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

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

Welcome to the discussion board. Once a posters post count passes a certain limit, the software allows links to be posted. That is set in place to reduce Spam.
I took the liberty of adding the link to your post for clarity.

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

Originally Posted by uhhh
Let c=2 and a=b=1.

If you read the Wiki page you cited (under "Theorem statement"), it says , not for any c.

Added Link for user:
Cited Wikipedia Page
Suppose c is an integer.... (sigh)... but that a, b, and c are actually vectors in two dimensions (e.g., a Pythaorean triangle for a perpendicular to b), and that a,b, and c are coefficients of the vectors.....

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

Originally Posted by Neverfly
Welcome to the discussion board. Once a posters post count passes a certain limit, the software allows links to be posted. That is set in place to reduce Spam.
I took the liberty of adding the link to your post for clarity.
Thank you!

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

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Suppose c is an integer.... (sigh)... but that a, b, and c are actually vectors in two dimensions (e.g., a Pythaorean triangle for a perpendicular to b), and that a,b, and c are coefficients of the vectors.....
Take a and b out of that sentence and read it again. You are saying that:

"Suppose c is an integer...but that c [is] actually [a] vector in two dimensions...and c [is a] coefficient of the vector"

Which is it?

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

Originally Posted by uhhh
Take a and b out of that sentence and read it again. You are saying that:

"Suppose c is an integer...but that c [is] actually [a] vector in two dimensions...and c [is a] coefficient of the vector"

Which is it?
Look up "proof by contradiction" in mathematical logic (Google Wiki)

Then look up dot product and cross product and independent variables. Then read my pdf.

Then get back to me.....

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

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk

It only reduces to c = a+b if a=0 or b= 0, in which case c = b or c=a, respectively.
No, implies c=a+b, and vice versa.

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

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Look up "proof by contradiction" in mathematical logic (Google Wiki)

Then look up dot product and cross product and independent variables. Then read my pdf.

Then get back to me.....
Look up the word "non-sense", reductio ad absurdum means you assume someone and then show it leads to a contradiction.

Not that you
1: Assume something for a theorem that goes in opposition to what the theorem requires to be applicable. I cannot use pythagorean theorem while assuming that none of the angles in the fucking triangle is 90 degrees.
2: Mix a bunch of concepts in the hopes it'll confuse people because most here, unlike you, know the differens between things. Many things, such as integers, are expressable in many ways. However a vector, is not one of them. Because it requires that for an integer n that pi*n is an integer which is ludacris.

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

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Look up "proof by contradiction" in mathematical logic (Google Wiki)

Then look up dot product and cross product and independent variables. Then read my pdf.

Then get back to me.....
You didn't answer my question. Is c an integer or a 2-d vector?

Note: it cannot be both.

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

Originally Posted by uhhh
You didn't answer my question. Is c an integer or a 2-d vector?

Note: it cannot be both.
I'm only going to answer this once in my threads.

The connection between integer counting and the Binomial Theorem is through relativistic spin (Special Theory of Relativity).

Pure mathematics involves imaginary widgets. It requires energy and momentum to actually create a widget. Newton and Maxwell did not address this. Einstein (and Pauli/Dirac) did address the issue.

If you haven't geen on the journey I have to understand the Lorentz Transform, the Pauli/Dirac formulation, and relativistic spin (QFT, there is no point in going further; I am beginning to see a way to draw a diagram for this, and I will shortly be presenting my case at UCSB. Until then, if you haven't understood the Relativistic Unit Circle and the links to the Pauli/Dirac matrices, there is no point in carrying the discussion further.

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

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
It requires energy and momentum to actually create a widget.
Define: "Widget."

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
If you haven't (b)een on the journey I have to understand the Lorentz Transform
...Like that you think you can apply the Time Dilation equation to a Photon?

Page 2 of 21 First 123412 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

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