Fermat's Last theorem short proof
in [Math]
|
From: bassam king karzeddin on 1 Mar 2007 02:22 Dear All YES, My proof - in your language is not a proof- I now realized this fact, since I didn't do all the -LITTLE-DIRTY-WORK-– and in detailed calculation AND -STEP-BY-STEP- with out even-unintentionally- any (+/-) error in it, thinking that is not any big problem to an average mathematician or may be to a school students I also realized that even I do that DEFINTLY I CAN, IT WILL NOT WORK HERE, because mathematicians in power will be ashamed instead of being happy with it SINCE A NEW DOOR OR ERA OF MATHEMATICS IS OPEND FOR YOU ALL NOW, and will ignore it DELEBRATLY BUT NOT IN SECRET, see how many of them are now disappearing, working in secrets to turn it to making money, trying hard IN SECRET to derive any thing comes out of this - NEW BRAIN PLASTING BOMB, BUT I WILL BE FASTER THAN THEM ALL EVEN WITH OUT A CALCULATOR and without any reference or even any mention to me I HAVE ALREADY MADE MANY RESULTS, THAT ARE NOT FOUND IN ANY BOOK, AND THEY WILL EVENTUALLY TURN YOU TO THE WAY I DESIRE, EVEN IF YOU STEEL THEM, BECAUSE I WILL GO THROUGH YOUR minds, MAKING YOU GO THE SAME JOURNY THEN I SHALL TURN YOU TO MY OWN FIELD STREAM. But for a TRUE MATHEMATICIAN IF THERE ARE ANY, It is only sufficient to realize it from the first look-the rest follows, but unfortunately IT IS A VERY RARE CHANCE THAT TWO TRUE MATHEMATICIAN MEET IN A CENTURY, HENCE James Harries was the first to IDENTIFY THE MOST IMPORTANT UNSOLVED PROBLEM, in the history of such kind, To prove his claims, just see my first innocent question in the beginning of this thread remained UN answered, and also in other threads about me claiming a new facts With out my regards Bassam Karzeddin
From: bassam king karzeddin on 1 Mar 2007 02:37 Dear All YES, My proof - in your language is not a proof- I now realized this fact, since I didn't do all the -LITTLE-DIRTY-WORK-– and in detailed calculation AND -STEP-BY-STEP- with out even-unintentionally- any (+/-) error in it, thinking that is not any big problem to an average mathematician or may be to a school students I also realized that even I do that DEFINTLY I CAN, IT WILL NOT WORK HERE, because mathematicians in power will be ashamed instead of being happy with it SINCE A NEW DOOR OR ERA OF MATHEMATICS IS OPEND FOR YOU ALL NOW, and will ignore it DELEBRATLY BUT NOT IN SECRET, see how many of them are now disappearing, working in secrets to turn it to making money, trying hard IN SECRET to derive any thing comes out of this - NEW BRAIN PLASTING BOMB, BUT I WILL BE FASTER THAN THEM ALL EVEN WITH OUT A CALCULATOR and without any reference or even any mention to me I HAVE ALREADY MADE MANY RESULTS, THAT ARE NOT FOUND IN ANY BOOK, AND THEY WILL EVENTUALLY TURN YOU TO THE WAY I DESIRE, EVEN IF YOU STEEL THEM, BECAUSE I WILL GO THROUGH YOUR minds, MAKING YOU GO THE SAME JOURNY THEN I SHALL TURN YOU TO MY OWN FIELD STREAM. But for a TRUE MATHEMATICIAN IF THERE ARE ANY, It is only sufficient to realize it from the first look-the rest follows, but unfortunately IT IS A VERY RARE CHANCE THAT TWO TRUE MATHEMATICIAN MEET IN A CENTURY, HENCE James Harries was the first to IDENTIFY THE MOST IMPORTANT UNSOLVED PROBLEM, in the history of such kind, To prove his claims, just see my first innocent question in the beginning of this thread remained UN answered, and also in other threads about me claiming a new facts With out my regards Bassam Karzeddin
From: Tonico on 1 Mar 2007 13:55 On Mar 1, 7:37 pm, bassam king karzeddin <bas...(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > Dear All > > YES, My proof - in your language is not a proof- I now realized this fact, since I didn't do all the -LITTLE-DIRTY-WORK-- and in detailed calculation AND -STEP-BY-STEP- with out even-unintentionally- any (+/-) error in it, thinking that is not any big problem to an average mathematician or may be to a school students > > I also realized that even I do that DEFINTLY I CAN, IT WILL NOT WORK HERE, because mathematicians in power will be ashamed instead of being happy with it SINCE A NEW DOOR OR ERA OF MATHEMATICS IS OPEND FOR YOU ALL NOW, and will ignore it DELEBRATLY BUT NOT IN SECRET, see how many of them are now disappearing, working in secrets to turn it to making money, trying hard IN SECRET to derive any thing comes out of this - NEW BRAIN PLASTING BOMB, BUT I WILL BE FASTER THAN THEM ALL EVEN WITH OUT A CALCULATOR and without any reference or even any mention to me > > I HAVE ALREADY MADE MANY RESULTS, THAT ARE NOT FOUND IN ANY BOOK, AND THEY WILL EVENTUALLY TURN YOU TO THE WAY I DESIRE, EVEN IF YOU STEEL THEM, BECAUSE I WILL GO THROUGH YOUR minds, MAKING YOU GO THE SAME JOURNY THEN I SHALL TURN YOU TO MY OWN FIELD STREAM. > > But for a TRUE MATHEMATICIAN IF THERE ARE ANY, It is only sufficient to realize it from the first look-the rest follows, but unfortunately IT IS A VERY RARE CHANCE THAT TWO TRUE MATHEMATICIAN MEET IN A CENTURY, HENCE > > James Harries was the first to IDENTIFY THE MOST IMPORTANT UNSOLVED PROBLEM, in the history of such kind, > > To prove his claims, just see my first innocent question in the beginning of this thread remained UN answered, and also in other threads about me claiming a new facts > > With out my regards > > Bassam Karzeddin *************************************************************************** Oh, my! A new crank, about 9.5 in the James Harris scale....but this one doesn't even write decent english!!!!! ...**sigh**.... Tonio PD Hmm....wait: what're the odds that some of J. Harris's ancestors split into a rather crankonian branch that trolled all its way Jordan? This possibility...*gulp!*....opens unsuspected possibilites for universal cranking!!!!
From: bassam king karzeddin on 1 Mar 2007 07:55 > ****************************************************** > ********************* > Oh, my! A new crank, about 9.5 in the James Harris > scale....but this > one doesn't even write decent english!!!!! > ...**sigh**.... > Tonio > PD Hmm....wait: what're the odds that some of J. > Harris's ancestors > split into a rather crankonian branch that trolled > all its way > Jordan? > This possibility...*gulp!*....opens unsuspected > possibilites for > universal cranking!!!! The possibility you started reading from the end... The possibility your sun sign is a twin... Regards B.Karzeddin
From: bassam king karzeddin on 1 Mar 2007 08:57
> > Fermat's Last theorem short proof > > > > We have the following general equation (using the > > general binomial theorem) > > > > (x+y+z)^p =p* (x+y)*(x+z)*(y+z)*N(x,y,z) + > > x^p+y^p+z^p > > > > Where > > N (x, y, z) is integer function in terms of (x, y, > z) > > > > P is odd prime number > > (x, y, z) are three (none zero) co prime integers? > > > > Assuming a counter example (x, y, z) exists such > that > > (x^p+y^p+z^p=0) > > > > > > (x+y+z)^p =p* (x+y)*(x+z)*(y+z)*N (x, y, z) > > > > CASE-1 > > If (p=3) implies N (x, y, z) = 1, so we have > > Why? > > > > > (x+y+z)^3 =3* (x+y)*(x+z)*(y+z) > > > > Assuming (3) does not divide (x*y*z), then it does > > not divide (x+y)*(x+z)*(y+z), > > Why? > > If x = 4, y = 5, z = 7, for instance, then > > x + y is divisible by 3, which is relatively prime to > xyz. > > > So > > Not so. > > > the above equation does not have solution > > (That is by dividing both sides by 3, you get 9 > times > > an integer equal to an integer which is not > divisible > > by 3, which of course is impossible > > I think proof is completed for (p=3, and 3 is not > a > > factor of (x*y*z) > > > > My question to the specialist, is my proof a new > one, > > more over I will not feel strange if this was > known > > few centuries back > > > > Thanking you a lot > > > > Bassam King Karzeddin > > Al-Hussein Bin Talal University > > JORDAN > > Dah~~~~! > > Why are there so many replies to this simple argument! Hi H.S I got where you and may be Randy are lost You assume an already a known counter example, but does that satisfies the equn.??, of course not, what I simply state that if, x^3 + y^3 +z^3 = 0, implies the following eqn. (x+y+z)^3 = (x+y)*(x+z)*(y+z), which of course not possible, as was proved by me directly, unless this same very very simple proof is there and out of my knowledge, but in this case also others would certainly direct us What I have really done is changing the original eqn.form, that makes it a trillion time easier to handle by a number theorists, one already got it and run away-Das Gas-so dont let run away, and I really wanted you all to get it I shall also recall how did I make it in a very simple way for general p, but didn't realised it's importance that time My keen Regards B.Karzeddin |