My post is my cite. 
Your cite says the opposite of what you’re saying
Still, if you don’t have anything better than what Google can come up with - don’t bother. I did a little digging and it appears that while some signs do point that Cecil is Zotti, there isn’t a definitive answer available. Hasn’t anyone asked Cecil if he exists? 
My apologies though I fail to see how I insulted him. Though this happens a lot (social skills issue no doubt) so I’ll defer to your judgement.
Don please work harder to understand what everyone else is saying about your paper, I’m afraid they’re right.
Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
On a slightly more relevant note, Don Blazys shares Chris Langan’s convinction in the existence of God… for mathematical reasons.
Oh and I think a translateral shunt leaves me in Cockfosters.
Here is a more recent article on Cecil, although it doesn’t provide a definitive answer, it parts the curtains briefly.
Ah - I was wondering why you were walking like that.
Moderator note: Let’s keep this focused on Don Blazys’s post and topic. The question of Cecil’s existence has been raised before, and he gets a big kick out of it, but it’s not appropriate here (for one thing, it may keep this thread going longer than is reasonable.)
But. . . the thread went longer than is reasonable with the first response!:eek:
The link in that goes to Chris Langen’s “proof.” It is utter and totally non-mathematical gibberish.
Using that type of “logic” and “reasoning” one could prove anything at all, even that… oh, hi Dex.
Speaking of going on longer than reasonable…why is this thread in this forum? What Cecil or staff article does it relate to?
Just using up my “chance to help” chit.
I wrote that long ago with tongue firmly in cheek, but it’s nice to see that somebody read it and liked it :).
The list of Don’s errors is too long to go into; there are so many. The sad part is that Don, who has no formal education in math btw, refuses to recognize any of them. Some he argues against using absurd logic; and those he can’t find an absurd point to believe in, he finds a reason to ignore. Usually by insulting the person who pointed them out, which I’m sure he will soon do to me (again).
A basic outline of Don’s “proof,” and my counterproof, goes like this:[ol][li]Assume that for some function F(.,.); for the integers A, B, and C; and some more integers X, Y, and Z; that F(A,X)+F(B,Y)=F(C,Z).[/li][li]The function F(.,.) involves another integer. Don used 2, but I repalced it with an arbitrary N. The point is that F(.,.) is well-defined for the all of the integers A, B, C, X, Y, Z, and N that we want to consider.[/li][li]Inside F(C,Z), and ignoring A, B, X, and Y, Don multiplied a numerator and a denominator by an unknown constant T. This is perfectly valid, and is about the only thing he does that is.[/li][li]Then he rearranges F(C,Z), using a transformation that is indeterminate if T=C. But he refuses to recognize this particular, well-defined indeterminate form as being indeterminate.[/li][li]He then notes that if Z=N, he can reduce this new form algebraically to remove what he calls “a division by zero,” but the Math world recognizes as an indeterminate form. But if Z!=N, he can’t, and the division by zero (really an indeterminate form) remains in the expression, which is what makes it indeterminate.[/li][li]Because now Don can’t evaulate F(C,Z) unless Z=N, he concludes that Z can only be equal to N in F(A,X)+F(B,Y)=F(C,Z).[/ol][/li]Don only applied his proof to N=2, so that his conclusion says the same thing as Beal’s Conjecture. But even if the steps 4 thru 6 were correct, what it would actually prove is that F(C,Z) can only be evaluated at Z=N regardless of any relationship it has with A, B, X, and Y. But as I said before, F(C,Z) is indeed well defined at all those integers. It is (C^(Z/N))^N = C^Z. Don’s “proof” shows that C^Z can’t be evaluated unless Z=2.
Don’s been shown all this, and finds absurd arguments agains all of it. But the main point of that particular counterproof was in the integer N that I added. Doing so makes Don’s conclusion translate to “in A^X+B^Y=C^Z, Z can be any arbitrary integer N you choose, and can’t be any other N.” Which is paradoxical - what if somebody else wanted to use a different N? So Don’s proof must be incorrect.
I’m not expert but JeffJo’s comment has an air of knowing what the fuck he’s talking about to it.
Moderator intervenes:
Yes, JeffJo’s comments seem to be knowledge-based. They also seem to be based on interaction with Don Blazys elsewhere. Please don’t bring disagreements from other message boards, here.
This question seems to have been asked and answered. It was aimed exclusively at Cecil, and Cecil hasn’t wanted to respond. The flaws in the “proof” have been noted by others. Consequently, I’m closing this thread.
PS - I have a Ph.D. in mathematics (algebraic topology to be specific), although I’ve been out of the field for 30 years. I do have some knowledge of math journals and the (very rigorous) refereeing process, and I’m assuming that hasn’t changed much. I didn’t look at the proof closely because rejection by math journals was sufficient for me, and I’m NOT Cecil by any stretch of the imagination (I just sort his mail.) However, once we learn (thanks, Irishman!) that division by zero is hidden in the proof, that’s a sufficient stopping point for me.