# Thread: Fermat's Theorem, Revistited

1. ## Re: Fermat's Theorem, Revistited

If the Binomial Theorem is valid for all a,b,c and n positive integers for n > 2, then so is Fermat's theorem.

Obviously. Case closed. (unless the Binomial theorem is wrong. Good luck with that...)

(I just included "c = a+b" to confuse (snip NF) you, who don't understand vectors and independent variables).

The relativistic unit circle is way, way beyond you... you don't even begin to understand it. But it is not nonsense, and I am just now finalizing my pdf on the Pauli matrices and their relation to classical physics via the Lorentz force and symmetry.

Time will tell..... I'm still waiting for someone knowledgeable and intelligent. No luck so far...

2. ## Re: Fermat's Theorem, Revistited

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
If the Binomial Theorem is valid for all a,b,c and n positive integers for n > 2, then so is Fermat's theorem.
The binomial theorem is even valid for n > 1
Obviously. Case closed. (unless the Binomial theorem is wrong. Good luck with that...)

(I just included "c = a+b" to confuse village idiots like you, who don't understand vectors and independent variables).
So, you think you've proven Fermat's Last Theorem for the cases where c<a+b?
The relativistic unit circle is way, way beyond you... you don't even begin to understand it. But it is not nonsense, and I am just now finalizing my pdf on the Pauli matrices and their relation to classical physics via the Lorentz force and symmetry.

Time will tell..... I'm still waiting for someone knowledgeable and intelligent. No luck so far...

3. ## Re: Fermat's Theorem, Revistited

Originally Posted by grapes
The binomial theorem is even valid for n > 1

So, you think you've proven Fermat's Last Theorem for the cases where c<a+b?
(a) so much the better, but not necessary for Fermat's Last Theorem. (square it and you get an interaction term).

(b) I don't have to, since that expression is irrelevant to Fermat's Last Theorem (the expression of which, uh, has an equality, which I assume to be true and then prove false by contradiction by comparing it to the Binomial Theorem, thus validating Fermat).

Also just added the to the pdf, relating the relativistic unit circle and the interaction term to the Binomial Theorem for the case n=2:

--------------

Consider a triangle consisting of three lengths (a,b,c), connected to the origin or not (they can always be translated by parallel transport and rotation). The area of the triangle in the first quadrant is given by , where a is the base and b is the height.

There are four quadrants, so the area of four such triangles will be , which is the equivalent area of the interaction term for for the positive interaction area of the complete circle, related to the Binomial Theorem where .

For a and b on the axes, there is no interaction area, so . (since either or is equal to 0).

For Fermat's Theorem, the proof for follows immediately.

4. ## Re: Fermat's Theorem, Revistited

You do not understand what a mathematical PROOF is.

The Whole Story

Leonhard Euler claimed that there are no whole number solutions to:

For two hundred years nobody could prove Euler’s conjecture, but on the other hand nobody could disprove it by finding a counter-example. First manual searches and then years of computer sifting failed to find a solution. Lack of a counter-example appeared to be strong evidence in favour of the conjecture. Then in 1988 Noam Elkies of Harvard University discovered the following solution:

Despite all the previous evidence, Euler’s conjecture turned out to be false. In fact Elkies proved that there are infinitely many solutions to the equation. The moral of the story is that you cannot use evidence from the first million numbers to prove absolutely a conjecture about all numbers.

5. ## Re: Fermat's Theorem, Revistited

Originally Posted by Neverfly
You do not understand what a mathematical PROOF is.

The Whole Story
Completely irrelevant post, by someone who has never proved anything in his life....

No, you don't understand my proof. At all. You just throw shit against the wall hoping something wiil stick.

(I've actually had to pass midterm and final exams in advanced logic professor was Dr. J. Ullian, former student of Quine at UCSB, 1967.)

But you're on record, as am I. Time will tell.... Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a response in this forum from someone intelligent and knowledgeable.,.. no luck so far....

Obviously a post from someone who is not exactly fearless about questioning authority.... and who posts irrelevant links because he has no idea what he is searching for...

(snip NF)
(not only that, but with numbers that high, I'd be very concerned about round-off errors... and the number base.)

Euler's was a conjecture, mine is a proof.... but how could you know one way or the other?

Except by bending and kissing the ass of conventional wisdom, since that's your "authority" ....

6. ## Re: Fermat's Theorem, Revistited

IMO, the only way to prove Euler's conjecture would be to use the vector equation:

as a generalization of my proof of Fermat's Theorem. (Vectors were later. So was Special Theory of Relativity. In case you hadn't heard), so x,y,z and w are independent variables in the vector space (x,y,z). One would then relate them by scaling factors and try to find a relation true for all variables, (xt,yt',zt") as in my proof of Fermat's theorem via Special Relativity applied to numbers independently of physical interpretation.

I am not familiar with the conjecture (or why Euler thought it was reasonable) or its negation by computer... That said, however, I would be very suspicious of the latter for all sorts of technical reasons. And also (especially) because it ignores the distinction between radial and Cartesian coordinate systems.

This would be the equation of a hypersphere. If proven, it would then be true for all whole numbers automatically. Maybe someday I'll work on it. After I relate the Pauli/Dirac matrices to the Higgs equation and string theory....

Of course, if Fermat's theorem is true, then by my proof is not an integer (it is either irrational by a factor of or transcendental by a factor of ).

Consider the equation Since is not an integer, then if is an integer, cannot be an integer. QED

You heard it here first...

7. ## Re: Fermat's Theorem, Revistited

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Completely irrelevant post, by someone who has never proved anything in his life....
It is completely relevant. You even admit that your proof is not rigorous and only operates by the assumption that all calculations follow.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
No, you don't understand my proof. At all. You just throw shit against the wall hoping something wiil stick.
You always claim that the others don't understand you when you cannot defend your position. The only person throwing shit against the wall hoping it will stick is YOU with your inept "proof."

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
But you're on record, as am I. Time will tell....
Time has already told! There is a Full History of attempts to prove Fermats Last Theorem and finally, someone, not you, did it. Andrew Wiles proved FLT and you refuse to read his proof.
Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a response in this forum from someone intelligent and knowledgeable.,.. no luck so far....
You always claim the others are stupid when you cannot defend your position.
Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Obviously a post from someone who is not exactly fearless about questioning authority.... and who posts irrelevant links because he has no idea what he is searching for...
HOW is the link irrelevant?! (snip NF)
You want to talk about the intelligence of the forum members?
The members are plenty intelligent enough to see through you. Plenty intelligent enough that even if they do not know any of the math, any of the history, can understand the article I posted and see where your flaw is plainly, simply and neatly. You have not proven FLT because you cannot show that all calculations will produce the result which is what everyone had been telling you ever since you made your very first post on the topic!

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk;61210[COLOR="#FF0000"
](Vulgarity, Insults removed NF)[/COLOR]
This from the guy who uses the wrong symbols, gets notations wrong, does not know the mathematical terms that are used, etc. Every time you get rebutted on one of your numerous assumptions, flaws and errors you spout "It is irrelevant to my proof anyway..." You have said that about every counter argument at this point to where for all these thousands of posts you have made on the subject, one can only wonder what IS relevant and where the hell you are hiding it.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
(not only that, but with numbers that high, I'd be very concerned about round-off errors... and the number base.)
So Do it! Run the calculation for yourself. Check it.

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Except by bending and kissing the ass of conventional wisdom, since that's your "authority" ....
No, the authority is that mathematics is consistent even when (snip NF) -Someone- tries to play it off that he discovered a grand scam conspiracy to cover up how easy it is to Prove FLT for over three hundred years...

8. ## Re: Fermat's Theorem, Revistited

Originally Posted by Neverfly

(Snip)
-
I have read enough of Wiles' proof to know it is based on elliptic functions, and therefore has nothing to do with my proof. Wait until he reads mine, though. My proof is rigorous, the "following calculations" have been done numerous times in this forum and are publically available in my pdf. (I'm sure you haven't read it.)

Wiles' Proof

Have you found any attempted proofs of Fermat's Theorem that employed Theory of Relativity yet? Or even the Binomial Theorem? (Fermat would certainly have known about the Binomial Theorem).

Keep searching.... I'll be interested in your refutation of the above proof.... And my proof is rigorous, if you understand it. Which you do not.

Address specific points of my proof and I'll try to respond appropriately. But you can't. Because you have no idea....
(snip NF)

9. ## Re: Fermat's Theorem, Revistited

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
I have read enough of Wiles' proof to know it is based on elliptic functions, and therefore has nothing to do with my proof. Wait until he reads mine, though. My proof is rigorous, the "following calculations" have been done numerous times in this forum and are publically available in my pdf. (I'm sure you haven't read it.)
You still do not understand what it means to make a PROOF. Your "proof" is Not Rigorous. It does not account for all possible calculations, which is why I posted the relevant quote.
Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
And my proof is rigorous, if you understand it. Which you do not.
The lack of understanding is on your end(snip NF).

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Address specific points of my proof and I'll try to respond appropriately. But you can't. Because you have no idea...
I have. Over the course of over a year. Across numerous threads. But as always, you simply lie to support your position.
You always deny all links, all evidence, all calculations- everything I post, you later simply claim it did not happen at all... (snip NF)
(snip NF)

10. ## Re: Fermat's Theorem, Revistited

Originally Posted by Neverfly
You still do not understand what it means to make a PROOF. Your "proof" is Not Rigorous. It does not account for all possible calculations, which is why I posted the relevant quote.

.
What calculations does it not account for? grapes ridiculous "c<(a+b)"? (not even relevant for n > 2)

A quote about Euler's conjecture? What does that have to do with my proof? Or the relativistic unit circle?

(And none of these guys reference independent variables....)

What flaws? (quote my pdf)... (snip NF)
(snip NF)
Well, by now the whole world (or at least the few that are reading this thread) know what we think of each other...

Time will tell.... and you're on record...

Page 2 of 3 First 123 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
•