"Fermat's Last Theorem" Disproved?
in [Math]
|
From: Frederick Williams on 29 Jul 2010 09:42 cjcountess wrote: > > And unite lengths are just as different from abstract non dimensional > integers Integers don't have a dimension, do they? Maybe they have dimension 0. I know nothing about these things. So that something which we have in common. My spell checker tells me that your name should be spelt "coconuts". -- I can't go on, I'll go on.
From: cjcountess on 29 Jul 2010 11:06 Virgil, Gary, Bert, I appreciate your comments and see your points Frederick, I appreciate yours too, except for that last sentence, which is childish. Have you ever questioned anything, tried to take it too its logical limits, to see for yourself, if what people say is true, and if you may in fact discover something that they missed, even if you don't find what you originaly started looking for? Well, you ought to try it, you just might learn something, and have a little more respect for those of us who do. By the way Virgil, it would be "way over HIS head", if it is indeed not completely true, for me to find the flaw, so you say. But you are not sure. Just because you don't you don't see a reason to question the theorem doesn't mean that there is non. And just because I don't find a disproof for the theorem as presently written, doesn't mean that the soundness of the theorem doesn't stand on a choice of words, that if changed or extended in meaning, would disprove it. The comment about not understanding the difference between real numbers which represent arbitrary lengths, and integers, which don't, may or may not be true. Maybe the differences are more unreal than real. I happen to think that the choice of words: no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of n greater than two. may indeed be flawed because there are no such "dimensionless integers", apart from things except in the mind, because in the natural world where E=mc^2, a(mc^2) + b(mc^2) = c(mc^2) no matter how many times its squared, and to me that means something. Because in natural unites, which are the only true building blocks of nature, any amount of objects squared, cubed and so on, could be translated to E=mc^2. And really that was my basic motivation, to see how the Pythagorean and Fermat theorems relate to E=mc^2, F=mv^2, E=m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 and other physics concepts. And by the way. I still say that the cube is the square of a square, even if not viewed that way concerning non dimensional integers. The reason being is, if you square a 1D line by extending it at 90 degree angle, into 2D, the same height as it is long, to repeat the same process with the 2D square, is to extend it into 3D as a cube. Geometrically, a cube is the square of a square. And furthermore, I think that the theorem only holds true for integers that correspond to 1D geometrical unite lengths, related to right triangle, as an extension of "Pythagorean theorem", and as such, has no reality apart from that. Conrad J Countess
From: Michael Stemper on 29 Jul 2010 13:27 In article <60453070-4ffc-4bc7-b29d-dbe8591baebb(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, cjcountess <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> writes: >Have you ever questioned anything, tried to take it too its logical >limits, to see for yourself, if what people say is true, and if you >may in fact discover something that they missed, even if you don't >find what you originaly started looking for? That's a fundamental part of doing mathematics. >And just because I don't find a disproof for the theorem as presently >written, doesn't mean that the soundness of the theorem doesn't stand >on a choice of words, Of course it does. The theorem is based precisely on its statement. > words, that if changed or extended in meaning, would >disprove it. If you change the statement of the theorem, you don't disprove the theorem as originally stated. You get a new statement, one which might be true or false. >The comment about not understanding the difference between real >numbers which represent arbitrary lengths, Real numbers are not defined as representing lengths. They can be used to represent lengths, or durations, or masses, or frequencies. That's what makes them useful, but it's not part of their definition. >numbers which represent arbitrary lengths, and integers, which don't, >may or may not be true. It sure seems that way. It's pretty simple to disprove, though. Just give us a definition of "integer" and we'll believe you. >I happen to think that the choice of words: > >no three positive integers a, b, >and c can satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of >n greater than two. > >may indeed be flawed Whether you like the choice of words or not is irrelevant. That is what the statement of the theorem is. If you choose to change words or redefine them, you might very well come up with something that is false. But, that something will not be Fermat's Last Theorem, because it's something else. > there are no such "dimensionless >integers", apart from things except in the mind, There's your problem. That's exactly where mathematics exists -- in the mind. > because in the >natural world where E=mc^2, a(mc^2) + b(mc^2) = c(mc^2) no matter how >many times its squared, and to me that means something. Incoherent babble, bringing in an irrelevant equation. > which are the only true building blocks of >nature, any amount of objects squared, cubed and so on, could be >translated to E=mc^2. More parroting of things that you've heard but don't comprehend. Squaring and cubing objects doesn't turn them into an equation. Even if it does happen to involve squaring. >And really that was my basic motivation, to see how the Pythagorean >and Fermat theorems relate to E=mc^2, F=mv^2, E=m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 and >other physics concepts. They have nothing to do with each other. >And by the way. I still say that the cube is the square of a square, Well, you're wrong. >And furthermore, I think that the theorem only holds true for integers >that correspond to 1D geometrical unite lengths, related to right >triangle, as an extension of "Pythagorean theorem", and as such, has >no reality apart from that. Well, you're partly right here. The theorem is only about positive integers. It's pretty obvious that, if you extend it to reals, there are infinitely many solutions for any n. -- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.
From: Virgil on 29 Jul 2010 16:45 In article <60453070-4ffc-4bc7-b29d-dbe8591baebb(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, cjcountess <cjcountess(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Virgil, Gary, Bert, > > I appreciate your comments and see your points > > > But you are not sure. Just because you don't you don't see a reason to > question the theorem doesn't mean that there is non. If your mean "none", there is also no reason to question a proof that has been repeatedly vetted by experts well beyond your own powers of discrimination unless you have a positive reason to suspect that it is flawed. > > And just because I don't find a disproof for the theorem as presently > written, doesn't mean that the soundness of the theorem doesn't stand > on a choice of words, that if changed or extended in meaning, would > disprove it. The words in which the theorem is stated have been studied for other meanings by many better men than either of us for over 3 centuries, and there is no reason to suppose they have missed anything relevant that you are competent to discover. > > I happen to think that the choice of words: > > no three positive integers a, b, > and c can satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of > n greater than two. > > may indeed be flawed because there are no such "dimensionless > integers" The natural numbers, as described by the Peano Postulates, exist quite free of any necessity of dimensionality.
From: spudnik on 7 Aug 2010 16:24
yeah, blather & mud; go ahead, don't read Fermat et al & *be happy* with your self. > This will become clearer in time thus: compared to "yeah, nine tenths of all glaciers are melting," we have the extra decimal place of alleged veracity, "ninety-seven per cent of climate scientists," possibly just referrng to GCMers (that is, students of, y'know .-) thus: the OP's article mentioned the #1 unexplained anomaly, that there's more warming at night & winter, and winter nights, although this may not actually extend to the poles, except where they are using rectal thermometers. > Reading through the above I see "According to the NCDC, the most > lethal weather catastrophes in the US in the last 30 years were the > heatwaves of 1980 and 1988 with somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 > fatalities between them." and "The National Institute on Aging (NIA) > estimates that over 2.5 million older Americans are especially > vulnerable to hypothermia, and Dr. Richard Besdine of the Harvard > Medical School estimates that 25,000 older adults may die from > hypothermia each year in the United States." thus: that's in its own "resting" frame of reference, as with Galilean relativity. I also appreciate the citation of Huyghens, whhofrom ____ got the math to make the inverse- second-power law from Kepler's orbital constraints. all of these things are "invariant" within the object's frame of rest, so, you can just say that the relativistic increase of mass etc., is just a matter of trying to stop it. of course, Minkowski obfuscated every God-am thing with his little lectures about phase-space; then, he ... nevermind! > It has nothing to do with earth. thus: you were around, what -- a FOX news transmitter?... well, you'd get more radiation, sitting so close to TV!... so, anyway, check the UNSCEAR 2000 report; if it had been redacted of the word, Chernobyl, you wouldn't know that it was the same hyped-over area. yes, the SU authorities mistakenly tried to cover it up, such as they could for a while, and thus also failed to distrbute the iodine tablet prophylactics for the possiblity of Cesium-137 poisoning, but that is mostly ameliorated by not drinking milk from grass-fed cows, for a number of months. > Bullshit. Unlike you, I was around at the time. The west didn't even know > something was happening until they detected radioactive elements in the wind > coming over europe. thus: ah, yes; resistanceless!... so, for realism, what'd be the minimum "boost," as the bobsledder approacheth the antipode at sealevel, to get back to the start? I didn't think, though, that the brachistochrone/tautochrone was cycloidal, but that roundtrip makes me wonder. > > just drop it. > Well, well that's just a trivial case ;-) How about a half-pipe > brachistochrone going from point A 5000km above the ground to > ground-zero at the antipodal point and ending at point A again going > once around the equator? --les ducs du bp!! http://tarpley.net --Light, A History! http://wlym.com |