Fermat's Last theorem short proof
in [Math]
|
From: Hisanobu Shinya on 27 Feb 2007 23:03 > > 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?" ----------------------------------------------------- [There was a mistake for quoting; from here on is the corrected, revised comment.] 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"? [revision ends here.] ------------------------------------------------------ > 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
From: Randy Poe on 28 Feb 2007 09:15 On Feb 28, 4:32 am, bassam king karzeddin <bas...(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > Dear Hisanobu Shinya > > HOW MANY TIMES SHOULD I REPEAT THAT I HAVE PROVED IT COMPLETLY IN MY POSTS HERE ONLY IN THIS THREAD Repeating the claim is not a substitute for the proof. > 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.... No, all mathematicians require to believe a proof exists is to see that proof and verify it. You haven't provided a proof yet. All you've provided is a proof of a result which was known long ago, namely that for any solution of x^3 + y^3 = z^3, one of x, y, or z must be divisible by 3. - Randy
From: sugnaboris on 28 Feb 2007 10:06 On 28 Feb, 07:06, bassam king karzeddin <bas...(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > Hello Dear Hi, Doll > Now, I realised that somthing WRONG happeining world wise in the holly > science-MATHEMATICS, AND, PYTHAGOURS, FERMAT, ...,ARE ALL very , very, > VERY ANGRY Well, prickly, at least.
From: bassam king karzeddin on 28 Feb 2007 00:27 > On Feb 28, 4:32 am, bassam king karzeddin > <bas...(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > > Dear Hisanobu Shinya > > > > HOW MANY TIMES SHOULD I REPEAT THAT I HAVE PROVED > IT COMPLETLY IN MY POSTS HERE ONLY IN THIS THREAD > > Repeating the claim is not a substitute for the > proof. > > > 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.... > > No, all mathematicians require to believe a proof > exists > is to see that proof and verify it. You haven't > provided > a proof yet. > > All you've provided is a proof of a result which was > known long ago, namely that for any solution of > x^3 + y^3 = z^3, one of x, y, or z must be divisible > by 3. Do you mean this is EXACTLY the only remaining case, left out in my proofs If so, then it is a very remarkable note from you unless you are not frank enought with me or a misunderstanding by me The problem is that, I don't like to make little works, besides I have many other duties as a manager of Engineering project circle in our NEW University and as I said that there will be somethings amazing seeming like hidden tough conjectures for you, but make sure, Those conjectures doomed to death, because their lifes time is few hours or may be few days at most You may have also noticed that others have already started conforming results, and hopefully will be more of them in this lasting and historical thread Best of luck Randy Bassm King Karzeddin AL Hussein Bin Talal University JORDAN > > - Randy >
From: Randy Poe on 28 Feb 2007 10:38
On Feb 28, 10:27 am, bassam king karzeddin <bas...(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > > On Feb 28, 4:32 am, bassam king karzeddin > > <bas...(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > > > Dear Hisanobu Shinya > > > > HOW MANY TIMES SHOULD I REPEAT THAT I HAVE PROVED > > IT COMPLETLY IN MY POSTS HERE ONLY IN THIS THREAD > > > Repeating the claim is not a substitute for the > > proof. > > > > 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.... > > > No, all mathematicians require to believe a proof > > exists > > is to see that proof and verify it. You haven't > > provided > > a proof yet. > > > All you've provided is a proof of a result which was > > known long ago, namely that for any solution of > > x^3 + y^3 = z^3, one of x, y, or z must be divisible > > by 3. > > Do you mean this is EXACTLY the only remaining case, What case? I mean what I said. That x^3 + y^3 = z^3 implies one of x, y or z is divisible by 3. FLT says "there are no integer solutions to x^n + y^n = z^n for n>2". Since you have not established this for any n at all, including n=3, then I don't know what you mean by "only remaining case". The "only remaining cases" in your proof that you have failed to address are n=3, n=4, n=5, n=6, n=7, ... Proofs for n=3 have been around a long time. Didn't Fermat have one? But you DON'T have one. At least, not one that you've shown yet. - Randy |