Results 111 to 120 of 207

- 03-10-2017, 02:37 PM #111

- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA
- Posts
- 2,766

## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

Look at rem(a,b,n) for a,b,n positive integers There are no negative integers.

**Binomial Theorem**

**You say you have an advanced degree in Math? Fat Chance.....**

(**THIS**is an answer to my proof? Sheesh!)Last edited by BuleriaChk; 03-10-2017 at 02:44 PM.

_______________________________________

"Flamenco Chuck" Keyser

The Relativistic Unit Circle**03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST**

Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates**03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST**

**Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.**

- 03-10-2017, 04:00 PM #112
## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

Last edited by grapes; 03-10-2017 at 04:02 PM.

- 03-10-2017, 04:08 PM #113

- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA
- Posts
- 2,766

## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

WTF? This is just garbage. How does this relate to the Binomial Expansion?

It is true that writing mathematical symbols arbitrarily in nonsense syntax related to nothing doesn't take a high school education...

So either you're incredibly stupid or you're trolling again...._______________________________________

"Flamenco Chuck" Keyser

The Relativistic Unit Circle**03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST**

Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates**03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST**

**Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.**

- 03-10-2017, 04:33 PM #114
## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

- 03-10-2017, 05:04 PM #115

- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA
- Posts
- 2,766

## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

Last edited by BuleriaChk; 03-10-2017 at 05:10 PM.

_______________________________________

"Flamenco Chuck" Keyser

The Relativistic Unit Circle**03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST**

Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates**03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST**

**Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.**

- 03-10-2017, 05:36 PM #116
## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

- 03-10-2017, 06:05 PM #117

- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA
- Posts
- 2,766

## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

There is no point in going on here. Grapes' responses have degenerated into childish nonsense and inane propositions empty of any technical or mathematical content. (I suspect it is because he knows I am right and doesn't have the courage or ethics to admit it. But that's ok; my analysis is on my website for the world to see... time will tell...)

"Flamenco Chuck" Keyser

The Relativistic Unit Circle**03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST**

Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates**03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST**

**Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.**

- 03-10-2017, 06:15 PM #118
## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

OK, fine by me, you weren't participating in the conversation anyway. Thread closed.

Grapes' responses have degenerated into childish nonsense and inane propositions empty of any technical or mathematical content. (I suspect it is because he knows I am right and doesn't have the courage or ethics to admit it. But that's ok; my analysis is on my website for the world to see... time will tell...)Last edited by grapes; 03-10-2017 at 08:07 PM. Reason: ETA

- 03-10-2017, 11:44 PM #119

- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Posts
- 564

- 03-12-2017, 03:16 PM #120

- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA
- Posts
- 2,766

## Re: Fermat's last, and mine too.

This comment is just stupid.

c1=g1(a,b) = (Fermat's Expression)

c2=g2(a,b) = (The Binomial Expansion).

Fermat's expression is the integer metric for a Presburger arighmetic (without multiplicative products like

The Binomial Expansion includes Fermat's expression but also those multiplicative products in Rem(a,b,n), and therefore is consistent as a metric for the two dimensional (real number) field (a,b)) with Peano's axioms. However, Fermat's expression requires that a=0 or b=0 for n>2 if c is to be an integer (for fields, division is always possible so is always possible, so the field of positive real numbers is consistent and but not complete (Godel's proof is based on positive integers), since it requires complex numbers for subraction (). The key issue is that one needs two fields (Cartesian coordinates) to define any function y=f(x) at all, not to mention z=g(x,y) as in the Binomial Expansion for z a single valued resultant variable.

Cartesian coordinates can express real numbers without the necessity of Dedekind cuts in a single dimension number line.

STR provides a way of generating continuous fields (without using Dedekind cuts) and for positive fields, also provides trigonometric functions (and negative fields if Dirac is included).

One liner responses from the Peanut Gallery with no intellectual content whatever in responses to posts like this (where I can provide Wiki links as necessary) are merely spam and bloating my thread's intellectual content with nothing other than complaints indicating that the Peanut Gallery have no idea WTF I am talking about.Last edited by BuleriaChk; 03-12-2017 at 03:28 PM.

"Flamenco Chuck" Keyser

The Relativistic Unit Circle**03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST**

Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates**03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST**

**Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.**

## Bookmarks