Thread: FERMAT'S Last Theorem

I heard ther Pierre Fermat died before he prove this one. I want to know if some one has proved it, and how.

q:

if- a^n + b^n = c^n, prove that n can't exceed 2.

n, a, b, c are integers.

It was proved recently by andrew wiles using some heavy mathematical machinary and a connection between modular forms and elliptic curves - the proof is over 100 pages long and quite scary apparently.

Interestingly, fermat claimed that he had a proof for his conjecture - just that the margin was too small to contain it.

it was a problem taht took many many years, how long was it acctualy? wasent it a few hundread years?
anyhow there were "proofs" before this guy, the only problem was that they werent correct

There is speculation that the 'remarkable proof' Fermat claimed to have may not well be correct, and he himself realised it. The special cases of n=3 and n=4 were put as challenges (but did anyone have the proof?), but Fermat is himself said to have never again claim to have the general proof.

The mathematics that Wiles used in his proof is well beyond the realm of the mathematics known at Fermat's time, and it is very much improbable that he had derived the whole mathematics by himself.

Somebody put it like this: "The Proof to Fermat's last theorem is a 20th century proof". Perhaps Fermat didn't have the right solution. He is well known for his reluctance to publish his papers. The greatness of the problem he posed is acknowledged, but proof..... wel, U cant have the credit for something by just claiming u have done it!

Originally Posted by diparnak

There is speculation that the 'remarkable proof' Fermat claimed to have may not well be correct, and he himself realised it. The special cases of n=3 and n=4 were put as challenges (but did anyone have the proof?), but Fermat is himself said to have never again claim to have the general proof.

Yeah - Fermat wrote his note about having a proof in 1637, but he apparently never said anything about it to anyone over the next 28 years that he was alive.

I am currently trying to get in touch with one of my old teachers to check my solution but i have checked it over and over and it always comes out right. I believe that I have found a counterexample to fermat's last theorem that solves the puzzle of whether A cubed plus B cubed can really equal C cubed. I will make sure that it is correct before I contact anybody about how I can safely introduce my important information to the world. what are your ideas about I can tell somebody the answer without getting it stolen from me or if you know of a place that I could send my solution where it would be safe.

Please let me know if you can help me, Thanks, Shey. :-D

You haven't found a counter example. the n=3 case can be handled with a proof using infinite descent that's accessible to anyone with a little effort. You should be able to find a proof online easily enough for you to read.

If you're still not convinced, you can always try to copyright or maybe patent it to get in an official record. Or send it to your self via registered mail and don't open it. I'd think twice beofre trying to put something kooky on a permanent record though.

Originally Posted by Zelos

it was a problem taht took many many years, how long was it acctualy? wasent it a few hundread years?
anyhow there were "proofs" before this guy, the only problem was that they werent correct

It was an open problem for almost 400 years. Wiles sat in his attic for 7 years.. day after day... working on his proof. I think it took him a few months before he decided on a method, which was induction.

Originally Posted by sheymyster

I am currently trying to get in touch with one of my old teachers to check my solution but i have checked it over and over and it always comes out right. I believe that I have found a counterexample to fermat's last theorem that solves the puzzle of whether A cubed plus B cubed can really equal C cubed. I will make sure that it is correct before I contact anybody about how I can safely introduce my important information to the world. what are your ideas about I can tell somebody the answer without getting it stolen from me or if you know of a place that I could send my solution where it would be safe.

Please let me know if you can help me, Thanks, Shey. :-D

send it to andrew.wiles@princeton.edu

It'll be safe there I swear!

Is that really his e-mail address? I could harrass him with elementary proofs.

Originally Posted by Absane

Is that really his e-mail address? I could harrass him with elementary proofs.

I was guessing.. but hey feel free to give it a go they might not publically publish his email addy for a reason haha

Considering there are only a handful of people in the world that would even hope to understand his proof... I bet he would have to hide his e-mail address from the thousands that claim they have "elementary proofs."

Example: Do a search on FLT and James Harris from sci.math. Now that's a crank.

did you know also that;

(3^n)+(4^n)+(5^n)=(6^n), where n = 3.

Originally Posted by Absane

Considering there are only a handful of people in the world that would even hope to understand his proof... I bet he would have to hide his e-mail address from the thousands that claim they have "elementary proofs."

Example: Do a search on FLT and James Harris from sci.math. Now that's a crank.

Lol - so you also know of Mr Harris (that guy makes reading the sci.math group so much fun )

The one prof at my varsity keeps a few of the "proofs" people have sent him as well - this letter is quite funny

http://www.wits.ac.za/science/number_theory/reich.htm

I had a friend who believed all sorts of weird and wonderful 9/11 conspiracies. In talking to him I came across a great psychological paper on delusion in incompetent people check it out here. I think it applies pretty well for these sorts of cranks.

Oh and our friend, sheymyster. Have a quick look at that paper, and also this website.

May I ask, do you have any formal degree-level qualifications in mathematics? I strongly suspect not.

miscast - formal training in mathematics is not required to make a meaningful contribution to mathematics (Ramanujan springs to mind). To use lack of training as a criteria is a dangerous path.

The best is when cranks compare their uneducated status to Ramanujan, not realizing it just makes them look like bigger nutters with delusions of grandeur. You average bloke without a math education who has grand ideas that will revolutionize mathematics usually has nothing but nonsense to say. You try and try to be gentle, but no one wants to hear that these great ideas they've been nursing for the past 15 years are either completely wrong, or just completely trivial and already known to everyone who ever bothered to open a math textbook. Most people can't even hold a candle to Ramanujan.


Wiles email was on the web a few years ago, I recall reading about someone emailing him regarding the emails the crank Escultura claimed to get from Wiles. Crikey, the fake Wiles emails Escultura put in the Manilla Times were funny but the article doesn't seem to exist anymore.

All math departments get nutty submissions, I'm sure Princeton gets loads due to it's prestige. You don't need Wiles' email to send him your own nuttiness. just use regular mail. Don't expect a response though.

I proved that 3 isn't a prime number. But no one will listen to me

Originally Posted by Absane

I proved that 3 isn't a prime number. But no one will listen to me

Lol - yes, 3 = 1.5 * 2! so how can it be prime :P

How did you find my proof?

We must keep this a secret!

Actually Ramanujan’s prestige and recognition is proof that the mathematics community is willing to listen to people without formal training. Nuts like to claim that their work isn’t getting the attention it deserves because the academic community refuses to listen to anyone who doesn’t have formal training, when clearly that’s not the case. It’s ironic that most of the same people who claim that professional mathematicians won’t pay attention to people who don't have a formal education usually go on to say “A formal education isn’t necessary to contribute to mathematics – just look at Ramanujan!� Apparently it never occurs to them to wonder why people took Ramanujan seriously but won’t take them seriously.

There are plenty of other examples of the academic community paying attention to non-experts. A while ago a guy with a master’s degree in electrical engineering was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry, for example.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Actually Ramanujan’s prestige and recognition is proof that the mathematics community is willing to listen to people without formal training. Nuts like to claim that their work isn’t getting the attention it deserves because the academic community refuses to listen to anyone who doesn’t have formal training, when clearly that’s not the case. It’s ironic that most of the same people who claim that professional mathematicians won’t pay attention to people who don't have a formal education usually go on to say “A formal education isn’t necessary to contribute to mathematics – just look at Ramanujan!� Apparently it never occurs to them to wonder why people took Ramanujan seriously but won’t take them seriously.

There are plenty of other examples of the academic community paying attention to non-experts. A while ago a guy with a master’s degree in electrical engineering was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry, for example.

If you look back at the early days of Quantum physics there were many who had little maths, Bohr being perhaps the most notable.

I have a new idea for Fermat´s last theorem.
Please see www.raul-sierra.com.ve
Thank you.

I want to know your opinion:
In conditions of laboratory, we use a balance of two arms.

If we place in an arm a sheet of paper of 4 cm. square and a sheet of paper of 3 cm. square. In the other arm we place a sheet of paper of 5 cm. square, we can expect that the scale among in equilibrium. I have here Pythagoras´s Theorem.

Now well, if instead of a fuesen n sheets of paper of 4, 3 and 5 cm. square we would have Fermat´s Last theorem interpreted since the concepts Pythagorics and, of course, would maintain the equilibrium the scale.

Thank you.

Dear All,
I solve Phermat last theorem. I think It is same way as he solve it.
I need just 3 line for full solving.
I need helkp. Whom I can send this solution to protec my rights?
Regards,
Merab

Originally Posted by Merab

Dear All,
I solve Phermat last theorem. I think It is same way as he solve it.
I need just 3 line for full solving.
I need helkp. Whom I can send this solution to protec my rights?
Regards,
Merab

Well what is the proof? Have you shown it to anyone? Does it use anything more complicated then arithmatic?

Originally Posted by Merab

Dear All,
I solve Phermat last theorem. I think It is same way as he solve it.
I need just 3 line for full solving.
I need helkp. Whom I can send this solution to protec my rights?
Regards,
Merab

PM me the "proof." I have no desire to be famous.

Dear All,
I solve Phermat last theorem. I think It is same way as he solve it.
I need just 3 line for full solving.
I need helkp. Whom I can send this solution to protec my rights?
Regards,
Merab

hahaha another KNS, if the greatest mathematical geniuses throu time cant solve it and once its solved its 100 pages long you can do it in 3 lines? ha you gotta be out of your mind. where do you live? on a mental institute? let me guess, youre crazy and mad and they are looking for you

He said a joke, but they have not given commentaries me on my work.

Thank you.

i dont want to be rude, but you gotta be a complete morron if you think we understand anything but english (of course some will understand what ever language that is, but im assuming its widespread) that idea of yours is unaccepteble from a mathematical point of view

I speak Spanish, I will speak with the help of a program translator.
In a balance of two arms.
We have 1 cardboard of 3 centimeters square and we have 1 cardboard of 4 centimeters square. In the other arm, we have 1 cardbiard of 5 centimeters squate. This is Pythagoras´s theorem.
if we added n cardboards in its respective places.Is it Fermat´s last theorem ?
Thanks you.

To represent x^3 + y^3 = z^3, you would need to weigh cubes.


For the fourth power... well, hypercubes.

Dar All!
it is all how You can help me?

Pythagoras used areas.
Can we use areas of cubes ?
And we not change typology.
I think that the hypercubes are not the way.
because we will analyze time, gravity and micro space and more.
The functions take to elliptical curves where there is no solution.
thanks you.

micro space? typology? Areas of cubes?

Raul - can you not find someone to translate for you as your translator is not making sense.

Areas of cube = (a^2)*6
Typology : 2 dimensions = area. 3 dimensions = volumen. two different concepts.with a new exponential increment a new concept
Micro space : theory of 5 dimension = (space + time+gravity) in micro space.
Is my English very bad ?
thanks you.

If you are using the total surface area of a cube then you are not dealing with fermat's last theorem.

I think you mean topology and not typology.

Your english is not great - i'll leave it at that.

Thanks by my English.
Is my new idea: in the balance.
it is known the example for Pythagoras. I think: many examples for Pythagoras make a example for F. L. T.
in F.L.T. , n is repeticion.
thanks you.

(3^n)+(4^n)+(5^n)=(6^n), where n = 3.

i've always loved that expression.

That expression complies for n = 3.
If we analyze the concept of exponent as repetition can find solution to F.LT.
Thanks you.

And then we analyze for n greater of 3.
Thanks you.

Fermat's Last Theorem: no solutions.

Many concepts in an expression.
Can you accept to go step by step ?
thanks you.

Raul, I am sorry but I looked at your site and the proof is wrong. I'll continue in Spanish from now on, so it will be easier for you to understand.

Raul, tu demostracion no es correcta. Lo que estas diciendo es que:

3^n= n*3^2 y eso es completamente incorrecto.

Todas tus otras conclusiones parten de esas premisas por lo tanto tampoco son correctas...
De todos modos, es loable tu interes por la matematica. Te aconsejo que sigas leyendo e intentando abordar este u otros temas

Un saludo cordial

Chclau, te agradezco tu gesto de escribir en español.
La idea mia es no buscar una igualdad como la que planteas, sino una interpretación de lo que significa exponente en la fórmula del U.T.F., caso similar a cuando se levantan indeterminados en matemáticas, donde en el punto adecuado se busca un camino distinto basado en las teorÃ*as del caso.
Quisiera tu opinión de:
((2.45951)^5)+((2.75946)^5)=((3.017089)^5)
Saludos cordiales.

ENGLISH please

um gents - if you want to communicate in spanish can you keep it in pm or translate for us non-spanish people. If i had to break off into a torrent of afrikaans it would not be fun for the non-afrikaans or dutch speakers

OK, I beg your pardon for introducing a foreign language.

It didn't escape to me that there was a big language barrier between Raul and other participants.

Summary of the last interventions:
I told Raul that I went to see his website, read the demonstration and found some errors in his thinking (IMHO)
I think, although I am not sure, that Raul does not understand that the Last Theorem refers to Integers.

Now I will translate for him, for a last time, and ask him to continue by pms if needed

Raul,

Esa ecuacion no la comprobe pero no entiendo por que la presentas. El teorema se refiere a numeros ENTEROS.

Te pido por favor que todo futuro intercambio en espaniol lo realices a traves de mensajes privados.
Muchas gracias

No probs chclau - feel free to keep it on the open forum but please translate (or just sum up what has been said)

My expression is same way, excuse me.
Thanks you.

(2^10)+(6^10)=(X^10)
Which is x's best solution ?
Thank you.