My discovery about mathematics

                                                    1

Beal conjectre(BC) and Riemann hypothesis (RH) aren't provable in the formalism.

                                                     2

Let X (⊃ZF) be a countable axiom system of the standard mathematics.
Put ∅=0, S(x)=x∪{x}, S(0)=1,S(1)=2,…, N={0,1,2.…}. You may set up that (0∈I)∧∀n((n∈I)→(S(n)∈I)) ∈X and
∀n((n∈N")↔(n∈I)∧∀y((0∈y)∧∀z(((z∈y)→(S(z)∈y))→(n∈y)) ∈X.
Let d be an individual symbol which X doesn't include. If X isconsistent,
X∪{d∈N", 0∈d,1∈d,…,n∈d} has a model in which I=N"=N and d=n+1 and is consistent for ∀n∈N.
X"= X∪{d∈N", 0∈d,1∈d, 2∈d,…(infinitely)} is consistent and has a model M".
If N is a set in M", N"-N=∅ in M". So N isn't a set in M".
Let f(s)=∑_m∈N c_ms^m be an integral function.
.Set up that ∀s((s∈C")→(w(m,s)=c_ms^m+w(m+1,s)∈X (m∈N) and
∀n((n∈N"-{0})→∃m((m∈N")∧∀m"((m"∈N")∧(m"≥m)→(|w(m",s)|≤1/n))))∈X.
When N"=N and s∈C"=C, X proves that w(m,s)→0 (m→∞) and w(0,s)=f(s) then.
X has the model in which N"=N, C"=C,w(m,s)=∑_{n∈N, n≥m} c_ms^m (s∈C).
Assume that X doesn't include the function symbols z(x). Let M be an arbitrary countable model of X.
Put U={s| (M |= s∈C")∧∃n((n∈N)∧(M= |s|≤n|))} and U"={s | (M |= (s∈C")∧(s∉ U)}.
Define the functions z(x) in M by z(s)=w(0,s) when s∈U and z(s)=0 when s∈U".
This M becomes a model of Z=X∪{∀s((s∈C")→((z(s)=w(0,s))∨(z(s)=0)))}.
Put P=(N"=N)∧(C"=C)∧(∀s(z(s)=f(s))).
Set up that f(s)=(s-1)ζ(s) and RH"=∀s((s∈C")∧(z(s)=0)→(Re(s)=1/2)∨∃n((n∈N"-{0})∧(s=-2n))).
P∧(X |- RH") ⇒ P∧(Z |- RH") ⇒ (Z |- RH").
Theorem 1. ¬(Z |- RH") if X is consistent.
Proof. M" |= (d∈C")∧(z(d)=0). M" |= (Re(d)≠1/2)∧∀n((n∈N"-{0})→(d≠-2n)). M" |= ¬(RH"). ¬(Z |- RH"). ♦
So P→¬(X |- RH"). RH isn't proved in the standard mathematics formally. (ζ(s)=0 ⇔ (s-1)ζ(s)=0).
Put f(s)=2^s+3^s-5^s and BC"=∀s((s∈N")∧(z(s)=0)→(s=1)∨(s=2)).
P∧(X |- BC") ⇒ P∧(Z |- BC")⇒ Z |- BC".
Theorem 2. ¬(Z |- BC") if X is consistent.
Proof. M" |= (d∈N"-{1,2})∧ (z(d)=0). M" |= ¬BC". ¬(Z |- BC").♦
So P→ ¬(X |- BC"). BC and Fermat conjecture (FC) aren't proved formally in the standard mathematics.
Put f(s)=s and Q=∀s((z(s)=0)→(s=0)). P→ ¬(X |- Q). P→¬(X |- ∀s((s=0)→(s=0)). X isn't consistent.

                                                3

The formalism isn't enough one to evolve the mathematics. The standard mathematics may be nonsense,though.