Re: Why Can't Two Cubes Become Another Cube?
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:40:52 -0600
On Aug 20, 4:07 pm, hagman <goo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 20 Aug., 09:47, logicaly...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
It appears to be an inclusive set relationship, where the larger cubic
geometry contains the first cube and the intermediate numerical
sequencing cannot in itself, be a cube.
Huh? Are you wondering why one cannot find positive integers a,b,c
such that a^3 + b^3 = c^3?. This is easily proved.
In fact a generalization to higher exponents is true as well,
but the proof is either awfully complicated or only available
in Latin:
Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos
quadratoquadratos, et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra
quadratum potestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas est dividere
cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi.
Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.
(1) That bit of Latin does not constitute a proof of FLT, but a claim of
proof never substantiated.
(2) The only known proof of the general FLT, due to Wiles, is also not
in Latin.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why Can't Two Cubes Become Another Cube?
- From: hagman
- Re: Why Can't Two Cubes Become Another Cube?
- References:
- Why Can't Two Cubes Become Another Cube?
- From: logicalyoda
- Re: Why Can't Two Cubes Become Another Cube?
- From: hagman
- Re: Why Can't Two Cubes Become Another Cube?
- From: Narasimham
- Why Can't Two Cubes Become Another Cube?
- Prev by Date: Math is not a memoriter course.
- Next by Date: Re: A CHALLANGE TO CANTORIANS
- Previous by thread: Re: Why Can't Two Cubes Become Another Cube?
- Next by thread: Re: Why Can't Two Cubes Become Another Cube?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|