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: ThinkTank on 4 May 2010 04:16 If Fermat's original proof of the Fermat Polygonal Number Theorem has not yet been found, why are mathematicians so quick to assume that Fermat did not have an extension to that proof which may have led to the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem? It seems to me the key to understanding FLT lies in a simple inductive proof for Fermat's Polygonal Number theorem.
From: Gerry on 4 May 2010 08:40 On May 4, 10:16 pm, ThinkTank <ebigl...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > If Fermat's original proof of the Fermat Polygonal Number > Theorem has not yet been found, why are mathematicians so > quick to assume that Fermat did not have an extension to > that proof which may have led to the proof of Fermat's Last > Theorem? It seems to me the key to understanding FLT lies > in a simple inductive proof for Fermat's Polygonal Number > theorem. What nonsense. -- GM
From: ThinkTank on 4 May 2010 05:13 > On May 4, 10:16 pm, ThinkTank <ebigl...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > If Fermat's original proof of the Fermat Polygonal > Number > > Theorem has not yet been found, why are > mathematicians so > > quick to assume that Fermat did not have an > extension to > > that proof which may have led to the proof of > Fermat's Last > > Theorem? It seems to me the key to understanding > FLT lies > > in a simple inductive proof for Fermat's Polygonal > Number > > theorem. > > What nonsense. Yes, what nonsense? I barely said a thing. I don't know how you can call it nonsense. In fact, I made no definitive statements at all. The fact is that we do not have Fermat's original proof to the Polygonal Number theorem. I'm not sure how you can call that fact "nonsense". > -- > GM Message was edited by: Ehren Biglari
From: Achava Nakhash, the Loving Snake on 4 May 2010 13:38 On May 4, 5:16 am, ThinkTank <ebigl...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > If Fermat's original proof of the Fermat Polygonal Number > Theorem has not yet been found, why are mathematicians so > quick to assume that Fermat did not have an extension to > that proof which may have led to the proof of Fermat's Last > Theorem? It seems to me the key to understanding FLT lies > in a simple inductive proof for Fermat's Polygonal Number > theorem. Why would this extend to Fermat's last theorem, when it is about lots of numbers of a certain type adding to any number, whereas Fermat's Last Theorem is about two numbers of ceratain types adding to another number of that same type? They are completely different issues, and I can't imagine how solving the one would shed any light on solving the other. I mean, he worked on Pell's equation too, so why not an inductive extension of that? Or anything else? It makes no sense. Regards, Achava
From: Gerry Myerson on 6 May 2010 01:26
In article <1853636941.69435.1272978833774.JavaMail.root(a)gallium.mathforum.org>, ThinkTank <ebiglari(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On May 4, 10:16�pm, ThinkTank <ebigl...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > If Fermat's original proof of the Fermat Polygonal > > Number > > > Theorem has not yet been found, why are > > mathematicians so > > > quick to assume that Fermat did not have an > > extension to > > > that proof which may have led to the proof of > > Fermat's Last > > > Theorem? It seems to me the key to understanding > > FLT lies > > > in a simple inductive proof for Fermat's Polygonal > > Number > > > theorem. > > > > What nonsense. > > Yes, what nonsense? I barely said a thing. You said "It seems to me the key to understanding FLT lies in a simple induvtive proof for Fermat's Polygonal Number Theorem." I'll stand by my response. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email) |