Fermat's Last theorem short proof
in [Math]
|
From: bassam king karzeddin on 19 Apr 2007 17:43 > In article > <8917073.1177024391960.JavaMail.jakarta(a)nitrogen.mathf > orum.org>, > bassam king karzeddin <bassam(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > > > > bassam king karzeddin wrote: > > > > Dear All > > > > > > > > As a generalization to one of my posts in this > > > thread > > > > > > > > > > > > Given, two distinct, coprime non zero integers > > > > > (x & y), > > > > > > > > Theorem- (new or old, I don¹t care), precisely > I > > > don't know > > > > > > > > If, (n & m) are two positive integers, where > > > > > > > > m = gcd ((x+y), n), > > > > > > > > then this implies the following theorem: > > > > > > > > Gcd ((x+y), (x^n+y^n)/(x+y)) = Rad (m), > > > > > > > > Where Rad (m) equals the product of all the > prime > > > factors of (m), that is to say > > > > Rad (m) is square free number that divides > > > (x^n+y^n), > > > > > > Oh? Perhaps you need another condition, since > > > > > > x = 15 and y = 49 are coprime and if we pick n = > 8 > > > then > > > > > > m = gcd(x+y, n) = gcd(64, 8) = 8 > > > > > > but 15^8 + 49^8 = (16617746730113)(2) which isn't > > > even > > > divisible by x+y. > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Rick > > > > Yes Rick, > > and thank you very much for the note > > > > In fact, and for the purpose of FLT, you may assume > either (n) is odd > > positive integer > > > > OR (x & y), are both odd-distinct-coprime- > integers, > > If x = 3 and y = 1 then (x^2 + y^2) / (x + y) is not > an integer. > > -- > Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for > email) Yes, I always do those silly mistakes, un intentionally, but any way, they actually help to drag others for discussion, and therefore I will stick to the condition where (n) is odd positive integer, since the issue is FLT, and more over the even case is a few lines proof only I should like to thank you sincerely for the note My Regards B.Karzeddin
From: bassam king karzeddin on 19 Apr 2007 18:14 > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:37:09 EDT, bassam king > karzeddin > <bassam(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > > >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:37:09 EDT, essam abd allah > >> <fmgret12(a)yahoo.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >i have really found a simple proof of Fermat's > Last > >> Theorem > >> >how can i announce this solution ? > >> > and what is the amount of prizes on this proof > >> ??? and where can i send that proof ??can you help > >> p me ?? > >> > >> There is no longer any prize -- the problem has > >> already been solved by > >> Wiles & Taylor. > >> > >> As far as what you should do with a simple proof, > I > >> think you should > >> post it here in sci.math, but include your real > name > >> in the message, > >> so if it's correct, you will still get credit. If > >> it's not correct, > >> and you should _assume_ it's probably not correct > >> based on history and > >> common sense, the responses may help you see where > >> you went wrong. > >> > >> quasi > > > >Welcome back Quasi > > > >In fact once you made a very intelligent note to the > whole issue quasi,(only one line) > > > > and I think I have got it in the back of my head, > like a pigeon it flayed again, but it is there in > my mind, I will search for it. > > > >My Regards > >B.Karzeddin > >My Name is REAL > > Hi REAL (just kidding). > > Ok, so now the question is whether your claim of > having a short proof > of FLT is also REAL. I'm not trying to discourage > you, but > realistically, the likelihood that your proof is > valid is very, very > low. > > As far as I remember, you stated some appealingly > simple conjectures > which, if true, would give an instant proof of FLT. > Moreover, your > conjectures appear to be strictly stronger than FLT > in the sense that > the truth of your conjectures easily proves FLT but > it's not obvious > that the truth of FLT implies the truth of your > conjectures. Also, > your conjectures survived several brute force > attempts to find a > counterexample. However, as far as I remember, there > was no proof, and > from what I can see, that's still the case. > > Conjectures are easy, proofs are hard. > > Admittedly, conjectures are fun to make -- it's one > of the things I > enjoy doing. Moreover, I feel it's a worthwhile > endeavor, even if it > turns out that the conjectures are too hard to be > resolved. > > However, if I recall correctly, your earlier claim of > a proof of FLT > was based on assuming that, since no one seemed to be > able to disprove > your conjectures, that therefore they were true, and > hence you felt > entitled to use that "truth" to prove FLT. That logic > is clearly > flawed -- all you had was some nice conjectures, but > no proof. > > Contrary to what a few posters have repeatedly > claimed, there is no > conspiracy in sci.math to suppress alternative > proofs. That's the > beauty of usenet -- anyone can play. People with all > different math > backgrounds can read and respond to your argument, > not just > professional mathematicians. Thus, if your proof is > correct and if the > reasoning is not too muddled, you are sure to get > some positive > responses. On the other hand, unless the proof is > expressed clearly > and at a certain minimum level of mathematical rigor, > many potential > responders won't even bother to look at it. > > quasi Is there any guarantee that a valid proof here will be accepted and will be added for mathematical science in a reasonable time? OR IS there a single event happened here in sci.math, that proves your opinions and then became accepted every where This will encourage me... Good Night, it is 5:12 morning B.Karzeddin
From: quasi on 19 Apr 2007 23:48 On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:14:38 EDT, bassam king karzeddin <bassam(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:37:09 EDT, bassam king >> karzeddin >> <bassam(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:37:09 EDT, essam abd allah >> >> <fmgret12(a)yahoo.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >i have really found a simple proof of Fermat's >> Last >> >> Theorem >> >> >how can i announce this solution ? >> >> > and what is the amount of prizes on this proof >> >> ??? and where can i send that proof ??can you help >> >> p me ?? >> >> >> >> There is no longer any prize -- the problem has >> >> already been solved by >> >> Wiles & Taylor. >> >> >> >> As far as what you should do with a simple proof, >> I >> >> think you should >> >> post it here in sci.math, but include your real >> name >> >> in the message, >> >> so if it's correct, you will still get credit. If >> >> it's not correct, >> >> and you should _assume_ it's probably not correct >> >> based on history and >> >> common sense, the responses may help you see where >> >> you went wrong. >> >> >> >> quasi >> > >> >Welcome back Quasi >> > >> >In fact once you made a very intelligent note to the >> whole issue quasi,(only one line) >> > >> > and I think I have got it in the back of my head, >> like a pigeon it flayed again, but it is there ? in >> my mind, I will search for it. >> > >> >My Regards >> >B.Karzeddin >> >My Name is REAL >> >> Hi REAL (just kidding). >> >> Ok, so now the question is whether your claim of >> having a short proof >> of FLT is also REAL. I'm not trying to discourage >> you, but >> realistically, the likelihood that your proof is >> valid is very, very >> low. >> >> As far as I remember, you stated some appealingly >> simple conjectures >> which, if true, would give an instant proof of FLT. >> Moreover, your >> conjectures appear to be strictly stronger than FLT >> in the sense that >> the truth of your conjectures easily proves FLT but >> it's not obvious >> that the truth of FLT implies the truth of your >> conjectures. Also, >> your conjectures survived several brute force >> attempts to find a >> counterexample. However, as far as I remember, there >> was no proof, and >> from what I can see, that's still the case. >> >> Conjectures are easy, proofs are hard. >> >> Admittedly, conjectures are fun to make -- it's one >> of the things I >> enjoy doing. Moreover, I feel it's a worthwhile >> endeavor, even if it >> turns out that the conjectures are too hard to be >> resolved. >> >> However, if I recall correctly, your earlier claim of >> a proof of FLT >> was based on assuming that, since no one seemed to be >> able to disprove >> your conjectures, that therefore they were true, and >> hence you felt >> entitled to use that "truth" to prove FLT. That logic >> is clearly >> flawed -- all you had was some nice conjectures, but >> no proof. >> >> Contrary to what a few posters have repeatedly >> claimed, there is no >> conspiracy in sci.math to suppress alternative >> proofs. That's the >> beauty of usenet -- anyone can play. People with all >> different math >> backgrounds can read and respond to your argument, >> not just >> professional mathematicians. Thus, if your proof is >> correct and if the >> reasoning is not too muddled, you are sure to get >> some positive >> responses. On the other hand, unless the proof is >> expressed clearly >> and at a certain minimum level of mathematical rigor, >> many potential >> responders won't even bother to look at it. >> >> quasi > >Is there any guarantee that a valid proof here will be accepted and will be added for mathematical science in a reasonable time? >OR >IS there a single event happened here in sci.math, that proves your opinions and then became accepted every where > >This will encourage me... > >Good Night, it is 5:12 morning >B.Karzeddin There are no guarantees, and I can't prove anything about what would happen if a valid FLT proof was posted here in sci.math. Nevertheless, if a valid proof was posted, and confirmed as valid by a consensus of knowledgeable people in sci.math, then I'm certain that the proof will find its way to the outside world and the poster would get credit. But as I cautioned in my previous reply, clarity and a certain minimum level of rigor are key, otherwise few people will even look at your proof. quasi
From: Gerry Myerson on 19 Apr 2007 23:49 In article <21287047.1177033447144.JavaMail.jakarta(a)nitrogen.mathforum.org>, bassam king karzeddin <bassam(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > > In article > > <8917073.1177024391960.JavaMail.jakarta(a)nitrogen.mathf > > orum.org>, > > bassam king karzeddin <bassam(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > > > > > > bassam king karzeddin wrote: > > > > > Dear All > > > > > > > > > > As a generalization to one of my posts in this > > > > thread > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given, two distinct, coprime non zero integers > > > > > > > (x & y), > > > > > > > > > > Theorem- (new or old, I don��t care), precisely > > I > > > > don't know > > > > > > > > > > If, (n & m) are two positive integers, where > > > > > > > > > > m = gcd ((x+y), n), > > > > > > > > > > then this implies the following theorem: > > > > > > > > > > Gcd ((x+y), (x^n+y^n)/(x+y)) = Rad (m), > > > > > > > > > > Where Rad (m) equals the product of all the > > prime > > > > factors of (m), that is to say > > > > > Rad (m) is square free number that divides > > > > (x^n+y^n), > > > > > > > > Oh? Perhaps you need another condition, since > > > > > > > > x = 15 and y = 49 are coprime and if we pick n = > > 8 > > > > then > > > > > > > > m = gcd(x+y, n) = gcd(64, 8) = 8 > > > > > > > > but 15^8 + 49^8 = (16617746730113)(2) which isn't > > > > even > > > > divisible by x+y. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Rick > > > > > > Yes Rick, > > > and thank you very much for the note > > > > > > In fact, and for the purpose of FLT, you may assume > > either (n) is odd > > > positive integer > > > > > > OR (x & y), are both odd-distinct-coprime- > > integers, > > > > If x = 3 and y = 1 then (x^2 + y^2) / (x + y) is not > > an integer. > > > > -- > > Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for > > email) > > Yes, I always do those silly mistakes, un intentionally, but any way, they > actually help to drag others for discussion, and therefore I will stick to > the condition where (n) is odd positive integer, since the issue is FLT, and > more over the even case is a few lines proof only > > I should like to thank you sincerely for the note x = 8, y = 1, n = 9. m = gcd( x + y, n ) = 9. (x^n + y^n) / (x + y) = 14913801. gcd(x + y, (x^n + y^n) / (x + y)) = 9. Rad(m) = 3. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: essam abd allah on 20 Apr 2007 03:49
thanks to all but ..... I want to know is there any awards on that proof ? because my proof is correct and i show it to other professional in mathematics and did not discovered any error on it . can you help me ? is there any awards on that proof ? despite of my proof is very easy and depends on truth that is known to all people . please help me ......... |