A simple proof of FLT
in [Math]
|
Prev: OFFICIAL - 170 MILLION LIST OF PURE PRIME NUMBERS AND PLACEMENT TO BE POSTED AT SCI MATH TOMMOROW
Next: Galois Theory, field of rational functions
From: J. Clarke on 22 May 2010 13:32 On 5/22/2010 11:12 AM, DRMARJOHN wrote: >> I would like to see a simple proof of FLT. Is there >> any theoretical >> reason why a simple proof of FLT cannot exist? > > You ask a resonable question, and you get a lot of flak. I, a non mathematician who have the same curiosity for many years, also get flak. There must be an approach that brings out the basic mathematical rules underlying FLT. Why "must" there be such a "framework"? Is it inconceivable to you that some problems are just hard and complicated?
From: Ostap Bender on 29 May 2010 02:54 On May 22, 10:32 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 5/22/2010 11:12 AM, DRMARJOHN wrote: > > >> I would like to see a simple proof of FLT. Is there > >> any theoretical > >> reason why a simple proof of FLT cannot exist? > > > You ask a resonable question, and you get a lot of flak. I, a non mathematician who have the same curiosity for many years, also get flak. There must be an approach that brings out the basic mathematical rules underlying FLT. > > Why "must" there be such a "framework"? Is it inconceivable to you that > some problems are just hard and complicated? What I don't understand is why people would demand a simple solution to V^n + B^n = C^n How about A^7n + B^19n = C^11n How about the multitude of all the possible problems of the form a*A^(d*n) + b*B^(f*n) = c*C^(g*n) where a, b, c, d, f, g are some fixed integers. These seem to me to be esoteric questions of no interest to Nature/ God. It would be a miracle if anybody could solve even a small percentage of them. I am surprised that FLT has been solved.
From: Ostap Bender on 29 May 2010 02:57 On May 28, 11:54 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 22, 10:32 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > On 5/22/2010 11:12 AM, DRMARJOHN wrote: > > > >> I would like to see a simple proof of FLT. Is there > > >> any theoretical > > >> reason why a simple proof of FLT cannot exist? > > > > You ask a resonable question, and you get a lot of flak. I, a non mathematician who have the same curiosity for many years, also get flak. There must be an approach that brings out the basic mathematical rules underlying FLT. > > > Why "must" there be such a "framework"? Is it inconceivable to you that > > some problems are just hard and complicated? > > What I don't understand is why people would demand a simple solution > to > > V^n + B^n = C^n > > How about > > A^7n + B^19n = C^11n > > How about the multitude of all the possible problems of the form > > a*A^(d*n) + b*B^(f*n) = c*C^(g*n) > > where a, b, c, d, f, g are some fixed integers. > > These seem to me to be esoteric questions of no interest to Nature/ > God. It would be a miracle if anybody could solve even a small > percentage of them. I am surprised that FLT has been solved. Given simple "modulo" arguments, let me change "a small percentage" to "most".
From: Ostap Bender on 29 May 2010 03:06 On May 22, 8:12 am, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > > I would like to see a simple proof of FLT. Is there > > any theoretical > > reason why a simple proof of FLT cannot exist? > > You ask a resonable question, and you get a lot of flak. I, a non mathematician who have the same curiosity for many years, also get flak. There must be an approach that brings out the basic mathematical rules underlying FLT. The proof is in the pudding. Tens of thousands of great minds have spent innumerable months in the past several centuries trying to find a simple proof and failed. However, if you think that everybody else in the World is too dumb, you two are more than welcome to seek a simple proof of FLT for yourselves. If and when you find such proof - make it polished, air- tight and complete, and post it. But make sure that your proof is complete and correct, because there is only finite time that readers can devote to reading such claims. Make sure you don't act like the boy who cried wolf. Have fun, and good luck!
From: spudnik on 29 May 2010 21:49
Fermatttt realized that his "miraculous" proof did not apply to the rather peculiar case of n=4. the only unsolved conjecture of his is "the characterization of the Fermattttt primes, beyond that of Gauss." (iff you want to get into that, there is a great book from Societe Mathematique Canadienne, _Seventeen Essays on Fermat Numbers_ ... maybe I can locate that great review, but my mom found it on Amazon. > Have fun, and good luck! thusNso: my format is just self-publishing, but always responding (top-posting) to the subjectum. Tom Gold's theory hasn't been tested, only it has; the oilcos just haven't realeased the C14/C12 ratio of their "fingerprints of adjacent holes." no oil is "Fossilized Fuel TM;" that is nothing, but a tradename, with no technical significance (unless, you consdier, "sediments pile-up in the ocean, and their own weight creates hydrocarbons," to be a theory .-) of course, Earth is growing, but this depends not only on falling- in space-junk, but the biota of the outermost layers & the noosphere.... I don't see what the problem is with plate tectonics, over-all, although "currents in the mantle" is a known absurdity, from the seismic data (on the other hand, there are so many weird pahses of rocks at temperature & pressure, like ice .-) volcanos produce huge amounts of CO2, and CFCs and so on. > Actually I think, that oil is not fossilized biomass, but comes from > deep inside in the inner earth. The why and hows about this idea is > another interesting, but very different and difficult subject. thusNso: hogwash; spacetime is just a phase-space, three orthogonal (and imaginary) coordinates in space, one (real) scalar time; til Gibbs dysassembled Hamilton's "inner and outer products" into his version of Hamilton's "vectors & scalars." > (And that is the reason we need complex fourvectors, because > these are fully-symmetric upon the change of the timeline.) thusNso: you don't read Shakespeare til the eleventh grading, or it could seriously mess you "up." til then, one can readily study *mathematica*, which is four subjects, in a "hands-on" manner that does not really require the full-throated use of language -- that one is learning, by doing stuff. I like UD's _Math.Cranks_, because, in his chapter on fermatistes, he only made one mistake, that I can find, now, and he had acknowledged it, when I told him. also, he seems to have left numbertheory, out, and that's one of the four, the true meaning of "higher arithmetic." > http://www.ams.org/notices/201005/rtx100500608p.pdf > author would be in not including Geometry explicitly as part of > mathematics: "So that there is no confusion, let me say that by > 'mathematics' I mean algebra, trigonometry, calculus, linear algebra, > and so on: all those subjects beyond arithmetic." thusNso: textbooks are often *generically* bad glosses on the discoveries in the original monographs, or simply pedantic workbooks. the real empty set, to me, is those who attempt proofs, without any grounding in elementary geometrical & numbertheory proofs -- see wlym.com. and, recall, it was Liebniz who gave the generic format of "iff," which is necessity & sufficiency, used meaningfully in various ways in natural language. the New Math following upon General Bourbaki was a silly thing, since you *need* natural language (and diagrams etc.) to make ready analogies & metaphors for your work. such that, the glaring example of Bourbakism was perhaps Russell's illinguistic "paradoxes" -- whence "silly" deploys from over-reliance on Aristotle's syllogisms! --Stop BP's capNtrade rip-off; call Waxman & tell him, we need a small *tax* on carbon emmissions, instead of "let the arbitrageurs raise the price of CO2 as much as they can -- free trade, free beer, free dumb!" http://wlym.com |