Prev: Circle-Circle Intersection
Next: string of integers puzzle
From: spudnik on 6 May 2010 01:39
anyway, look-up Sophie's proof, and
see if you can apply your "form"
to exponents of that class.
From: ThinkTank on 5 May 2010 21:45
> In article
> <1595104331.80090.1273121129807.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.
> mathforum.org>,
> ThinkTank <ebiglari(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Suppose Fermat's Last Theorem could be proven for
> all n and a,b,c of the
> > form:
> >
> > sum(i=0,k) d_i*2^(m*i), for all k>=0, and one
> m=n^3,
> >
> > where d_i is an element of {0,1}, and q_n is an
> integer constant for each n.
>
> What?
>
> "q_n is an integer constant for each n" but there's
> no other mention
> of q_n.
>
> "one m = n^3" but there is only one m. Maybe m*i was
> supposed
> to be m_i?
>

Sorry, editing error. I changed q_n to m to make it more
readable. Also I removed the restriction of one m. There
is one m per n, not just one m. That is, m=n^3 is the
correct statement. You can ignore any statement
regarding q_n.

> --
> Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for
> email)
From: ThinkTank on 5 May 2010 22:32
Yes, I am very familiar with Sophie Germain primes. If I haven't made any mistakes, my proof applies to all n, and divides FLT into 2 cases for even and odd n. Furthermore, I think my proof can be extended to Beal's conjecture as well. But, before I get anyone too excited, I need to check my work. There must be a mistake somewhere. It couldn't possibly be as easy as my proof tends to imply.
From: Arturo Magidin on 6 May 2010 13:29
On May 5, 11:58 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> you mean, it's easy for the Sophie Germaine primes?
>
> thus:
> in contrast to Magadin's assertion,

If you are going to misrepresent what I say, and continue to speak in
your mostly unintelligible and silly manner, then I'm glad you are too
dumb to get my name right.

On the other hand, perhaps you might consider dropping my name out of
your imaginative but utterly unsupported musings. I already get enough
idiocy sent my way, I don't need your further contributions.

--
Arturo Magidin
From: spudnik on 6 May 2010 14:56
well, doctor magIdin,
you can assert what ever you wish to clarify, of course, and
have a nice day.

thus:
um, why do some folks seem to assume that
oil companies do not support capNtrade,
the Kyoto Protocol (capNtrade) or
Waxman's '91 bill on NOx and SO2 (capNtrade) --
why would that be?

> Its even worse. Limbaugh Repubs are blaming magical appearances of
> peaceniks coming on board the oil platform and starting the fire and
> oil spill in the Gulf. Amazing.

thus:
anyway, the real problem is yours, of "reifying the math,"
just because you can write some formulary that happens
to include a "mass" in it (does YP think,
MKS stands for "mass-kosher-system?"), and therefore
the funky Newtonic corpuscle can be said a)
to exist and b)
to "have momentum," the *sine qua non* of has-to-
be-not-no-mass, because "then, the momentum'd be nothing viz the God-
am formula."

that is to say, the Nobel-winning, Newton-saving photoelectrical
effect
is nothing, but an instrumental datum (not a particle, as proven
by Young et al in the interim between "classical" and "Copenhagenskool
yardcat"
-- sheesh).

"there are no photons" and
"death to the lightcone -- long-live the lightcone-heads!"

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com

--Stop Waxman's #2 capNtrade rip-off (unless,
you like gasoline at a dime per drop)
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Circle-Circle Intersection
Next: string of integers puzzle