1 Poincare Conjecture Disproven, Proofs and Showings of No Need to Twist and Bend Manifolds Into Spheres! Are 3 dimensional surfaces one to one or homeomorphic with 3 dimensional spheres? Disproofs and lack of correlation, lack of need proofs follow. 1. Take a book and open and close the book. When we close the book, the point on a page does not map directly to the sphere; the point in the closed book travels differently to the sphere not the same travel as when the book is open. 2. We do not need to map the point on the book to the sphere, we might not want to map our books. 3. If we show a film of the story in the book, the story is not going to map to the sphere because the film is moving and the sphere is not. 4. Take 2 piles of sand and 2 piles of sand, can we map those to spheres? Yes but we can also map them into 4 piles or 3 piles of sand hence we do NOT need to map the piles into a sphere. 5. Take Lewis v. City of Chicago 2010 by Justice Antonin Scalia. If an employment practice is adopted, then we can file an EEOC charge later than when the policy was made. So if I like my coworker with European, Russian, Hispanic, Asian, African American ancestry, then someone can say my liking may be an illegal employment practice when I tell her that. If because of that idea, I rip the opinion up, the pieces will not map to a 3 sphere. If I burn the opinion which I have the right to do under some Supreme Court cases, then the opinion will not map to a 3 sphere. If I make copies of the opinion and give copies to my friends to say I may not be able to like them because that could have an employment discrimination effect, the many copies DO NOT map 2 one to one to a 3 sphere because there are 20 copies of Scalia's opinion. I cannot roll or twist the opinion into many 3 spheres. Some 3 spheres I can twist the opinion into, but not a 3 sphere that was say 50 feet tall. Another Poincare Disproof! You could not even bend or stretch the opinion into any 3 spheres if the opinion were say in a book or say being shown on a movie screen as separate words or pages. 6. Take a surface like the Sun, can I bend that into a sphere? The Sun would no longer be the Sun, so the Sun shows that the twisting and bending change the Sun not really a homeomorphic map but rather a map that changes the Sun. The mapping changes objects disproving the Conjecture as Poincare stated it. 7. Take an asteroid, can I twist that into the Earth a 3 sphere? I would need to add material, so the twisting would not be a one to one map. 8. Consider me, can you twist me into a sphere? Yes, but again a disproof as I DO NOT want to be twisted into a 3 sphere. 9. You can twist and bend me into a 3 sphere proving Poincare, but do you need to? No you can twist and bend me into many shapes showing that Poincare is false and also you can leave me alone and not bend me into a 3 sphere again disproving the Conjecture of Henri Poincare, mathematician in France in the 19th and 20th centuries. 10. 2 surfaces plus 2 surfaces, do we need to map those to 3 spheres? We could, but we DO NOT NEED TO. Mapping is an optional mathematical relationship just like showing homeomorphic relationships. Poincare could be shown true, disproved, and shown to be not needed to be shown. Henri, thank you for help showing a slightly more complicated world than something open just to proofs! 3 James T. STruck BA, BS, AA, MLIS P OBOX61 Evanston IL 60204

- math,
- poincare,
- conjecture,
- disproven,
- no correlation,
- no need correlation,
- homeomorphic,
- bending,
- twisting,
- Lewis v. City of Chicago

*Math mag, Science, Belgian Math, Lithuanian math, Russian math, Math notes*(2013)

Available at: http://works.bepress.com/james_struck/35/