Fermat's Last theorem short proof
in [Math]
|
From: Gerry Myerson on 15 Mar 2007 20:21 In article <28758215.1173996009089.JavaMail.jakarta(a)nitrogen.mathforum.org>, Joseph Parranto <jparranto(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > source is > http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath367.htm > > It is a mis-read, however, as the comment does not say E. Dubois proposed a > proof. > > 1930 was the start of ring theory.... > "http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Ring_theory.html" > > If you have no idea...you have no idea. But if you want an idea, critique is > not the route. Correction works... > > There are about 26,100 references from google on "Fermat Last Theorem 1910." > > There are about 47,100 references from Google on "Fermat Last Theorem 1930." > > They are readily available for all to see... Since you've cut all the context, I don't know what exactly you're talking about, but: If you stated that the 1st case of Fermat was proved in 1910, and you now state that you based that on mis-reading something, then what is the point of telling us how many web-references there are to "Fermat Last Theorem 1910"? I don't remember the exact wording (and, again, you've deleted it in the message to which I now reply), but you wrote something to the effect of the basis for Wiles' proof having been given in 1930. Now it appears that you take the start of ring theory to be the basis of Wiles' proof. Why? Sure, ring theory is used in Wiles' proof - but so are elliptic curves, and modular forms, and high school algebra, and grade school arithmetic, and lots and lots of other stuff. What's so special about ring theory? -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: Joseph Parranto on 15 Mar 2007 17:13 You need to go back to see the previous posts -- Bassam claims to have had this information prior to Wiles' proof, and that is not probable. He further claims that much of his material was "taken" and used by others without credit given to him. So ... are you in support of his claim? If not, then the content of his formulas, which post-date the 1930's, are sourced from? ... If, on the other hand, your intention is to cross blades with me, then I suggest that your motivation is misplaced and there are far better things to be doing than that. Do you believe Bassam has a Proof that predates Wiles?
From: bassam king karzeddin on 16 Mar 2007 12:17 Hello Roman B. binder Please do fast then, because your counter example for cubic will put us all to rest. Good Luck B.Karzeddin
From: bassam king karzeddin on 16 Mar 2007 14:22 Subject: Re: Fermat's Last theorem short proof > Let me be very clear that I cannot comment on your > formulas...I do not have enough skill there. Hi Joseph Actually you did by saying YES TO BOTH, but never mind, since (my or may be others) formula are not CONJECTURES, and they don't require others acceptance but others OBEDIENCE, since today every thing can be checked within a few minutes with the help of computers, that is why you won't find a single comment about their VALIDITY. Always correct things pass without a note, but wrong things would be immediately be criticized by many. > If you search out the proofs of others, and actually > read them, you will be able to tell if they are > copies of yours. But only you can do that - no one > else. I will try that whenever I do have time, despite this a good project for many, especially HISTORIANS. > > Wiles Proof can be downloaded from the publisher, and > there are many commentaries on it and explanations > from many sources. You have access to the whole world > from your computer - time to use it to search. > > Case 1 was proved in 1910...and in 1930 the basis of > Wiles proof was established but never finished. Your > work is like that - unfinished = Not complete. DO YOU MEAN THAT WILES PROOF ARE IN COMPLETE, which I think NO. > > If you are worried about theft, you are definitely in > the wrong business - intellectual property is almost > forever. Publish everything you have completely for > others to evaluate it. Your claims are not of any > value to anybody unless they are available... I wish to trust that, but the JOURNALS RULES (the old fashion), are against any thing written out side of their fields, despite this is a grate delay to the science, especially now a days where you can write freely and naturally on this forum for example without any obstacles,where every thing is documented to a second, but unfortunately poor people or mathematicians obey blindly their vanished rules, and the DREXEL is really asked to protect it's rights by imposing the LAW. they already have. You really have interesting points. My Regards B.Karzeddin Al Hussein bin Talal University JORDAN > > JFP
From: Joseph Parranto on 16 Mar 2007 15:15
Phishing are we? Casting doubt where none exists? Feiging misunderstanding? Shrouded in the veil of poor English skills? In search of mailing addresses? Wanting to seed dissent? Deflecting from the truth? We have seen you before...and we will see you again... |