Fermat's Polygonal Number theorem vs FLT?
in [Math]
|
Prev: If - this statement is used to open an exact proof p = np, if this is true or false, do this.
Next: Looking for: Functional Equation
From: fernando revilla on 6 May 2010 22:28 Gerry Myerson wrote: > Thanks for removing any trace of doubt > about your mathematical knowledge. Any trace of doubt about the way you read "all" the previous messages has been completely removed. :-) --- http://ficus.pntic.mec.es/~frej0002/
From: ThinkTank on 7 May 2010 02:26 > In article > <677236230.80457.1273132878888.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.m > athforum.org>, > ThinkTank <ebiglari(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > ""...an isomorphism between the integers and the > reals..." > > Thanks for removing any trace of doubt > about your mathematical knowledge. > And you, Gerry, have proven that you do not READ the posts. Besides that fact, I was speaking informally to save time. Perhaps you have all the time in the world to waste, but I do not. Furthermore, I have no clue why you are attacking me personally. But, I will be more than happy to reciprocate and apply the Golden Rule. You claim to be mathematically knowledgeable, yet you must resort to Ad Hominem attacks to prove your point? You seem to have serious anger issues. I think you can't stand the fact that anyone other than yourself might be right. Now, if you would reply like a decent human being, and responding in a PRODUCTIVE rather than counterproductive manner, I would be happy to apply the Golden Rule and reciprocate. (Do you see how that works? You can waste everyone's time, or you can be a productive member of society.) Otherwise, I will simply ignore. > -- > Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for > email)
From: Pubkeybreaker on 7 May 2010 07:16 On May 7, 6:26 am, ThinkTank <ebigl...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > In article > > <677236230.80457.1273132878888.JavaMail.r...(a)gallium.m > > athforum.org>, > > ThinkTank <ebigl...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > ""...an isomorphism between the integers and the > > reals..." > > > Thanks for removing any trace of doubt > > about your mathematical knowledge. > > And you, Gerry, have proven that you do not READ the > posts. Besides that fact, I was speaking informally to > save time. Perhaps you have all the time in the world to > waste, but I do not. Gerry discerned the content of your posts quite clearly. I stand with him. You are a crank, and you are mathematically clueless. Your claim of an "> > > ""...an isomorphism between the integers and the > > reals..."" make this a certainty.
From: Achava Nakhash, the Loving Snake on 7 May 2010 07:20 On May 6, 1:00 am, ThinkTank <ebigl...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > yeah, that's the spirit. the problem is, > > in developing a model of n-dimensional figurate > > numbers, > > that could be used to make the contradiction. > > (Conway and Guy had a nice, elementary "Book > > of Numbers" -- as I recall -- with lots of pictures > > for 3D figurates; I even made some "new results" > > using it .-) > > > and I'm *really* sure that Pell's equation could > > by deployed as well, or in comjunction, if > > you thought about it long enough. > > Well, Fermat worked with Pell's equation but, as far as I > know, he never claimed any results regarding it. No kidding. The point is that Pell's equation is just as irrelevant as the polygonal number theorem. > Furthermore, I don't think that it has anything to do > with Pell's equation, for the simple reason that Pell's > equation is restricted to solely the power of 2, whereas > the Polygonal Number theorem is a result regarding the > addition of two polygonal numbers, of varying shape, to > produce a third. You are quite wrong about this. The polygonal number theorem says ... Evey integer can be represented as a sum of 3 triangular numbers, 4 squares, five pentagonal numbers, 6 hexagonal numbers, etc. It says nothing about one polygonal number being representable as a sum of 2 polyngonal numbers. None of 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. are equal to 2, and the representation is of ALL INTEGERS and not of another figurate number. Again, the connection with Fermat's Last Theorem eludes me is almost surely completely bogus. > However, I have developed a completely > different proof, which does not rely on either of these, > but rather on Galois fields, and an isomorphism between > the integers and the reals. It is a complete proof, > however, I may have made a mistake somewhere, so I am > checking it. > An isomorphism between the integers and real numbers! This was shown to be impossible more than a hundred years ago. Your proof can therefore not possibly be correct. Regards, Achava
From: Tonico on 7 May 2010 07:19
On May 7, 1:26 pm, ThinkTank <ebigl...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > In article > > <677236230.80457.1273132878888.JavaMail.r...(a)gallium.m > > athforum.org>, > > ThinkTank <ebigl...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > ""...an isomorphism between the integers and the > > reals..." > > > Thanks for removing any trace of doubt > > about your mathematical knowledge. > > And you, Gerry, have proven that you do not READ the > posts. Besides that fact, I was speaking informally to > save time. Perhaps you have all the time in the world to > waste, but I do not. > > Furthermore, I have no clue why you are attacking me > personally. But, I will be more than happy to reciprocate > and apply the Golden Rule. You claim to be > mathematically knowledgeable, yet you must resort to Ad > Hominem attacks to prove your point? You seem to > have serious anger issues. I think you can't stand the > fact that anyone other than yourself might be right. > > Now, if you would reply like a decent human being, and > responding in a PRODUCTIVE rather than counterproductive > manner, I would be happy to apply the Golden Rule and > reciprocate. (Do you see how that works? You can > waste everyone's time, or you can be a productive member > of society.) Otherwise, I will simply ignore. > You may simply do as you will, but when you wrote something about an "isomorphism between the integers and the reals" you brought hell upon you: either you are one of those ignorant cranks that so much love to howl that they've debunked something that's been very well proved and based for long years, or else, without necessarily cranking around, you're just showing a rather dissapointing ignorance of the basic maths which is necessary for anyone aspiring to make some sense when speaking about FLT and stuff. What did you ACTUALLY mean is anybody's guess now, since you didn't bother in making clear this point and, imo, good you didn't. Perhaps it's time now for you to go and learn some mathematics so that you will be, at least, capable of realizing why what you wrote triggered the kind of reactions it did. Of course, if you're a crank then please do disregard the above and go to hell. Tonio |