Prev: funny thing
Next: A simple proof is actually more likely...
From: Obispo de Tolosa on 5 Jun 2010 14:14
...Wiles simply substituted his own conjecture for Fermat's conjecture. Conjecture is not proof.

Your mistaken belief in the legend of Dr. Wiles has led you to experience great frustration in this forum. Quit believing in that nonsense.
From: spudnik on 7 Jun 2010 23:04
you are obviously a newbie, without even a thumbnail post-it note
history
of the steps to Wiles' gigantic proof via Ribet et al.

thanks for your won attempts, though!

> ..Wiles simply substituted his own conjecture for Fermat's conjecture. Conjecture is not proof.

thusNso:
it is going to be a while, before the Cliff's Notes version
of Wiles' allaged proof comes out; but, when it does,
you will have quite en entree into a few kinds of math -- iff
you've gotten an elementary (fermatian) proof in hand,
by then.

--Stop BP's and Waxman's capNtrade arbitrage rip-off!
http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 9 Jun 2010 18:38
sorry; I shouldn't have used iff (neccesity & sufficiency),
thereat, although it would likely be neccesary for *me*
to see such a fermation prrof, to get into Wiles' --
but it likely'd be insufficient.

thus&so:
you may not have a problem with neccesity & sufficiency, iff
you can use those words in ordinary sentences. (like,
the village barber doesn't neccesarily cut his own hair, if
he goes to the barber in the next village).

your problem is termed "ill-posedness." (like,
there are infinitely many irrationals between any two rationals,
as well as between any two irrationals.)

--Fermat's Next Theorem!
http://wlym.com
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: funny thing
Next: A simple proof is actually more likely...