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: Ostap Bender on 30 May 2010 00:42 On May 29, 6:49 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 Could you please do me a big favor and not follow-up my posts with your spam?
From: spudnik on 30 May 2010 15:12 it wasn't SpamTM; it was maybe mental masturbation. probably, Fermatttt had an insight, that we today call "p-adics," and there is glaring evidence that he did, and they are simple, although "non-archimedean." > Could you please do me a big favor and not follow-up my posts with > your spam? thusNso: I meant, shouldn't force kids to read Shakespeare (or any thing else) til they are 11 *years* old, or about 5th grading. the proper hands-on study for pre-pubescence ought to be spatial geometry, astronomy, music & numberthory, a.k.a. *mathematica* or *quadrivium* -- not the God-am 3 Rs of the *trivium*, to impose life- long impedimentia. > It would seem bizarre, if Dudley did not think > that geometry was part of mathematics. thusNso: all that it shows, since no violation of causality is known, is that the pair of waves are correlated, from the "splitting" to the absorption, and how could that be? get rid of the "particle" ideal of Einstein's "photon," and most (or all) all of the quandary goes away. (then, dump Minkowski's silly slogan about phase-space-and-then-he-died .-) > Quantum mechanics predicts that measuring the spin of > one proton in an entangled pair will affect the state > of the other proton. --Stop BP's capNtrade rip-off, "hey, let's just let a bunch of arbitrageurs/hackers make as much money as they can, trading CO2 credits!"
From: DRMARJOHN on 5 Jun 2010 04:21 > > 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. > > Martin Johnson 6-5-10 FLT 6-3-10 A^n + B^n = 1 This approach to structuring the problem of FLT is different than the traditional approach. First, instead of asking what A and B may yield a rational correct C, this approach begins with (A^n) and (B^n) as rational numbers derived from an unknown A and B, e.g., when (A^n) = .6 and (B^n) = .4, then .6+.4=1. It asks, what is the characteristic of the A & B that gives these rational answers. Second, this is not exploring the FLT for any certain exponent. Instead it begins with 5+.5=1 and illustrates the process for all exponents from 3 to infinity. Instead of starting with success as dependent on rational whole numbers, this begins with the statement that success of A^n and B^n comes from irrational numbers. This is a counter-intuitive approach, and thus, I would suggest, has been overlooked. Martin Johnson
From: Gerry on 5 Jun 2010 08:56 On Jun 5, 10:21 pm, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > This approach to structuring the problem of FLT is different > than the traditional approach.... This is a counter-intuitive > approach, and thus, I would suggest, has been overlooked. Of course, you've read everything that's ever been written about FLT, so you know for a fact that in 350 years no one ever thought of trying what you are suggesting. -- GM
From: Ostap Bender on 5 Jun 2010 17:08
On Jun 5, 5:21 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. > > > Martin Johnson > > 6-5-10 > FLT 6-3-10 A^n + B^n = 1 > > This approach to structuring the problem of FLT is different than the traditional approach. First, instead of asking what A and B may yield a rational correct C, this approach begins with (A^n) and (B^n) as rational numbers derived from an unknown A and B, e.g., when (A^n) = .6 and (B^n) = .4, then .6+.4=1. It asks, what is the characteristic of the A & B that gives these rational answers. Second, this is not exploring the FLT for any certain exponent. Instead it begins with 5+.5=1 and illustrates the process for all exponents from 3 to infinity. Instead of starting with success as dependent on rational whole numbers, this begins with the statement that success of A^n and B^n comes from irrational numbers. This is a counter-intuitive approach, and thus, I would suggest, has been overlooked. It sounds indeed like a counter-intuitive approach to me, in the sense that my intuition tells me that it is totally fruitless. But since you keep on telling us about it, you must have succeeded with this seemingly pointless approach. So, what is your rigorous proof of FLT using this approach? I can't wait to see it. The intrigue is killing me. Please post your proof, at last! |