Re: Bring Math Arguments against this FERMAT LAST THEOREM PROOF

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:41:28 EDT, george ghiata
<george_ghiata@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I hope You read all My rep;ies to you on this topic
>They are explicit as quas's.
>He got to regnoise that the key ideea of the proof is original and
>it is mine.No another math.come out with the ideea shown at the
>end of the proof.

All I did was defend the correctness of your first observation -- I
haven't had time to really analyze the entire proof, so at this point,
I certainly do _not_ recognize the key idea.

>Yes,everything else has been known before
>but the "spark" has been given by me with
>the final of the proof which beleive it or not thousands of mathematicien miss it to find.

It is possible that an elementary solution to FLT could have been
missed by thousands over several hundred years. Possible but not very
likely. So I won't say that I'm 100% certain that your proof is
invalid -- more like 99.99%. I would surely bet money against it (is
gambling on math legal?).

>Quas just does not believe that could happened.and my proof must be wrong somewhere.But as he goes on the path of the proof
>he is perplex that he can not find a math argument against it but
>only confirmations of its validity.And he still can not
>beleive it!! But he is forced by his reason to beleve it!

I believe, I believe! (NOT!).

You know, if I had a few hours to spare, I'm confident that I could
blast your proof to pieces (is killing a proof a crime?), but I don't
have that time, so your proof is spared, at least for now. Maybe
someone else will take up the task -- for example, Matt seems willing
to play the game. Perhaps I'll add my 2 cents on occasion if I feel
there is something I can help clarify. In any case, if I do
participate, I promise to try to be objective, so as to at least
recognize the correct parts of the proof up until the first real error
is found.

quasi
.