# Thread: Proof of Fermat's Theorem using vectors

1. ## Re: Proof of Fermat's Theorem using vectors

Originally Posted by emperorzelos
NOt at all, working on a Ph.D in mathematics and have a masters degree in mathematics, I did my thesis in abstract algebra. What have you done in higher mathematics?

I can say my education include Functional analysis where dealing with finite dimension is rare and most spaces are infinite dimensional AND In module theory I deal with things where the concept of dimension is meaningless.

What have you done beyond elementary linear algebra?

A "module" is the coefficient of a vector (of some sort). I don't need elliptic integrals in my proof, and integers are inherently quantized (by the relativistic unit circle) which establishes the common metric in all dimensions .

(ellipses have two dimensions; count 'em)...

As a number theorist, you would make a very poor engineer or physicist .... Integrating an ellipse in two dimensions is not the same as integrating an arbitrary shape in n dimensions (or even three) constructed of integers (that is, for integers, no integration is necessary). (see Kepler's laws - a vector sweeps out equal areas as it rotates - which is related to the precession of Mercury in GTR).

Note: integers are not infinitesimals, believe it or not.
Functions are in (at least) two dimensions y=f(x), y=Ax+b

(One can imagine x' = f(x) as a change in metric (LaGrangian) density, characterized by the relativistic unit circle where

The definition of the derivative is in (at least) two dimensions.

A polynomial with constant coefficients has multiple dimensions (now think of the coefficients as integers; start with two "nomials" - a binomial). Now think of the coefficients as "1" and the powers as

WTF are you talking about? (Where in HELL did you get your master's or even your BA? Or even your high school diploma, come to think of it.)

2. ## Re: Proof of Fermat's Theorem using vectors

A "module" is the coefficient of a vector (of some sort).
Try again, a vector space is a module that uses a field instead of a generic ring.

As a number theorist, you would make a very poor engineer or physicist
I am not a number theorist, I am an algebraist and I would because I don't give a shit about that, I want to do mathematics and there, I best you in every regard.

Functions are in (at least) two dimensions y=f(x), y=Ax+b
Functions do not carry dimensions, dimension is a property of a space, not a function which maps one set to another.

WTF are you talking about? (Where in HELL did you get your master's or even your BA? Or even your high school diploma, come to think of it.)
Uppsala university, finest in sweden adn what am I talking about? Mathematics beyond your pathetic brains capacity.

3. ## Re: Proof of Fermat's Theorem using vectors

Documents updated to include discussion of STR, Foundations of Mathematics, and, of course, Fermat's Theorem.

4. ## Re: Proof of Fermat's Theorem using vectors

Page 4 of 4 First ... 234

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•