Fermat's Last theorem short proof
in [Math]
|
From: Hisanobu Shinya on 27 Feb 2007 16:50 > Hello Dear > > The theme is that I have realised that I have solved > FLT, EVEN (16) YEARS BEFORE I KNEW ABOUT IT. > > YOU may wonder how!! > > IF S^P + M^P =L^P > > My turn is a formula for P > Your turn is to know why it doesn't work for integers > > 2 What would you mean by "turn"? Are you implying to start a new (and maybe final) topic to be discussed for completion of the proof? Sir, you have not answered my question. Should we focus on your old thread? Please answer to the question; otherwise, I claim you have not proved Fermat's Last Theorem. > > so, simple question after a formula is being found, > but it was not suitable for them MANY YEARS BACK > > Now, I realised that somthing WRONG happeining world > wise in the holly science-MATHEMATICS, AND, > PYTHAGOURS, FERMAT, ...,ARE ALL very , very, VERY > ANGRY > > THEN, WITH YOUR HELP, we are going to CHANGE THE > RULES > > My Regards > > Bassam Karzeddin > Al Hussein bin Talal University > JORDAN
From: Hisanobu Shinya on 27 Feb 2007 16:53 > > > > > > Hello TO ALL > > > > > > > > > > > > The only remaining case -PROOF > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, you may easily derive the following > > > > identity > > > > > for > > > > > > a counter example when (p) is a prime > factor > > > OF > > > > > > (x*y*z) > > > > > > > > > > > > Let x^p + y^p = z^p, where (x,y,z) are > three > > > > > positive > > > > > > coprime integers, then the following > > identity > > > > must > > > > > > hold > > > > > > > > > > > > (x*y*z)^p = > > > > (x+y)*(z-x)*(z-y)*N(x,y,z) > > > > > > > > > > > where > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gcd((x+y)*(z-x)*(z-y), N(x,y,z))= p, > > > > > > > > > > > Very Simple to prove, (no need to waste > time > > > on > > > > > > that) > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, (p^k*p) divides the left hand side of > > the > > > > > above > > > > > > identity, where as p^(k*p-1) only divides > > the > > > > > right > > > > > > hand side of the above Identity, where k > is > > > > > positive > > > > > > integer number,and as I had shown you > today > > > from > > > > > > other post. > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, the identity can't hold true > with > > > > > integer > > > > > > numbers defined above AND THERE IS NO > > COUNTER > > > > > > EXAMPLE > > > > > > > > > > > > Hence THE PROOF IS INDEED COMPLETED > > > > > > > > > > SORRY, a flaw was found by me few hours > after > > > > posting > > > > > proof of this case and it is no more valid, > > but > > > I > > > > > have another one > > > > > > > > I will be happy to read another argument. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may add any suitable references, and > > then > > > > > write > > > > > > it in any suitable languge, beside let the > > > > > JOURNALS > > > > > > KNOW ABOUT IT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MY BEST REGARDS > > > > > > > > > > > > Bassam Karzeddin > > > > > > > > > > > > AL Hussein bin Talal University > > > > > > > > > > > > JORDAN > > > > > > I have already corrected that argument > > > > Actually, I had not even asked what the mistake > was. > > Dear Hisanobu Shinya > > It was not leading to the result I desire, so, let it > go... > > My Regards > > > > > > > > B.Karzeddin The posting time for the message above seems to be the lastest one. So, should I take it to mean that you no longer claim to have a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem at this moment?
From: bassam king karzeddin on 27 Feb 2007 17:09 Hi Hisanobu Shinya The proof is over know, can you see it on this thread issue only?? Keep the other issue asid please. I also feel like all my works are in vain ...!!! And James Harris Was right about most of his claims!!! B.Karzeddin AL Hussein bin Talal University JORDAN
From: bassam king karzeddin on 27 Feb 2007 18:32 Dear Hisanobu Shinya HOW MANY TIMES SHOULD I REPEAT THAT I HAVE PROVED IT COMPLETLY IN MY POSTS HERE ONLY IN THIS THREAD Anad a part from other one 16 years back even before I knew about it That doesn't mean I'm the only one, there may be many others, as yours I suppose The ISSUE is THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH MATHEMATICIANS IN POWER, AND THEY HAVE TO GO FOR SOMETHING ELSE.... THE WORLD IS GOING SOON TO the HILL WITH THEM SO SAVE THE WORLD FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR CHILDRENS THRAW THERE BOOKS AWAY THE BRAIN STORM DIDN'T START YET, AND LOTS ARE COMING DON'T LOOSE YOUR SELF EQUATIONS ARE STRONGER THAN A NATIONS AND WILL BRING YOU BACK FOR A BALANCE, NO MATTER IF YOU ARE FEW CENTURIES AWAY.... SO, I REPEAT DONT LOOSE YOUR SELF AGAIN Bassam Karzeddin
From: Hisanobu Shinya on 27 Feb 2007 22:59
> Dear Hisanobu Shinya > > HOW MANY TIMES SHOULD I REPEAT THAT I HAVE PROVED IT > COMPLETLY IN MY POSTS HERE ONLY IN THIS THREAD > > Anad a part from other one 16 years back even before > I knew about it > > That doesn't mean I'm the only one, there may be many > others, as yours I suppose > > The ISSUE is THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH > MATHEMATICIANS > IN POWER, AND THEY HAVE TO GO FOR SOMETHING ELSE.... > > THE WORLD IS GOING SOON TO the HILL WITH THEM > SO SAVE THE WORLD FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR CHILDRENS > > THRAW THERE BOOKS AWAY > > THE BRAIN STORM DIDN'T START YET, AND LOTS ARE > COMING > > DON'T LOOSE YOUR SELF > > EQUATIONS ARE STRONGER THAN A NATIONS AND WILL BRING > YOU BACK FOR A BALANCE, NO MATTER IF YOU ARE FEW > CENTURIES AWAY.... > > SO, I REPEAT DONT LOOSE YOUR SELF AGAIN > > Bassam Karzeddin Wow wow wow. Please calm down. I just want to get to some agreement with you on your proof, and up to this point, I think we have not reached there yet. Why don't we focus only on the objective stated above? If you have a 16-year-old idea, then I will give my idea on that as well. I have a problem with your sentence > HOW MANY TIMES SHOULD I REPEAT THAT I HAVE PROVED IT > COMPLETLY IN MY POSTS HERE ONLY IN THIS THREAD Would you mean "How many times should I repeat that I have proved it completely in this thread?" But in another post <http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5547260 > of this thread, you say that "The proof is over know[now?]". What do you really mean by "the proof is over"? Sir. I am just trying to direct us to an agreement. I am trying to restrict my comment only on your proof, and to make us successful and end this discussion in great, eternal friendship, I hope you would work for the same goal. Hence, please state what idea you employ for the proof at this moment. Are we making some progress from your original idea? HS |