Fermat's Last Theorem simple proof impossible?
in [Math]
|
From: Mensanator on 3 May 2010 18:04 On May 3, 3:12 pm, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > > On 5/1/2010 6:26 PM, DRMARJOHN wrote: > I AM NOT A MATHEMATICIAN SO NO JOURNAL WILL PUBLISH MY SPECULATIONS. What a shame. > IT IS HERE IN THIS FORUM THAT THESE IDEAS CAN BE EVALUATED. Lucky us. > TO CONTINUE: Caps lock broken? > > THERE IS AN "A" AND A "B" THAT IS THE FIRST POSSIBLE SET WITH RATIONAL ROOTS MORE THAN AND LESS THAN THE IRRATIONAL ROOT OF .5000. THERE IS A SECOND SET WITH RATIONAL ROOTS THAT IS ABOVE AND BELOW THE ROOT OF .5000 THAT IS SEPARATE BY THREE. THERE IS A THIRD SET THAT IS SEPARATE BY 5, THERE IS A 4TH SET....THERE IS AN NTH SET. Wow! > ALL THESE SETS REPRESENT THE TOTAL DOMAIN OF RATIONAL NUMBERS. THERE IS A SIMPLE COMPUTATIONAL REASON THAT SUCH An AND Bn CAN NEVER ADD TO I.000. Ooo! > ALL THE PAIRS OF A AND B ARE PAIRS OF EVEN AND ODD. THE EXPONENTIAL MULTIPLICATION OF AN EVEN DIGIT ALWAYS GIVES AN EVEN NUMBER, OF AN ODD ALWAYS YIELDS AN ODD. AN EVEN AND AN ODD NEVER CAN ADD TO A Cn OF 1.000 THAT IS EVEN.. Really? > > I AM ONLY PRESENTING THIS SIMPLE APPROACH TO ILLUSTRATE THE PROCESS OF FLT. Ahh. > IT DOES HAVE THE SIMPLICITY THAT FERMAT COULD ENTERTAIN IN HIS ERA. Yep, we need simpletons to show us the way. > AND I UNDERSTAND THAT HE RARELY GAVE AWAY THE BASIS FOR HIS THINKING. Too bad everybody doesn't keep their ideas to themselves. > > PLEASE CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION. I think I'll give it a miss. > MARTIN JOHNSON
From: Gerry Myerson on 3 May 2010 18:46 In article <2116103337.65452.1272917558665.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org>, DRMARJOHN <MJOHNMAR(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > I AM NOT A MATHEMATICIAN SO NO JOURNAL WILL PUBLISH MY SPECULATIONS. Until you learn how to use lower case letters, no one will read them, either. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: DRMARJOHN on 4 May 2010 09:29 > In article > <2116103337.65452.1272917558665.JavaMail.root(a)gallium. > mathforum.org>, > DRMARJOHN <MJOHNMAR(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > > > I AM NOT A MATHEMATICIAN SO NO JOURNAL WILL PUBLISH > MY SPECULATIONS. > > Until you learn how to use lower case letters, > no one will read them, either. > >I will do that: I can recognize that I begin with obvious statements. Is it also obvious that the first pair of rational roots above and below the irrational root of .5000 ends in an even and an odd digit? and therefore they can never add to the even 1.000 of Cn? I appreciate that you use your name. Martin Johnson. e> Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for > email)
From: Gerry Myerson on 5 May 2010 00:31 In article <957028201.71142.1272994228060.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org>, DRMARJOHN <MJOHNMAR(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > > In article > > <2116103337.65452.1272917558665.JavaMail.root(a)gallium. > > mathforum.org>, > > DRMARJOHN <MJOHNMAR(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > > > > > I AM NOT A MATHEMATICIAN SO NO JOURNAL WILL PUBLISH > > MY SPECULATIONS. > > > > Until you learn how to use lower case letters, > > no one will read them, either. > > > >I will do that: I can recognize that I begin with obvious statements. Is it > >also obvious that the first pair of rational roots above and below the > >irrational root of .5000 ends in an even and an odd digit? and therefore > >they can never add to the even 1.000 of Cn? No, it's not obvious, because it's not obvious what you mean by "the irrational root of .5," and it's not obvious what you mean by "the first rational root above" this or that number, and it's not obvious what it means for a number to end in an even digit (unless it's a whole number), and it's not obvious what you mean by Cn. Most of all, it's not obvious why anyone would think it possible to make a contribution to FLT using high school algebra. It's a bit like thinking it possible to find a cure for cancer using high school biology. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: J. Clarke on 5 May 2010 08:44
On 5/5/2010 12:31 AM, Gerry Myerson wrote: > In article > <957028201.71142.1272994228060.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org>, > DRMARJOHN<MJOHNMAR(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > >>> In article >>> <2116103337.65452.1272917558665.JavaMail.root(a)gallium. >>> mathforum.org>, >>> DRMARJOHN<MJOHNMAR(a)AOL.COM> wrote: >>> >>>> I AM NOT A MATHEMATICIAN SO NO JOURNAL WILL PUBLISH >>> MY SPECULATIONS. >>> >>> Until you learn how to use lower case letters, >>> no one will read them, either. >>> >>> I will do that: I can recognize that I begin with obvious statements. Is it >>> also obvious that the first pair of rational roots above and below the >>> irrational root of .5000 ends in an even and an odd digit? and therefore >>> they can never add to the even 1.000 of Cn? > > No, it's not obvious, because it's not obvious what you mean by > "the irrational root of .5," and it's not obvious what you mean by > "the first rational root above" this or that number, and it's not > obvious what it means for a number to end in an even digit (unless > it's a whole number), and it's not obvious what you mean by Cn. > > Most of all, it's not obvious why anyone would think it possible > to make a contribution to FLT using high school algebra. It's > a bit like thinking it possible to find a cure for cancer using > high school biology. I think the answer to that last is "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". It takes a certain level of "mathematical maturity" before the concept of "really, really, really, really _hard_ math problem" has meaning to one. > |