Fermat's Last Theorem simple proof impossible?
in [Math]
|
From: DRMARJOHN on 21 May 2010 04:39 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. For FLT, when A^n + B^n = 1, (0<R<1) all real numbers between 0 and 1, there is an infinite # of solutions: they all have irrational A & B or A or B. Consider .5 + .5 = 1 as the first solution. When A^n = .5, the root or base of .5 is A -- it is irrational. Both A & B are irrational. There are two sets of solutions. The first is with the bases A & B irrational. There is a first A^n & B^n above and below .5 that both have irrational bases (the roots), A & B. There is a second A^n & B^n above and below .5 that both have irrational bases, A & B. There is a third A^n & B^n above and below .5 that both have irrational bases, A & B. ....There is an Nth A^n & B^n above and below .5 that both have irrational bases, A & B. There are an infinite # of such pairs. The second repeats the first set, except only one of a pair A & B is irrational, the other is rational. The two sets of solutions comprise the complete set of solutions. Irrational roots have a “terminus” at an infinite point. This enables each pair of A^n & B^n to add to 1. (for the 1st set.) When a pair has a root that is truncated at any point before infinity, it loses its character that enables for success. Any such truncated root is a rational number. For the second set, when one rational base can pair with an irrational base, truncating that one irrational number, it loses its character that enables for success. A later illustration will clarify how the pair of irrational bases changing to one irrational base + one rational base is different than a construction of a rational + an irrational. For the beginning pair, the first solution of .5 + .5 = 1, both A & B have to be irrational bases. If the root of .5 is truncated at the n - 1000 place, it becomes a rational base. (note that all rational roots as they approach infinity, approach 1.) When the root of .5 is irrational, there is a solution. Any deviation from that becomes a rational base, and can not be a solution. The “character” of the irrational base enables success; the character of the truncated is “non-success.” Only irrational roots give solutions. All rational roots give “non-solutions.” Therefore FLT is correct. Martin Johnson. It astounds me that the maxim “parallel lines converge at infinity.” has been staring me in the face and it never dawned on me that it could relate to FLT, that is, the corollary that parallel lines that do not go to infinity never converge, like in FLT, there never is a success.
From: DRMARJOHN on 21 May 2010 05:54 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. For FLT, when A^n + B^n = 1, (0<R<1) all real numbers between 0 and 1, there is an infinite # of solutions: they all have irrational A & B or A or B. Consider .5 + .5 = 1 as the first solution. When A^n = .5, the root or base of .5 is A -- it is irrational. Both A & B are irrational. There are two sets of solutions. The first is with the bases A & B irrational. There is a first A^n & B^n above and below .5 that both have irrational bases (the roots), A & B. There is a second A^n & B^n above and below .5 that both have irrational bases, A & B. There is a third A^n & B^n above and below .5 that both have irrational bases, A & B. ....There is an Nth A^n & B^n above and below .5 that both have irrational bases, A & B. There are an infinite # of such pairs. The second repeats the first set, except only one of a pair A & B is irrational, the other is rational. The two sets of solutions comprise the complete set of solutions. Irrational roots have a Terminus at an infinite point. This enables each pair of A^n & B^n to add to 1. (for the 1st set.) When a pair has a root that is truncated at any point before infinity, it loses its character that enables for success. Any such truncated root is a rational number. For the second set, when one rational base can pair with an irrational base, truncating that one irrational number, it loses its character that enables for success. A later illustration will clarify how the pair of irrational bases changing to one irrational base + one rational base is different than a construction of a rational + an irrational. For the beginning pair, the first solution of .5 + .5 = 1, both A & B have to be irrational bases. If the root of .5 is truncated at the n - 1000 place, it becomes a rational base. (note that all rational roots as they approach infinity, approach 1.) When the root of .5 is, irrational, there is a solution. Any deviation from that becomes rational, and can not be a solution. The character of the irrational base enables success; the character of the truncated is non-success. Only irrational roots give solutions. All rational roots give Non-solutions. Therefore FLT is correct. Martin Johnson. It astounds me that the maxim parallel lines converge at infinity. has been staring me in the face and it never dawned on me that it could relate to FLT, that is, the corollary that parallel lines that do not go to infinity never converge, like in FLT, there never is a success.
From: spudnik on 21 May 2010 14:37 I mean, they don't even have to be next to each other (technical defintion of "next" to follow .-) > It astounds me .. that is, the corollary that parallel lines that do not go to infinity never converge, like in FLT, there never is a success. thusNso: I can see that you're a victim of "General Semantics and the Nine E-primes." what ever in Hell you think that you were saying, it does seem that "one period of lightwaving," howsoever properly defined, would be a sufficient unit of h-bar as a scalar of time -- if not a dimensionless constant (a "scalar" should be a dimensionless quantity to count some thing). did that make any sense at all? --Pi, the surfer's canonical value, is not constructible with a pair of compasses .. but, could be with a pair and a half of compasses; dyscuss.
From: Gerry on 21 May 2010 19:42 On May 21, 11:54 pm, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > There is a simple illustration to FLT.... > > There is the maxim Parallel lines converge at infinity.... > > For FLT, when A^n + B^n = 1, (0<R<1) all real numbers between 0 and 1.... > There are two sets of solutions.... > There is a first A^n & B^n above and below .5.... > There is a second A^n & B^n above and below .5.... > There is a third A^n & B^n above and below .5.... > ...There is an Nth A^n & B^n above and below .5.... > There are an infinite # of such pairs.... > > The second repeats the first set,.... > > Irrational roots have a Terminus at an infinite point.... > > For the beginning pair, the first solution of .5 + .5 = 1.... > > The character of the irrational base enables success.... > > Only irrational roots give solutions.... > > Martin Johnson. > > It astounds me that the maxim parallel lines converge at infinity.... Nowhere do you make any distinction between n = 3, say, and n = 2. Your argument seems t apply equally well to a^3 + b^3 = 1 and to a^2 + b^2 = 1. So how do you account for (.6)^2 + (.8)^2 = 1? Or (.384615384615384615,,,)^2 + (.923076923076923076...)^2 = 1? (that's (5/13)^2 + (12/13)^2 = 1). -- GM
From: Ostap Bender on 21 May 2010 20:26
On May 21, 5:39 am, DRMARJOHN <MJOHN...(a)AOL.COM> wrote: > 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. What a stupid thought. **All** straight lines go to infinity. A straight line that doesn't go to infinity, is called "a segment": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_segment In geometry, a line segment is a part of a line that is bounded by two end points, and contains every point on the line between its end points. Is this old age, or were you always this illogical and clueless? It makes me shudder that such stupid people work as clinical psychologists and can affect human being's feelings, decisions and actions. In fact, while old age affects the thinking part, it doesn't effect the personality as much. I bet you were just as pompous, self-centered and clueless in you prime as you are now. And given that you worked in the medical profession, this is scary. |