Fermat's Last theorem short proof
in [Math]
|
From: Arturo Magidin on 28 Feb 2007 10:43 In article <1172677133.511290.34970(a)p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: [...] >Proofs for n=3 have been around a long time. Didn't >Fermat have one? We don't know, but he never published or alluded to one (in public). You might be thinking of Euler; his claimed proof had a couple of holes in it, but he could have plugged him with his own work on binary quadratic forms, so he is credited with the first proof of n=3. -- ====================================================================== "It's not denial. I'm just very selective about what I accept as reality." --- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson) ====================================================================== Arturo Magidin magidin-at-member-ams-org
From: bassam king karzeddin on 28 Feb 2007 00:50 > > > 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=554726 > 0 > > of this thread, you say that "The proof is over > know[now?]". What do you really mean by "the proof > f 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 Hi, H.S 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 life times 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 It would be even much better if you add your proofs here in this thread, Best of luck Bassm King Karzeddin AL Hussein Bin Talal University JORDAN
From: Randy Poe on 28 Feb 2007 11:08 On Feb 28, 10:43 am, magi...(a)math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote: > In article <1172677133.511290.34...(a)p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, > > Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > [...] > > >Proofs for n=3 have been around a long time. Didn't > >Fermat have one? > > We don't know, but he never published or alluded to one (in public). > > You might be thinking of Euler; his claimed proof had a couple of > holes in it, but he could have plugged him with his own work on binary > quadratic forms, so he is credited with the first proof of n=3. Yes, that is probably who I was thinking of. - Randy
From: bassam king karzeddin on 28 Feb 2007 01:05 > 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. Hi Randy May be I coudn't help, others are welcomed to help us both. moreover, I'm not presenting my mathematics for a prize My Regards B.Karzeddin > > - Randy >
From: Dik T. Winter on 28 Feb 2007 11:02
In article <1172677133.511290.34970(a)p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> writes: .... > Proofs for n=3 have been around a long time. Didn't > Fermat have one? No, he had one for n=4. Euler was the first to find a proof for n=3, but his original proof had a gap that was filled later. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ |