complex numbers, we found that if we restrict ourselves to the 4D rationales, they were always invertible. And as such they form a field, this is a surprising result because the official knowledge is that the only possible 4D number system are the quaternions from Hamilton. So how this relates to those stupid theorems of Hurwitz and Fröbenius about higher dimensional complex numbers is something I haven’t studied yet. But that Hurwitz thing is based on some quadratic form so likely he missed this new field of 4D complex rationales because the 4D complex numbers are ruled by a 4 dimensional thing namely the fourth power of the first imaginary unit equals minus one: l^4 = -1.
Compare that to the complex plane that has all of it’s properties related to that defining equation i^2 = -1.

And because we now have a 4D field I thought like let’s repeat how you find the inverse of a 4D complex rational number. And also prove that we have a field as basic a proof can be. But while writing this post I had to abandon the second thing otherwise this post would grow too long. Of course in the past I have crafted a post for finding the non-invertible 4D complex numbers but in that post I never remarked that rational 4D complex numbers are always invertible. To be honest in the past it has never dawned on me that it was a field, for me this is not extremely important but for the professional math people it is.

When back in Jan of this year I found the first counter example to the last theorem of Fermat I was a bit hesitant to post it because it was so easy to find for me. But now four months further down the time line I only found two examples where other people use some form of my idea’s around those counter examples and both persons have no clue whatsoever that they are looking at a counter example to the last theorem of Fermat. But in a pdf from Gerhard Frey (that is the Frey from the Frey elliptic curve that plays an important role in the proof to the last theorem of Fermat by Andrew Wiles) it was stated as:
(X + Y)^p = X^p + Y^p modulo p.
That’s all those professionals have, it is of a devastating minimal content but at least it is something that you could classify as a rudimentary counter example to the last theorem of Fermat. It only works when your exponent if precisely that prime number p and it lacks the mathematical beauty that for example we have in expressions like:
12^n = 5^n + 7^n modulo 35.

Anyway this post contains nothing new but there is some value in repeating how to find inverses of higher dimensional complex numbers. All you need is a ton of linear algebra and for that let me finish this intro on a positive note: Without the professional math professors crafting linear algebra in the past, at present day for me it would be much harder to make progress in higher dimensional complex numbers. And it is amazing: Why is linear algebra relatively good while in higher dimensional number systems we only look at a rather weird collection of idea’s?
This post is made up of seven pictures each of size 550×800 pixels.

Stupid typo: Z = 1 + l +… so the real part must be one.

Ok ok this post is not loaded with all kinds of deep math results. But if you have a properly functioning brain you will have plenty of paths to explore. And the professional math professors? Well those overpaid weirdo’s will keep on neglecting the good side of math and that is important too: That behavior validates they are overpaid weirdo’s…

For example the new and improved little theorem of Fermat: The overpaid weirdo’s will neglect it year in year out.
That’s the way it is, here is once more a manifestation of the new and improved little theorem of Fermat:

Let’s leave it with that. Thanks for your attention.

Heisenberg magnets: the most retarded electron configuration in the history of humanity?

Lately I viewed a video from physics professor Stephen Blundell and I more or less thought like ‘may be something for a new post on magnetics’? And yes why not? Not that people like Stephen will react on this post: lately I arrived at the conclusion that physics professors are more or less the same as math professors and as such they are a bunch of overpaid incompetent shitholes. After having said that, the video is relatively good and can give a lot of thoughts to ponder.
It is important to stress that I do not want to insult Stephen Blundell, there is no reason for that at all. If Stephen thinks electrons are bipolar little magnets, he is for sure an idiot but again this is not an insult. It is just an objective observation: If a person takes for true things that are not logical on all levels of thinking, you can observe that and simply say ‘Likely just another idiot doing electron spin’.
The main reason for me picking this video is because Stephen is more or less a high IQ person, he does not use it but he is relatively smart. I also viewed a video where some other idiot explained the magnetic properties of iron by the fact that iron atoms were bound by unpaired electrons…
And compared to Stephen Blundell that is another level of how dumb can you be? It made me wonder: why do people make video’s about magnetism if they do not understand anything from magnetism? But those persons often think ‘I understand’ it is ‘unpaired electrons’…

Heisenberg magnets. I never heard from this concept of Heisenberg magnets. They are just a bunch of horizontal spins and all spins are pointing up and of course Stephen does not explain it but this should be the so called ‘ground state’. That was more or less the reason I decided to write the post of 10 pictures long. Heisenberg lived in the beginning of the 20th century so why do people still repeat weird stuff from that guy? Very simple: this is the Heisenberg from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. Now should you worry that this important principle is also totally idiot? No, the uncertainty principle is more or less a consequence of Fourier transformations and as such you can trust that part of the science of physics.

But what you cannot trust is people like professor Stephen Blundell explaining that electrons are magnetic dipoles without giving any experimental proof at all. Gauss died long before the first electrons were discovered so can you apply the Gauss law for magnetism to electrons? Only if you have plenty of experimental evidence & proof that indeed the Gauss law for magnetism is valid for electrons.
Hey try to explain that to idiots like Stephen, what will he say after recieving such a quest for an explanation? He will simply remark that this is not needed because ‘everybody knows’ that electrons have magnetic spin and that is bipolar by definition.

By saying Stephen is an equivalence class on his own I mean that he represents the collective of physics professors that believe electrons are little magnets with a north and a south pole. Basically that is 100% of all physics professors out there because you will never ever get a physics professorship if you think that it is ´just not logical´ that electrons are magnetic dipoles. Only when you are willing to think as an idiot you can become a member of this club of physics idiots.

This post is 10 pictures long but all in all I more or less concentrated upon how Stephen explains permanent magnets. Again it is not an insult but the idiot explanation is that it is alignment of unpaired electrons. About four years back I did some experiments with that myself, after all if it is just a matter of unpaired electrons to align themselves in that case always with a strong magnet you can change a weak magnet. All this nonsense that unpaired electrons will align or anti/align themselves with an applied magnetic field faded into nonsense with my small experiment.

May be you have heard from the g-2 experiment from Fermilab that came out a few weeks ago. If you see video’s from that experiment (it is with muons and not with electrons) it all looks so highly convincing. It looks like a lot of high class physics people doing their thing and they are smart! But are they? Every time an electron or a muon enters a magnetic field they claim the spin axis starts to wobble until the spin is aligned (or anti aligned). So what to think of that? Below you see my own 100% amateur experiment where the weak magnets are hold in place with some wood. And after 24 hours waiting, non of the electrons in the weak magnet has ‘flipped’. So I wonder one more time: Why do the people from Fermilab talk about a ‘wobble’ of an electron or a muon? I don’t know and only look in bewilderment at their explanations…
Ok, like said before, this post is 10 pictures long so lets get started:

Please remark that if electrons carry magnetic charge, likely such super positions do not exist.
The strong field is perpendicular to the weak magnets; yet zero spin flip observed…
Likely the physics professors do not understand why the Curie temp leads to a loss of magnetism.

In the process of making permanent magnets in the industry, the metal is heated above the Curie temperature. A strong magnetic field is applied all the time while the metal slowly cools. After cooling down the permanents magnets are ready for use. That is one way of making permanent magnets. Another ways is the application of a very strong magnetic field for a short time, it is more like a magnetic pulse, and after that the permanent magnet is ready. This is nicely in line with electrons being magnetic monopoles.
Why do you make so much noise?
What you say, I can’t hear you!
Oh magnetic monopoles should be treated the Paul Dirac way?
Well I wish you luck with that one…

In picture number 10 you will find an important secret as why permanent magnets are permanent: The unpaired electrons are locked inside the inner shells of for example iron atoms. I hope you understand as why this is logical while the explanation given by that idiot Stephen Blundell with all electron spins aligned is something only other idiots will find ‘logical’.

I skipped an awful lot while writing this post. For example silver has only one unpaired electron and in the old Stern-Gerlach experiment from 1922 the beam of silver atoms was split in two. Silver has about 107 protons and neutrons and as such the mass of the nucleus is about 200 thousand more. Yet that lonely unpaired electron is capable of splitting the beam of silver atoms in two…

The retarded overpaid physics professors still try to explain this via inhomeogenous magnetic fields. It only makes we wonder: How can you be a full century ultra stupid?
Well my dear Stephen, why ten years in the future you will still think electrons are bipolar little magnets? In my view it is because the physics professors are mostly make up of sino’s. And a sino is a Scientist In Name Only.
After having said this all you can now enjoy the wisdom of physics professor Stephen Blundell in the next Youtube video:

Ok, that was it for this post. See you around and try to prevent this utter stupidity as people like Stephen Blundell have with all this bipolar nonsense.

A second proof of the new little theorem of Monsieur Pierre de Fermat.

This is not a totally new proof, basically it is already part of the proof in the previous post. But I was able to write it down a bit more compact. It seems that you can skip large parts of the previous proof and still the result is standing. The stuff you can skip is not unimportant or so; it is where I compared those additive and multiplicative orbits and you really need that in order to understand a bit more of what is happening in rings like the integers modulo 35 (or any other composite number of course).
Often I name the ordinary intergers ‘real integers’. I hope that is not confusing, with a real integer I mean whole numbers as they are found on the real line. I do that do make clear the difference with the Gaussian integers as they are found in the diverse complex spaces.

Right now I am already about four months busy with this stuff that all started in January with counter examples to the last theorem of Fermat. All in all I never expected to be able to make an improvement on the little theorem of Fermat. But sometimes the old little theorem gives answers that are indeed correct but still is not that satisfactory. In the old little theorem you take some real integer a, you pick a prime number p that has no common factors with a and you know that in that case:
a^p mod p = a. But if the prime number p is relatively small, I mean a is larger, you don’t get back a but a mod p.

This post is short, only three pictures in the usual format of 550×775 pixels but I added two appendices so all in all there are five pictures in this post. In the second appendix I show you that if we square 125, the old little theorem gives back a 1 while my new version of the little theorem nicely gives back 125. Of course there is always much discussion possible of something is ‘better’ or not. It is only in the sense that also with small prime numbers you get back your a I mean it is ‘better’. One thing is clear: it is definitely more beautiful. My favorite formulation stays the formulation with two prime numbers like in:

p^q = p mod pq &
q^p = q mod pq.

The symmetry in the pair of equations above is, in my opinion, more beautiful compared to the old version of the little theorem of Fermat. At last I want to remark that I have a thing in common with Monsieur Fermat: math is a hobby for me. Now the old little theorem was improved upon by the professional professor Euler and with a little smile on my face I can say: Hey Euler did you miss the above pair of cute equations?

Yes he did, just like a guy named Einstein never had a fucking clue about electron spin. But likely that is a story for another day, in the meantime we have five pictures with the second proof of the new little theorem. Have fun reading it and never forget: If it is math, sometimes you need a few more days to figure it all out!

In a wiki upon proofs of the little Fermat theorem you can find that one of the authors did indeed find a counter example to the last theorem of Fermat. You can find it under ´Multinomial proofs´in the next link:
Proofs of Fermat´s little theorem. Link used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_of_Fermat%27s_little_theorem

Ok, that was it for this post. Thanks for your attention.

Proof of the conjecture on Fermat’s little theorem.

The proof is finished and in the end it went rather different from what I expected before the writing down of this new proof. I hope the main ideas are easy to understand. I formulated the proof with a concrete example; so not two general prime number p and q. But I took p = 5 and q = 7 and as such we are calculating in the ring of integers modulo 35.
One of the key ideas is that we have so called additive orbits, for example the additive orbit of 5 is the set {0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30}. The additive orbit are just the multiples of 5, it is handy to view the above set as multiples of five and as such: {0, 5, 2*5, 3*5, 4*5, 6*5}.
On the other hand we have exponential orbits, the exponential orbit of 5 are the powers of 5 like in the next sequence: 5, 5^2, 5^3, 5^4
An important observation is that any power of five is also a multiple of five; that means the exponential orbit is inside the additive orbit. For example 5^3 is on the exponential orbit, 5^3 = 125 = 20 modulo 35 = 4* 5.
So the number 5^3 from the exponential oribt corresponds to 4*5 on the additive orbit. The goal of the proof is to show that the period of 5 in her exponential oribt is 6 and the period of the exponential orbit of 7 is 4.
That will ensure our new little theorems of Fermat:
p^q = 5^7 = 5 modulo 35 &
q^p = 7^5 = 7 modulo 35.
Remark that powers of 5 can never be a multiple of 35 simply because any power of 5 does not contain a prime factor 7, so not all of the numbers on the additive orbit are allowed.
Another key idea is that if we reduce stuff modulo 35, this is the same as reducing stuff modulo 7 on the multiples of 5. Let me explain: Take the number 50, inside the mod 35 ring this is 15. But 50 = 10* 5 = (10 – 7)*5. I was able to pull that modulo 35 stuff on a ring back to modulo 7 stuff on a field…

Another thing I want to remark is that I formulated these new little theorems of Fermat mostly in prime numbers. That makes them more symmetric like the beautiful pair of equations above, but it can be a bit more general like I showed you in the last post using the number 210 that is made up of four different prime factors. And even that is not needed; prime factors can be double or triple it does not matter. As long as the exponent is a prime number my freshly crafted proof will sail you through all the troubles there are.

In a parallel development I found a perfect math professor. It’s a female and she has an amazing career record: At age three already a Fields medal while before she was nine years of age already the third Abel prize for lifetime achievement math… It is surely amazing…;)

Unlike other math professors, she is thinking it all through… Amazing!

But serious, this post is not that long. Only five pictures and like I said above it is not a ‘most general’ kind of proof but it uses a fixed pair of prime numbers. I think it is better this way because if I would formulate all the stuff in a general setting the only people who could understand such a writing are the ones who already figured the stuff out for themselves… Ok, all pictures are in the usual 550×775 pixelf format so here we go:

We are almost at the end: Let me give you one more example as why only in the exponent you need a prime number. We take the number 8 and raise it to the power 5 and do the reducing modulo thing by 40.
Doing so gives that: 8^5 mod 40 = 32768 mod 40 = 32768 – 819*40 = 8.

Ok, that is what I had to say for this post.

More versions of Fermat’s little theorem using the number 210.

A few posts back I used the number 210 to craft seven so called ‘primitive’ counter examples to the famous last theorem of Fermat. Each of those seven primitives can be changed in an infinite number of ways so we have seven streams of counter examples to the last Fermat theorem. It has to be remarked that all counter examples I found since Jan are all based on the so called divisors of zero idea. So if you hear people talking about that in a timespan of 3.5 centuries nobody was able to find counter examples, they are not lying if they mean a counter example on the space of real integers. Yet in Jan this year we observed I had two counter examples using the 3D Gaussian integers, it was one or two days later I found all those counter examples on the spaces of modulo arithmetic.
Beside his so called last theorem Fermat has done a lot more and one of those things is Fermat’s little theorem. To my surprise there are many more variants possible of this little theorem. The little theorem says that for a number a coprime to some prime number p the following holds:
a^p = a mod p. Two numbers are coprime if they share no common factor, if a is a number between 1 and p this is always the case.

The most simple example: a = 2 and p = 3. The little theorem now says that 2^3 mod 3 = 2. This is correct because the remainder of 8 divided by 3 equals 2.

The variants I found can be summarized as next:
2^3 mod 6 = 2 and
3^2 mod 6 = 3.
As you see I take it modulo a composite number. I still do not have a satisfactory proof so for the time being this is a conjecture. I am planning a seperate post for outlining where in my view the problems are that must be proved for the status of conjecture being dropped. So for the time being this is Reinko’s little conjecture.

But can you use a composite number with more than two factors? Yes but you can only use prime numbers in the exponent. Not that it will always fail if you do not use a prime exponent but that is a mathematical story for another day. Anyway this post uses the number 210 because it is the smallest number with four prime factors.
Before we go to the content of this post, to my surprise yesterday I observed a proof that is strikinly similar to the easy way I constructed those counter examples to the last theorem of Fermat. I found it on brilliant.org, here is a link:
https://brilliant.org/wiki/fermats-little-theorem/
Over there they prove the little theorem for a + 1 if it is true for a. Now why do they not use it for finding counter examples to the last theorem of Fermat? Well my dear reader, the human mind is bad at math. We are only monkeys or smart apes if you want, math is something that fascinates our minds but humans are horribly bad at math. Believe me: I am a human myself…;)
Here is a picture from that proof from brilliant dot org:

It is a bit hard to read but all those middle terms contain factors of p.
Therefore they vanish when you take the modulo p thing.

The whole post is only two pictures long, each of the ususal size of 550×775 pixels. Here we go:

Ok, that was it for this post. Thanks for your attention & see you in the next post.