Fermat's Last theorem short proof
in [Math]
|
From: bassam king karzeddin on 17 Mar 2007 23:19 > > Hello Roman B. binder > > Please do fast then, because your counter example > for > > cubic will put us all to rest. > > > > Good Luck > > B.Karzeddin > > Hi, > > I should meant only, that my parameters give that > same possibility and shape for counterexample > for the simple FLT equation x^n +y^n = z^n > as for any other properly calculated shapes: > here is Your for n=3: (x+y+z)^3 = > 3(x+y)(x+z)(y+z)....(*) > but for to achieve x^3+y^3=z^3 we need proper > natural > values and signs and for n=3 eq.(*) should be: > (x+y-z)^3 = 3(x+y)(z-x)(z-y) > There is nothing new in such shapes indeed, > You have still 3 different values. > My parameters gives to You possibility for > to judge only x+y = t^n or n^(nu-1) t^n . > But everybody could like whatever who likes... > > Success > Ro-Bin Hi R.B.Binder I know success will never happen through here or use net, because simply it is against the rules of JOURNALS But save your time there is no counter example.... Regards B.Karzeddin Al Hussein bin Talal University JORDAN
From: bassam king karzeddin on 18 Mar 2007 02:53 Dear MATHEMATICIANS Most of your PUZZLES are really SILLY.... I'm calling those true mathematicians from all walks of life (not only those who have a CARTON degrees in mathematics), but also the ENGINEERS, LAWYERS, FARMERS, CHILDREN ...to HELP those people solving their RIDDLE PUZZLES . Best of LUCK B.Karzeddin
From: Gerry Myerson on 18 Mar 2007 19:52 In article <32830411.1174007615948.JavaMail.jakarta(a)nitrogen.mathforum.org>, Joseph Parranto <jparranto(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > You need to go back to see the previous posts -- No, you need to include enough context in your posts for readers to know what you are talking about. > 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. Since you've deleted all the context, I have no idea what you are on about, but I am certain that my intentions were good. > Do you believe Bassam has a Proof that predates Wiles? With apologies to Blackadder, Bassam wouldn't know a proof if it painted itself purple and danced naked on top of a harpsichord singing 'Proofs Are Here Again.' -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: Joseph Parranto on 18 Mar 2007 19:38 The math was never the issue. Creating doubt was. Had he found those comments rather than you, then he might simply be regarded as misguided, but to deliberated sow dissent is his purpose. And you took the bait, hook, line and sinker. When was the last time you cheered someone on while knowing the information is erroneous? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions, even yours." All that needs to be done for evil to persist is for good men to do nothing. You are not the posting police, not even by self-appointment. Had I not accidently discovered the true purpose of his posts, I would never have made the offer to find a use for his work. Having made that offer which was not accepted, it is painfully obvious that his intentions are elsewhere. Your inability to follow the breadcrumbs can never be undone - quit while you are behind. Joe
From: Gerry Myerson on 19 Mar 2007 00:54
In article <3622224.1174275516816.JavaMail.jakarta(a)nitrogen.mathforum.org>, Joseph Parranto <jparranto(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The math was never the issue. Creating doubt was. > > Had he found those comments rather than you, then he might simply be regarded > as misguided, but to deliberated sow dissent is his purpose. And you took the > bait, hook, line and sinker. > > When was the last time you cheered someone on while knowing the information > is erroneous? > > "The road to hell is paved with good intentions, even yours." > All that needs to be done for evil to persist is for good men to do nothing. > > You are not the posting police, not even by self-appointment. Had I not > accidently discovered the true purpose of his posts, I would never have made > the offer to find a use for his work. Having made that offer which was not > accepted, it is painfully obvious that his intentions are elsewhere. > > Your inability to follow the breadcrumbs can never be undone - quit while you > are behind. I haven't a clue what you're talking about. I don't know whether I am ahead or behind, but I do think I will take your advice, and quit talking to you. Not much joy comes of it. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email) |