Fermat's Last theorem short proof
in [Math]
|
From: quasi on 13 May 2007 11:44 On Sun, 13 May 2007 10:59:05 +0200, Denis Feldmann <denis.feldmann.asupprimer(a)club-internet.fr> wrote: >quasi a �crit : >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 19:26:15 EDT, bassam king karzeddin >> <bassam(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: >> >>>>> About the Irrational Numbers I mentioned the following: >>>>> >>>>> The Irrational numbers must have infinite prime >>factors that have non-zero integer exponent >>>> True. >>>>> And who is on earth could find the prime factors of Sqrt (2) for example!! >>>> Careful here. >>>> Those exponents are not unique. >>> EVERY NON-ZERO real number MUST have UNIQUE factorization >> >> Good luck on that. You have uncountably many real numbers so you'll >> need uncountably many factorizations. Thus, if you specify prime >> factors with integer exponents, the factorization can't be unique. > >Lots of logical mistakes, here : precisely because you need *too many* >of them, they will probablyt be unique or none. No, not none, and not unique. For every positive real number, there are uncountably many such products. For this claim, make sure to take note of the nonstandard terminology for "infinite product", as discussed in my prior replies. To avoid confusion, I'll explain it again ... In this context, infinite product means a formal infinite product such that the partial products have a unique accumulation point. The unique accumulation is regarded as the value of the infinite product. In other words, the infinite product doesn't need to converge. Just so long as there is exactly one accumulation point. Thus, these are not true infinite products. >Then, we are speaking of infinite products, so there are actually >uncountable many of them. Yes, of course. That was my point. These product representations can't possibly be unique, due to the uncountability of the reals. However, using the modified definition of infinite product which I provided, such representations do at least exist. More precisely, Karzeddin's claim that Every positive real number can be represented as an infinite product of primes powers with integer exponents is a valid claim. It may not be interesting or important but at least it's correct. In fact, as far as I can see, it's precisely the lack of uniqueness that makes it not very useful. quasi
From: bassam king karzeddin on 13 May 2007 07:43 > Dear All > > This is about The Trinomial equation introduction > solution I have presented in this Thread > > x^n +a* x^m +b = 0 > > Where, I shall mention the names of the persons that > provided me with their replies > > I also went through a copy that was submitted by me > to the Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) prize > for 1994, in cooperation with the Royal Scientific > Society (RSS), in JORDAN, their reference (7) > 253/39/3/19177 date Oct 30, 1994, and (7) > 253/39/3/19743 dated 6/11/1994, > Signed by Dr. Hani Mulki, President > > Where my formula previously stated was proved and > d derived with very elementary methods, > Here are also some of the reputable Journals replies > to me about this issue: > > Journal of Algebra, Dept. of Math. Yale University, > their replies dated (Jan. 16, 1986, and July 25, > 1990) > Signed by Dr. Walter Feit, Editor in chief > > Monash University, Dept. of Math. Australia, their > reply dated 25 October 1990 > Signed by Dr. Michael A. B. Deakin > > Cambridge University Press, New York, their replies > to me dated (7 and 29), May 1990 > Signed by Dr. Nancy A. Selzer, Editorial Assistant > > Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, > their reply dated 20th,July, 1990, paper number 0727 > Signed by Dr. Alan S. Jones, Editor > > American Journal of Mathematics, The Johns Hopkins > University, Their reply dated, June 8, 1990 > Signed by Dr. Jun. Ichi. Igusa, Editor > > New York University, Courant Institute of > Mathematical Sciences, their reply dated April 25, > 1990 > Signed by Dr. Will Klump, Executive Editor > > The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Dept. > of Math. Their reply dated 12, June 1990 > Signed by Dr. Alistair Mees, Head of Department > > School of Mathematics, University College of North > Wales, Bangor, UK, their reply dated 10/4/1990 > Signed by Professor R.Brown > > Washington State University, Dept. of Pure and > Applied Mathematics, there reply dated April 13, > 1990 > Signed by Professor Jack Robertson, Editor, > Mathematics Notes > > The Australian National University, their reply dated > 6, June 1990 > Signed by Dr R. A. Bryce > > The American Mathematical Monthly, their reply dated, > May 2, 1990 > Signed by Dr. Paul T. Bateman > > Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, Oxford University > Press, Mathematical Institute, their reply dated > 5/4/1990 > Signed by the Editors in hand writing without names > > Abd al Hameid shoman establishment, JORDAN, Their > r reply dated 28/3/95, > Signed by Dr. Asaad Abd al rahman > > There is also interesting reply from Monash > University in the year 2001, I will tell you about it > later > Signed by Dr. Michael A. B. Deakin > > But, unfortunately, it seems that most of them could > NOT understand it. > > Any way they have expressed many thanks to me since > it wasn't suitable for them ALL. And OF COURSE > without mentioning any reason. > > > > > My Best Regards > > Bassam Karzeddin > > Al-Hussein Bin Talal University > JORDAN Of course, you make your selves deaf, and naturally you are very much busy and involved in searching facts that are in other galaxies, but not on earth since it is too costly, so you can't appear to deny any information I have provided, but certainly YOU or ANY ONE can check up your RECORDS, it is there with you but alas if you can understand any thing and alas if you are fact searchers Should I make you wait another century for the last step only, or should I keep it for the artificial Intelligent only BY THE WAY journals Didn't you and your alike publish thousands of invalid proofs in the history, and of course later published thousands of their refutations, and the POOR still trust you, and finally you have adopted a devilish methods - THE VERY LONG PROOFS- where you can hide and pass your century safely. YES who is going to waste his life to uncover the truth? But you should note that MY FIRST WORLD WAR AGAINST YOUR ALIKE STARTED to reform the WORLD, and your ERA will soon be vanished with the help of the Queens's true daughters and sons and the DREXEL will carry the TORCH B.Karzeddin Al-Hussein Bin Talal University JORDAN
From: neilist on 18 May 2007 12:31 On May 11, 5:53 am, bassam king karzeddin <bas...(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > > On 9 Mai, 17:16, bassam king karzeddin > > <bas...(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > > > > >What I had been working for many years was about > > the > > > > most >general theorem...: > > > > >For any triangle of positive, distinct, INTEGER > > > > SIDES > > > > >(L>M>S), there exists a positive real number > > (P>=1), > > > > such >that the following equation holds true > > always > > > > >S^P + M^P = L^P > > > > > Your "theorem" is a first year (may be first > > month) > > > > calculus exercise: > > > > Assume 0<r,s<1. Prove that > > > > f(x)=r^x+s^x-1 > > > > has a (unique) positive root. > > > > Proof: lim_x=0+ f(x)=1, lim_x=+infinity f(x)=-1. > > By > > > > continuity there is p in ]0,inf[ such that > > f(p)=0. > > > > Uniqueness (hint): Prove that f'(x)<0. > > > > By the way > > > > Did they teach you HOW to find P rather than it's > > existence only? > > > Or is there a direct formula for P? > > > > Can you imagine how the world will change > > immeadiatly if a direct formula for P is obtained? > > > Yes: Not at all > > Indeed, Not at all.... > > Regards > B.Karzeddin- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hey, James Harris, you're back! Still crazy as ever! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
From: bassam king karzeddin on 21 May 2007 07:07 > On May 11, 5:53 am, bassam king karzeddin > <bas...(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > > > On 9 Mai, 17:16, bassam king karzeddin > > > <bas...(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > > > > > >What I had been working for many years was > about > > > the > > > > > most >general theorem...: > > > > > >For any triangle of positive, distinct, > INTEGER > > > > > SIDES > > > > > >(L>M>S), there exists a positive real number > > > (P>=1), > > > > > such >that the following equation holds true > > > always > > > > > >S^P + M^P = L^P > > > > > > > Your "theorem" is a first year (may be first > > > month) > > > > > calculus exercise: > > > > > Assume 0<r,s<1. Prove that > > > > > f(x)=r^x+s^x-1 > > > > > has a (unique) positive root. > > > > > Proof: lim_x=0+ f(x)=1, lim_x=+infinity > f(x)=-1. > > > By > > > > > continuity there is p in ]0,inf[ such that > > > f(p)=0. > > > > > Uniqueness (hint): Prove that f'(x)<0. > > > > > > By the way > > > > > > Did they teach you HOW to find P rather than > it's > > > existence only? > > > > Or is there a direct formula for P? > > > > > > Can you imagine how the world will change > > > immeadiatly if a direct formula for P is > obtained? > > > > > Yes: Not at all > > > > Indeed, Not at all.... > > > > Regards > > B.Karzeddin- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > Hey, James Harris, you're back! Still crazy as ever! > > Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha > It seems that James Harris is not only dominating the sci.math issues but also casing a nightmares to the newborn here No Sir I'm not J.S, and it is up to you to deduce wrongly You may ask your teachers, or teachers of your teachers why they can't get in to defend their mathematics and I didn't expect to win my first war so easily, it is really a tasteless victory Indeed, MATHEMATICS IS TOO DIFFICULT FOR mathematicians Bassam Karzedd
From: neilist on 21 May 2007 12:22
On May 21, 11:07 am, bassam king karzeddin <bas...(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > > On May 11, 5:53 am, bassam king karzeddin > > <bas...(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > > > > On 9 Mai, 17:16, bassam king karzeddin > > > > <bas...(a)ahu.edu.jo> wrote: > > > > > > >What I had been working for many years was > > about > > > > the > > > > > > most >general theorem...: > > > > > > >For any triangle of positive, distinct, > > INTEGER > > > > > > SIDES > > > > > > >(L>M>S), there exists a positive real number > > > > (P>=1), > > > > > > such >that the following equation holds true > > > > always > > > > > > >S^P + M^P = L^P > > > > > > > Your "theorem" is a first year (may be first > > > > month) > > > > > > calculus exercise: > > > > > > Assume 0<r,s<1. Prove that > > > > > > f(x)=r^x+s^x-1 > > > > > > has a (unique) positive root. > > > > > > Proof: lim_x=0+ f(x)=1, lim_x=+infinity > > f(x)=-1. > > > > By > > > > > > continuity there is p in ]0,inf[ such that > > > > f(p)=0. > > > > > > Uniqueness (hint): Prove that f'(x)<0. > > > > > > By the way > > > > > > Did they teach you HOW to find P rather than > > it's > > > > existence only? > > > > > Or is there a direct formula for P? > > > > > > Can you imagine how the world will change > > > > immeadiatly if a direct formula for P is > > obtained? > > > > > Yes: Not at all > > > > Indeed, Not at all.... > > > > Regards > > > B.Karzeddin- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Hey, James Harris, you're back! Still crazy as ever! > > > Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha > > It seems that James Harris is not only dominating the sci.math issues but also casing a nightmares to the newborn here > > No Sir > > I'm not J.S, and it is up to you to deduce wrongly > > You may ask your teachers, or teachers of your teachers why they can't get in to defend their mathematics and I didn't expect to win my first war so easily, it is really a tasteless victory > > Indeed, MATHEMATICS IS TOO DIFFICULT FOR mathematicians > > Bassam Karzedd- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Ha ha ha, funny references to personal wars and aspersions on mathematicians. You haven't changed at all. I'm sure you are still enjoying the "pleasurable company" of Quinn Tyler Jackson, your comrade in "arms". |