Fermat's Last Theorem simple proof impossible?
in [Math]
|
From: Arturo Magidin on 7 May 2010 13:09 On May 7, 10:35 am, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > I am not asking if they have looked at that curve--I am asking if have they applied that curve to the progression from A(3) (A cube -- I do not have that carrot turned vertical) to A(n) (the Nth power) which is different than looking at all the cases of FLT at the 3rd power, then at a separate time, the 4th power, etc. The "carat" (not carrot) symbol, ^, is usually located above one of the numerical keys. But if you do not have it, then "x(n)" with the explanation is a good compromise. That said: to me, at least, what you are saying is still rather unintelligible. What do you mean by "curve"? (To me, a curve is either a continuous map from an interval to n-dimensional real (or complex) space; or a one-dimensional algebraic variety/scheme). What does it mean to "apply" a curve? What is "the progression from cube [...] to nth power"? What "progression"? Now, the map a^x, with a fixed and x varying, is also well-known, well- understood, and much studied. Of course, between x=3 and x=4 there are a lot of values: there is no "jump" from one to the other. That's the closest I can come to whatever the heck it is you think you are saying. In short: I've read everything you've written so far, and tried hard to make some sense out of it (without trying to evaluate whether it is correct or not). I find that I simply *cannot* make any sense out of what you are writing. Your language is confused, you are misusing standard terminology in strange ways, and you are introducing neologisms, presumably of your own making, without bothering to even trying to explain what you mean by them. If you are finding your efforts to communicate frustrating or "blocked", allow me to advise you that the reason is not that you are "not a mathematician" (i.e., do not have formal training or a formal degree), but simply that you are not speaking intelligibly. You must either start from scratch and try to build a common vocabulary so that people understand what you are trying to say (and remember, nobody can get into your head and figure out what it is you mean by a term, even if you are familiar with it through long personal use), and *listen* when people try to tell you either how what you are saying conflicts with known material or common usage; or give up. -- Arturo Magidin
From: Michael Stemper on 7 May 2010 13:27 In article <8e6327c0-5ba7-4639-ae64-3c7a81212a31(a)o8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, Arturo Magidin <magidin(a)member.ams.org> writes: >On May 7, 10:35=A0am, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> wrote: >> I am not asking if they have looked at that curve--I am asking if have th= >ey applied that curve to the progression from A(3) (A cube -- I do not have= > that carrot turned vertical) to A(n) (the Nth power) which is different th= >an looking at all the cases of FLT at the 3rd power, then at a separate tim= >e, the 4th power, etc. > > >The "carat" (not carrot) symbol, ^, is usually located above one of >the numerical keys. On U.S. keyboards, yeah. Canadian and European keyboards are more likely to have it over to the right of the letters: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_layout> -- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.
From: Arturo Magidin on 7 May 2010 14:20 On May 7, 12:27 pm, mstem...(a)walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote: > In article <8e6327c0-5ba7-4639-ae64-3c7a81212...(a)o8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> writes: > > >On May 7, 10:35=A0am, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > >> I am not asking if they have looked at that curve--I am asking if have th= > >ey applied that curve to the progression from A(3) (A cube -- I do not have= > > that carrot turned vertical) to A(n) (the Nth power) which is different th= > >an looking at all the cases of FLT at the 3rd power, then at a separate tim= > >e, the 4th power, etc. > > >The "carat" (not carrot) symbol, ^, is usually located above one of > >the numerical keys. > > On U.S. keyboards, yeah. Canadian and European keyboards are more > likely to have it over to the right of the letters: > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_layout> Good point; the caret (thanks to Dave Rusin for pointing out the misspelling) is also sometimes a symbol that can only be accessed with the Alt or Alt Gr key (e.g., in Latin American keyboards, much like the "@"). It's almost certainly still there *somewhere*, however. Arturo Magidin
From: DRMARJOHN on 7 May 2010 10:56 > On May 7, 10:35 am, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> > wrote: > > > I am not asking if they have looked at that > curve--I am asking if have they applied that curve to > the progression from A(3) (A cube -- I do not have > that carrot turned vertical) to A(n) (the Nth power) > which is different than looking at all the cases of > FLT at the 3rd power, then at a separate time, the > 4th power, etc. > > > The "carat" (not carrot) symbol, ^, is usually > located above one of > the numerical keys. But if you do not have it, then > "x(n)" with the > explanation is a good compromise. > > That said: to me, at least, what you are saying is > still rather > unintelligible. What do you mean by "curve"? (To me, > a curve is either > a continuous map from an interval to n-dimensional > real (or complex) > space; or a one-dimensional algebraic > variety/scheme). What does it > mean to "apply" a curve? What is "the progression > from cube [...] to > nth power"? What "progression"? > > Now, the map a^x, with a fixed and x varying, is also > well-known, well- > understood, and much studied. Of course, between x=3 > and x=4 there are > a lot of values: there is no "jump" from one to the > other. That's the > closest I can come to whatever the heck it is you > think you are > saying. > > In short: I've read everything you've written so far, > and tried hard > to make some sense out of it (without trying to > evaluate whether it is > correct or not). I find that I simply *cannot* make > any sense out of > what you are writing. Your language is confused, you > are misusing > standard terminology in strange ways, and you are > introducing > neologisms, presumably of your own making, without > bothering to even > trying to explain what you mean by them. If you are > finding your > efforts to communicate frustrating or "blocked", > allow me to advise > you that the reason is not that you are "not a > mathematician" (i.e., > do not have formal training or a formal degree), but > simply that you > are not speaking intelligibly. You must either start > from scratch and > try to build a common vocabulary so that people > understand what you > are trying to say (and remember, nobody can get into > your head and > figure out what it is you mean by a term, even if you > are familiar > with it through long personal use), and *listen* when > people try to > tell you either how what you are saying conflicts > with known material > or common usage; or give up. > > -- > Arturo Magidin THANK YOU. Martin Johnson
From: DRMARJOHN on 7 May 2010 11:35
> On May 7, 10:35 am, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> > wrote: > > > I am not asking if they have looked at that > curve--I am asking if have they applied that curve to > the progression from A(3) (A cube -- I do not have > that carrot turned vertical) to A(n) (the Nth power) > which is different than looking at all the cases of > FLT at the 3rd power, then at a separate time, the > 4th power, etc. > > > The "carat" (not carrot) symbol, ^, is usually > located above one of > the numerical keys. But if you do not have it, then > "x(n)" with the > explanation is a good compromise. > > That said: to me, at least, what you are saying is > still rather > unintelligible. What do you mean by "curve"? (To me, > a curve is either > a continuous map from an interval to n-dimensional > real (or complex) > space; or a one-dimensional algebraic > variety/scheme). What does it > mean to "apply" a curve? What is "the progression > from cube [...] to > nth power"? What "progression"? > > Now, the map a^x, with a fixed and x varying, is also > well-known, well- > understood, and much studied. Of course, between x=3 > and x=4 there are > a lot of values: there is no "jump" from one to the > other. That's the > closest I can come to whatever the heck it is you > think you are > saying. > May I have a referance to "the map of a^x? An example: 99^5: .99, .9801, .970299, .96059601, .9509900499 A curve is not correct. .999^5 changes by .000000999, which plotted looks more like a curve. can I use curve in quotes, saying what I mean? > In short: I've read everything you've written so far, > and tried hard > to make some sense out of it (without trying to > evaluate whether it is > correct or not). I find that I simply *cannot* make > any sense out of > what you are writing. Your language is confused, you > are misusing > standard terminology in strange ways, and you are > introducing > neologisms, presumably of your own making, without > bothering to even > trying to explain what you mean by them. If you are > finding your > efforts to communicate frustrating or "blocked", > allow me to advise > you that the reason is not that you are "not a > mathematician" (i.e., > do not have formal training or a formal degree), but > simply that you > are not speaking intelligibly. You must either start > from scratch and > try to build a common vocabulary so that people > understand what you > are trying to say (and remember, nobody can get into > your head and > figure out what it is you mean by a term, even if you > are familiar > with it through long personal use), and *listen* when > people try to > tell you either how what you are saying conflicts > with known material > or common usage; or give up. > Again, thank you. I will take several days off. Martin Johnson > -- > Arturo Magidin |