Fermat's Last Theorem simple proof impossible?
in [Math]
|
From: Mike Terry on 22 May 2010 11:03 "DRMARJOHN" <MJOHNMAR(a)AOL.COM> wrote in message news:324363790.201068.1274445624339.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org... > There is a simple illustration to FLT – revised 5-21-10. > 5-19-2010 > > There is the maxim “parallel lines converge at infinity.” A corollary would be parallel lines that do not go to infinity DO NOT converge. This maxim may have been recognized by Fermat. Er, no... Even assuming we allowed the possibility of lines not going to infinity, the corollary would be "parallel lines that do not converge do not go to infinity". You see - you've made the most basic of logic errors: not a promising start... (A-->B is not the same as B-->A) Mike.
From: Gerry on 22 May 2010 20:27 On May 22, 11:01 pm, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > The question of FLT is posed for n=3 and more. Yes - and that means that any proposed solution must refer, at some point, to the assumption that n is at least 3. Nothing in your exposition referred at all to the value of n, and as a consequence, if it were valid, it would apply as well to n = 2. Thus, your exposition is invalid. > N of 3 is exponential. X^2 is straight line. Hold it right there. What in the name of Gauss is that supposed to mean? What does X^2 mean to you, what does "straight line" mean to you, and in what sense is X^2 a straight line? Humpty Dumpty said, "When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean. It's just a question of who's to be master." I think we have wandered through the looking glass. -- GM
From: Phil Carmody on 23 May 2010 06:28 Gerry <gerry(a)math.mq.edu.au> writes: > On May 22, 11:01 pm, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > >> The question of FLT is posed for n=3 and more. > > Yes - and that means that any proposed solution must refer, > at some point, to the assumption that n is at least 3. > Nothing in your exposition referred at all to the value of n, > and as a consequence, if it were valid, it would apply as well > to n = 2. Thus, your exposition is invalid. There was no "exposition", I think you'll find. Phil -- I find the easiest thing to do is to k/f myself and just troll away -- David Melville on r.a.s.f1
From: spudnik on 23 May 2010 14:18 there may not have been any exposition, but I didn't think of that, that his hare-brained attempt unconsciously obliterated the pythagorean theorem, iff it actualy did any thing, at all, that any one could comprehend, including doctor Martin. thuNso: is he trying to prove that all solutions to the Fermat curves, pass only through irrational points on the grid?... welcome to the club! well, he ceraintly didn't prove that, as far as I can see (but I'm wearing the oldstyle 3d glasses, so, y'never know .-) thusNso: yeah; first, do no harm, or assign yourself to an automatic "opt-in to your killfile, thank *me*." anyway, that is not Bucky's system, but Cliff's. at least, he is not among the fanatics, who beleive what Bucky saith, that he alleviated the need for math with Nature's Co-ordinating System -- as important as some of that is. "to remove me from your killfile, send your Social Security Number to tim(a)polysignosis.org; thank *you*." > http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned thsNso: "pressure equals a third of energy density" -- really?... well, a tetrahedron is a third of the volume of the parallelopiped that it's inscribed in; so, there. "spacetime" is a totally useless word for concepts, since it is merely phase-space of ordinary space; just use quaternions, real part as time. (funny thing: I just read that Hoagland's "hyperdimensional physics" was nothing but quaternions "a la Maxwell," Yahoo!TM .-) thusNso: I don't see any neccesary resaon for *any* irrational number to have a maximum run of any digit in what ever integral base; so, rake one coal over yourself for propitiating such a silly idea! on the wayside, 0.999.... does not = 1; it equals 1.000...., the "real"number, one; take a hop, a skip & a jump over Tony Robinson's bed of coals. thusNso: the second part of the question is clearly trivial, and the first part seems to be its inverse, or what ever. have Farey sequences ever been used for continued fractions, or does that make any sense, at all? > Example: The fraction 4 / 97 occur in the place 197 of > the Farey's sequence of order 113. How can I know it > without calculate all the smaller terms? --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- good to at least one place! http://wlym.com
From: DRMARJOHN on 24 May 2010 11:47
> On May 22, 11:01 pm, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> > wrote: > > > The question of FLT is posed for n=3 and more. > > Yes - and that means that any proposed solution must > refer, > at some point, to the assumption that n is at least > 3. > Nothing in your exposition referred at all to the > value of n=3 I always refer3 to FLT. Does not that mean that N is 3 or more? > and as a consequence, if it were valid, it would > apply as well > to n = 2. Thus, your exposition is invalid. > > > N of 3 is exponential. X^2 is straight line. > > Hold it right there. What in the name of Gauss is > that supposed > to mean? What does X^2 mean to you, what does > "straight line" > mean to you, and in what sense is X^2 a straight > line? > > Humpty Dumpty said, "When I use a word, it means what > I want it > to mean. It's just a question of who's to be master." > I think > we have wandered through the looking glass. > -- > GM |