[QUOTE=Gandolf;443672]Any Fibonacci divisible by a WSS prime, would also trivially be the index of some other larger Fibonacci number. This means that an infinite number of Fibonacci's would have equal entry points, which is impossible by definition.[/QUOTE]

It's this kind of slippery logic that has me worried for the safety of your proof.

Explain your comment then. What have you misunderstood about the quote?

I never use slippery logic of any kind. In this case it is the mathematical community that has jumped to conclusions about WSS. I did para-phrase the solution for you, to make it easier to understand. My reward was to be thrown under the bus with my alleged slippery logic.

Charles, I hope it's okay for me to say this without you getting mad, but you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are.

I did have a chance to review Wall's paper today. I would say that he conjectured (weakly) that Wall-Sun-Sun primes exist, though he didn't venture to say if he thought there were infinitely many.

I haven't yet seen anything from you that suggests that you have a proof that there are no Wall-Sun-Sun primes. Since you have already have someone who has looked over your proof and have already submitted the result to a journal (which one?), I don't see a need to look it over further until it's published. Hopefully that version will be clearer.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;443720]I haven't yet seen anything from you that suggests that you have a proof that there are no Wall-Sun-Sun primes.
...Hopefully that version will be clearer.[/QUOTE]

Seeing, as one must look before they can see, I understand why you haven't seen anything.
You final comment was more of a passive aggressive one, since you admit you haven't looked, yet you imply that it isn't clear enough. Just speak the truth about what you know. I certainly don't need your slippery approval, and wild guesses.
Unless you have anything constructive to say, we are done.

[QUOTE=Gandolf;443721]Just speak the truth about what you know.[/QUOTE]

What I have seen of your proof does not inspire confidence in the correctness of your claims. I have spent about 20 minutes looking through your proof between your posts here and the Wikipedia page. The last manuscript I reviewed for a journal took me about 15 hours to referee. I'm happy keeping my time investment closer to the former than the latter here.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;443735]What I have seen of your proof does not inspire confidence in the correctness of your claims. I have spent about 20 minutes looking through your proof between your posts here and the Wikipedia page. The last manuscript I reviewed for a journal took me about 15 hours to referee. I'm happy keeping my time investment closer to the former than the latter here.[/QUOTE]

The hubris of the defeated. Spends, 20 minutes, finds absolutely no objections to any of the mathematical arguments. Then claims that the proof is somehow at fault, for his lack of something to object to. lol Classic

Gandolf, you are coming across as a surly crank.

[QUOTE=GP2;443743]Gandolf, you are coming across as a surly crank.[/QUOTE]
Sure, that was Charles's goal.

Could you keep on discussing math, and not resort to personal attacks?

Now let me ask a stupid question. I can not exactly visualize how this WSS primes look like. Are WSS primes also Wieferich primes? Does it mean that if we find a WSS prime, we'll also have a third Wieferich prime?

[QUOTE=LaurV;443753]Could you keep on discussing math, and not resort to personal attacks?

Now let me ask a stupid question. I can not exactly visualize how this WSS primes look like. Are WSS primes also Wieferich primes? Does it mean that if we find a WSS prime, we'll also have a third Wieferich prime?[/QUOTE]

I absolutely can talk to anyone that is polite and objective. I certainly didn't attack Charles first.

That's a good question as simple as it is.
The heuristic is based on that probability.
[QUOTE]Page 528
Wall Quote:
Remark. The most perplexing problem we have met in this study concerns the [B]hypothesis[/B] k_{p^2}\text{ not equal to } k_{p}.
We have run a test on digital computer.... ....however cannot [B]yet[/B] prove that k_{p^2} = k_{p} is impossible.
The question is closely related to... can a number x have the same order mod p and mod p^2?..., for which rare cases give an affirmative answer(e.g., x=3, p=11; x=2, p=1093); hence [I]one might conjecture[/I] that equality [I]may[/I] hold for some [B]exceptional[/B] p. [/QUOTE]

This is the origin of the split between his strong hypothesis, and the weaker conjecture that one(someone else;Sun Sun) might assert.
Notice he does not officially assert the conjecture himself. The paper shows nothing about this weaker conjecture, and is focused entirely on the hypothesis at hand. Although he admits that the question is open, since he could not prove otherwise.

Just figured I'd re-iterate that it was an open question, with a strong hypothesis, not just a weak conjecture as stated by Charles.

[QUOTE=Gandolf;443719]Charles, I hope it's okay for me to say this without you getting mad, but you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Gandolf;443758] I certainly didn't attack Charles first.
[/QUOTE]
You didn't?

Maybe you misunderstood the concept of the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope"]slippery slope[/URL]?
Slippery slope has to do with the logic of the argument. It has nothing to do with "attacking you"[B].
[/B]
In contrast, these are not just one but two personal attacks:
[QUOTE=Gandolf;443719]...without you getting mad, [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Gandolf;443719] ...but you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are.[/QUOTE]
Comments?