Re: Fermat's Last theorem short proof
- From: Hisanobu Shinya <eprinthshinya@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:23:00 EST
On Feb 28, 4:32 am, bassam king karzeddin
<bas...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Hisanobu ShinyaIT COMPLETLY IN MY POSTS HERE ONLY IN THIS THREAD
HOW MANY TIMES SHOULD I REPEAT THAT I HAVE PROVED
Repeating the claim is not a substitute for the
proof.
Anad a part from other one 16 years back evenbefore I knew about it
many others, as yours I suppose
That doesn't mean I'm the only one, there may be
MATHEMATICIANS
The ISSUE is THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH
IN POWER, AND THEY HAVE TO GO FOR SOMETHINGELSE....
No, all mathematicians require to believe a proof
exists
is to see that proof and verify it. You haven't
provided
a proof yet.
All you've provided is a proof of a result which was
known long ago, namely that for any solution of
x^3 + y^3 = z^3, one of x, y, or z must be divisible
by 3.
I am not even sure if he proved the so-called first case n = 3. When I gave a counterexample (x, y, z) to his claim that if 3 is not a divisor of x*y*z, then (x + y)(x + z)(y + z) is not divisible by 3, he started talking about the triangle stuff, which says that any counterexample to Fermat's Last Theorem for the case n = 3 must form a triangle. Are you familiar with the triangle idea?
- Randy
HS
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Fermat's Last theorem short proof
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: Fermat's Last theorem short proof
- Prev by Date: ZFC++
- Next by Date: Correct degrees of freedom?
- Previous by thread: ZFC++
- Next by thread: Re: Fermat's Last theorem short proof
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
