Prev: Wiles never proved anything about FLT...
Next: Not only possible, but soon to be complete.
From: DRMARJOHN on 9 Jun 2010 12:08
My work is NOT to prove. My interest from 15 years ago has been to try to understand FLT in some elementary way, and recently to express what is in my brain in some way that you mathematicians may comprehend, and then you may offer the contradictions I need to hear in order to work on this more (e.g., the recent comment 'necessary
From: DRMARJOHN on 9 Jun 2010 12:10
> My work is NOT to prove. My interest from 15 years
> ago has been to try to understand FLT in some
> elementary way, and recently to express what is in my
> brain in some way that you mathematicians may
> comprehend, and then you may offer the contradictions
> I need to hear in order to work on this more (e.g.,
> the recent comment 'necessary and insufficient')
Martin Johnson
From: spudnik on 9 Jun 2010 18:32
you may not have a problem with neccesity & sufficiency, iff
you can use those words in ordinary sentences. (like,
the village barber doesn't neccesarily cut his own hair, if
he goes to the barber in the next village).

your problem is termed "ill-posedness." (like,
there are infinitely many irrationals between any two rationals,
as well as between any two irrationals.)

> This is a complete set of A^n +B^n that have an irrational B.

--Fermat's Next Theorem!
http://wlym.com
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Wiles never proved anything about FLT...
Next: Not only possible, but soon to be complete.