Re: FLT in Terms of One Variable
From: *** T. Winter (***.Winter_at_cwi.nl)
Date: 09/05/04
- Next message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Raatikainen's critique of Chaitin"
- Previous message: Michael Lockhart: "Re: Raatikainen's critique of Chaitin"
- In reply to: Russell E. Rierson: "FLT in Terms of One Variable"
- Next in thread: Russell E. Rierson: "Re: FLT in Terms of One Variable"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 02:03:42 GMT
In article <c410ffa5.0409032133.dd2ad97@posting.google.com> analog57@yahoo.com (Russell E. Rierson) writes:
...
> x^n + (x+k)^n - (x+r)^n = 0
>
> has no integer roots for n > 2
Ah, but you fail to prove this.
-- *** t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~***/
- Next message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Raatikainen's critique of Chaitin"
- Previous message: Michael Lockhart: "Re: Raatikainen's critique of Chaitin"
- In reply to: Russell E. Rierson: "FLT in Terms of One Variable"
- Next in thread: Russell E. Rierson: "Re: FLT in Terms of One Variable"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
