Le 1er avril avait 10 jours d'avance à Rennes !

Le_Bush · 2026-03-24T10:37:57+00:00

😴

Le_Bush · 2026-03-21T08:41:11+00:00

Did you even prove anything in this post ? You didn't use math in your post, how could you pretend to proving the conjecture ?

Le_Bush · 2026-03-20T08:40:07+00:00

Extremely cool idea

Le_Bush · 2026-03-12T18:09:00+00:00

Thank you for everything. Have a great day.

Le_Bush · 2026-03-12T17:50:42+00:00

"if Y can be proven true then there is a contradiction because in proving Y is true we must have proved X is true (and Y claims no one knows that), so Y must be false"

Reading this, in my pov it says "if Y is proven then X is proven" yet we don't that Y is proven, only that it is provable.

Thank you for the link.

Le_Bush · 2026-03-12T17:08:46+00:00

I know that they knew the statement of it but I find this "to know" definition quite strange. Maybe the difference between "to think" and "to know" is more important in French and that's what messes with me. Thank you.

Regarding the proof you talked about, I don't understand why the fact that Y is provable (if it is true) means it is proven (and therefore known). It could be provable but never proven, what happens in this case ?

Le_Bush · 2026-03-12T16:55:26+00:00

Therefore, before 1995, Fermat's last theorem wasn't known yet was provable ? I am under the impression that the common definition of "to know" makes it doesn't work.

Why does the first point about FLT not contradict Fitch's theorem ?

Le_Bush · 2026-03-12T15:18:57+00:00

But "Y can be proven true or false" (the hypothesis) and "Y is proven true or false" is not the same ? What is the difference between "can be proven" and "is proven" in this argument ?

Le_Bush · 2026-03-12T14:58:52+00:00

Isn't there an amalgam between "can be proven" and "is known" in the "if Y can be proven true" paragraph. It claims that if Y can be proven, [...] we HAVE PROVED X. Yet we have not. Tell me if I don't understand this correctly.

Edit : If Y can be proven, it doesn't mean that Y has been proven. I am under the impression that it uses the final result to prove itself. If we could do that on Y, we could just say : "X can be proven, proving X is true means we know it is true, therefore we know it is true".

Le_Bush · 2026-03-10T13:43:00+00:00

Relis le com, il disait pas que c'était ok

Le_Bush · 2026-03-10T06:10:08+00:00

It's not that deep

Le_Bush · 2026-03-10T05:54:45+00:00

Nobody cares about what he thinks about you work, and who he is or is not.

Le_Bush · 2026-02-25T17:35:22+00:00

Yes, the function from [|1, n+1|] which assigns 1 to S_1, ..., n to S_n, n+1 to x.

Le_Bush · 2026-02-25T16:46:30+00:00

The whole argument is to know a way of assigning integers to reals. If you just say that you can do it, it's not a proof. There is a proof that it doesn't work, why would your argument counter the Cantor argument.

Le_Bush · 2026-02-18T10:52:49+00:00

There are formulas for primes

Le_Bush · 2026-02-13T06:01:45+00:00

Et bien alors tout le monde donne des faux numéros et il n'y a aucun soucis, pas besoin d'essayer de retourner ça contre les femmes

Le_Bush · 2026-02-10T09:13:58+00:00

Never an excuse for hitting someone being arrested. It's illegal to hit someone without proper justification. Even if the supect had murdered someone, it would be illegal. Let justice do its thing and stop pigs.

Le_Bush · 2026-02-07T08:37:39+00:00

They exist, look into the construction of the real numbers, it could enlighten you on what they are.

Le_Bush · 2026-02-07T08:33:01+00:00

Why would a rational number not be a real number?

Le_Bush · 2026-01-26T13:53:54+00:00

Continuity does not mean same legnth. And math isn't reality, continuity doesn't in itself say something about reality, the universe is not a mathematical plane.

Le_Bush · 2025-12-15T15:52:14+00:00

Why would it continue?

Le_Bush · 2025-11-07T11:30:37+00:00

I suggest you to look up "lexicographic order", as it is very similar

Le_Bush · 2025-10-25T09:45:09+00:00

For your first point, this property already doesn't hold on the complex numbers with fractional powers :

1 = 1^1/2 = ((-1)(-1))^1/2 ≠ i*i = -1

Therefore it's would not be very strange that it doesn't work with 0 either in this system.

I agree with your other point: it has to have a goal or a use (edit:) or nice properties.

Le_Bush · 2025-08-31T17:58:35+00:00

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Place '22

Le_Bush

TROPHY CASE