Fermat's Last Theorem simple proof impossible?
in [Math]
|
From: Arturo Magidin on 19 May 2010 14:18 On May 19, 9:42 am, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > > > 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. "Imprecision" has no business in mathematics; as to you suggesting "a curved surface", it seems plain to me that you have simply no idea or notion what "curved surface" means in mathematics, and instead continue to insist on using your own personal quasi-definitions and notions. So you are *not* communicating, you are engaging in a two- party monologue. >It contains all the points of the irrational "roots" of the infinite 0< R >1 >(is that correct? something like 0 - 1?). No, it's not correct. "0 < R > 1" means "all R that are simultaneously larger than 0 and larger than 1", that is, all R that are larger than 1. Your use of quotation marks around "roots" again betrays your insistence on going by your own private language and notions. You are not communicating, you are engaging in an extended monologue. >When I say visualize I am also hinting to an intuition--I know that is >imprecise. It is not merely imprecise. It is USELESS NONSENSE to anyone who reads it, because you are unwilling to engage in communication. > > 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? Asking a question, in and of itself, does nothing. Your "questions" are grounded in nonsense and imprecise language, and as such cannot be answered in any meaningful way, just like "How is a duck different?" may very well be a question, but cannot be answered. For example: statements don't GIVE anything, neither a "finite number" nor an "infinite number". So the question is meaningless nonsense. > Someone who also said they did not understand a thing I said, gave the > correct answer, revealing they did understand. Non sequitur. Someone may stumble on what you consider to be the correct answer without understanding what it is you are talking about. > Maybe that was not you, maybe it was Gerry. Can't be bothered to check, right? Why should you work at it? > 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 Please correct your spelling. It's not "fumblings", it is "nonsense". > because I learned from my parents to give to society. Stop fooling yourself, you aren't "giving to society". You are engaging in narcissistic monologues full of nonsense. > 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). Am I supposed to be impressed? > 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.> -- As a mathematician, I can tell you that your knowledge of psychology is not helping you in any way, and that you are just fooling yourself into thinking you are making a sensible contribution. Despite your words about not needing to "console" yourself, all of the above is nothing but self-consolation, telling us how great you are and that you *do* know what you are doing, and it's the rest of us who don't get it. So you are not just fooling yourself about the quality of your, ehr, "mathematics", you are also fooling yourself in your *own* field of study. Nice to know you engage in the same waste of time in the field you are *supposed* to be good at, not just the one you are incompetently attempting to participate in. -- Arturo Magidin
From: Ostap Bender on 19 May 2010 17:59 On May 19, 7:42 am, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > > > 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, just like you took 2 math classes, I took 2 classes in psychology: one at Harvard, one at graduate school (Stanford, PhD 1988). To me, it was like reading a language I already knew. Certainly much easier on my brain than mathematics. Do you think that I can now contribute to the society by sitting at home and writing revolutionary scientific papers in psychology, without learning any more psychology? Or would you think it would be a bit presumptuous on my part?
From: spudnik on 19 May 2010 18:00 well, that was consoling; now, I'm ready for the next step ... but it's a fractal step! thus & so: I like all three of those; note that there is a raw infinity of trigona, two of whose edges are perpendicular to the other edge, as far as spherical trig goes, and I really like those "half lunes." --y'know dot the surfer's value of pi http://\\:bllz
From: spudnik on 19 May 2010 18:02 real noumbers are all "infinite decimals," iff you include all of the zeroes, "every" God-am one. thank *you*. thus & so: well, that was consoling; now, I'm ready for the next step ... but it's a fractal step! thus & so: I like all three of those; note that there is a raw infinity of trigona, two of whose edges are perpendicular to the other edge, as far as spherical trig goes, and I really like those "half lunes." --y'know dot the surfer's value of pi http://\\:bllz
From: DRMARJOHN on 20 May 2010 05:10
This is for Gerry and Magidin. The correct response to my question indicates that Gerry understands me. On 5-6, Gerry wrote what is below my question (also below). I suspect you both understand me, and instead of speaking to my perspective, you get into an attitude, particularly after my posting of 5-19. > > > As the > > roots approach infinity, > > I guess you mean, as you take n-th roots with n > approaching infinity. > > > A approaches 1.000. As it approaches infinity, > > consider a pair of rational roots just above and > just below the irrational > > root of .5000. Call this An and Bn. At N-1 root, > there are also a pair of > > rational roots. At N-2, at N-3...descending to the > third root, there are > > pairs of rational A's and B's. This contains all > the possible A's and B's. > > Note that this approach does not consider all the > domain of the third power, > > instead it goes from the exponent 3 to the exponent > N. The question, is this > > all-possible-As-and-Bs a finite quantity or an > infinite quanity? > > If you fix N, and take just one rational number > either side of > the n-th root of 1/2 for each n, then you're talking > about > a finite quantity of A_n and B_n. But if you let N go > to infinity, > or if for any particular n you look at all the pairs > you can get > by truncating the n-th root at different numbers of > decimal places, > then you're talking about inifnitely many A_n and > B_n. > > -- > Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for > email) Martin Johnson |