Fermat's Last Theorem simple proof impossible?
in [Math]
|
From: Arturo Magidin on 14 May 2010 14:22 > > I've been waiting for someone to point to a place that needs revision. I already told you "a place that needs revision". Your entire discourse is essentially unintelligible, mostly because you are using your own private terminology in place of standard, well-known terminology, because you are imprecise, and because you do not explain what you mean in a comprehensible manner. Simply put: it is all meaningless to your readers. That's why nobody is pointing out a specific place that "needs revision": because the entire thing lacks any meaning, as far as I am concerned > In this approach I've suggested, one can visualize two types of curved surfaces. If the y-axis is 0 to 1.00, and the x-axis the sequence of A^n and B^n to the Nth power, e.g., .5^2, .5^3, .5^4...5^N. See? "Sequences" don't define "surfaces", curved or otherwise, at least not when one uses those words in the *USUAL* *MATHEMATICAL* way. So either you are using them in a secret, private way, or else you are speaking nonsense. At this point, my suggestion is that you tell yourself that we are all a bunch of closed-minded bigots who don't pay any attention to you, and console yourself that way. Because, frankly, you are talking a lot but you aren't saying anything. -- Arturo Magidin
From: Ostap Bender on 15 May 2010 06:18 On May 6, 5:27 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 5/6/2010 7:25 AM, DRMARJOHN wrote: > > > If I say .9 is a root, and I take it to the 3rd power, I get .729. The cube root of .9 is .729. > > No, the cube of .9 is .729. 0.9 is the cube root of .729. > > > .99 to the third power is .970299. If I say .999999 is a root and I > take it to any power, I get a rational number. > > If you say it's the Queen of the May and take it to any power you still > get a rational number. Calling something a root doesn't make it a root > unless you want to redefine the term "root" in which case you need to > state your definition of "root" and explain why you are redefining it. Keep in mind that this gentleman is trained in biology, where the definition of "root" is kind of vague. For example, many people say that potato is a root, but in reality it's a tuber.
From: fishfry on 15 May 2010 15:56 In article <04991b5c-1473-46b7-8845-8c0805c73459(a)t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1900(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 6, 5:27�am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > On 5/6/2010 7:25 AM, DRMARJOHN wrote: > > > > > If I say .9 is a root, and I take it to the 3rd power, I get .729. The > > > cube root of .9 is .729. > > > > No, the cube of .9 is .729. �0.9 is the cube root of .729. > > > > �> .99 to the third power is .970299. If I say .999999 is a root and I > > take it to any power, I get a rational number. > > > > If you say it's the Queen of the May and take it to any power you still > > get a rational number. �Calling something a root doesn't make it a root > > unless you want to redefine the term "root" in which case you need to > > state your definition of "root" and explain why you are redefining it. > > Keep in mind that this gentleman is trained in biology, where the > definition of "root" is kind of vague. For example, many people say > that potato is a root, but in reality it's a tuber. And a vector is a an invertebrate arthropod that transmits a pathogen from reservoir to host. :-)
From: Gerry Myerson on 16 May 2010 20:46 In article <04991b5c-1473-46b7-8845-8c0805c73459(a)t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1900(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 6, 5:27�am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > On 5/6/2010 7:25 AM, DRMARJOHN wrote: > > > > > If I say .9 is a root, and I take it to the 3rd power, I get .729. The > > > cube root of .9 is .729. > > > > No, the cube of .9 is .729. �0.9 is the cube root of .729. > > > > �> .99 to the third power is .970299. If I say .999999 is a root and I > > take it to any power, I get a rational number. > > > > If you say it's the Queen of the May and take it to any power you still > > get a rational number. �Calling something a root doesn't make it a root > > unless you want to redefine the term "root" in which case you need to > > state your definition of "root" and explain why you are redefining it. > > Keep in mind that this gentleman is trained in biology, where the > definition of "root" is kind of vague. For example, many people say > that potato is a root, but in reality it's a tuber. In Australia, a root is something else altogether. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_English_vocabulary under the heading, Sport. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: DRMARJOHN on 19 May 2010 06:42
> > > > I've been waiting for someone to point to a place > that needs revision. > > I already told you "a place that needs revision". > Your entire > discourse is essentially unintelligible, mostly > because you are using > your own private terminology in place of standard, > well-known > terminology, because you are imprecise, and because > you do not explain > what you mean in a comprehensible manner. Simply put: > it is all > meaningless to your readers. That's why nobody is > pointing out a > specific place that "needs revision": because the > entire thing lacks > any meaning, as far as I am concerned > > > In this approach I've suggested, one can visualize > two types of curved surfaces. If the y-axis is 0 to > 1.00, and the x-axis the sequence of A^n and B^n to > the Nth power, e.g., .5^2, .5^3, .5^4...5^N. > > See? "Sequences" don't define "surfaces", curved or > otherwise, at > In my imprecise way I suggesting a curved surface. It contains all the points of the irrational "roots" of the infinite 0< R >1 (is that correct? something like € 0 - 1?). When I say visualize I am also hinting to an intuition--I know that is imprecise. least not when one uses those words in the *USUAL* > *MATHEMATICAL* way. > So either you are using them in a secret, private > way, or else you are > speaking nonsense. > > At this point, my suggestion is that you tell > yourself that we are all > a bunch of closed-minded bigots who don't pay any > attention to you, > and console yourself that way. Because, frankly, you > are talking a lot > but you aren't saying anything. > You have paid attention. Did I not ask a question, does a certain statement give a finite or an infinite number? Someone who also said they did not understand a thing I said, gave the correct answer, revealing they did understand. Maybe that was not you, maybe it was Gerry. I do not need to be consoled. In one of my answers I wrote about being 80 years old, I've lived a successful life, and I still live a full enjoyable life. I do not need you to understand. I write these fumblings because I learned from my parents to give to society. What I write may not contribute to science, but I persevere because my brain enjoys the work, just like it did when I excelled at college (CCNY) Calculus (to me, it was like reading a language I already knew) and graduate school statistics (at U of Chicago, PhD 1963). I would not say closed-minded, rather that any scientist is constrained by what he has learned, and it is not easy to look into some one elses "out side the box," particularly when he does not know your langauge. As a psychologist, I do understand something of how the brain works in problem solving. I also just sense--in my vague intuitive way--that someone is crunching the numbers because of my fumbling--and they may come up with an understanding of FLT. > -- Martin Johnson 5-19-10 > Arturo Magidin |