Re: Fermat's Last theorem short proof
- From: bassam king karzeddin <bassam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:29:54 EDT
I can see why you are so frustrated with your readers
-
You do not have a "Proof" but you do have an
interesting "algorithm." The problem is language and
use of terms. In English "better method" is what you
have, but that is not a "proof = no doubt of outcome"
without all the calculations written down --
completely.
Keep in mind that your F(x) does not vary much from
Wiles' proof. Converting "c^z" to "b" is so minor a
change...
I really didn't see Wile's proof, nor do I have intention since I'm not a profissional mathematician, nor I do have time.
but is there any mention to the trinomial equation in his proof.?
If so, is there any free web bage that shows the proof.
Thanks
B.Karzeddin
.
And you cannot use this to "prove" Beal's Conjecture
either - x is a common factor at the outset. If you
start at the end, you only get back to the beginning.
You cannot "prove" what you are trying to prove by
using the thing you are trying to prove. That is
"Circular logic" and that is what you do have - in
abundance.
Sorry...
Joe
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Fermat's Last theorem short proof
- From: Joseph Parranto
- Re: Fermat's Last theorem short proof
- References:
- Re: Fermat's Last theorem short proof
- From: Josseph
- Re: Fermat's Last theorem short proof
- Prev by Date: Re: One-Axiom Logic
- Next by Date: Mathematical Series
- Previous by thread: Re: Fermat's Last theorem short proof
- Next by thread: Re: Fermat's Last theorem short proof
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|