October 3rd, 2015, 04:26 AM  #11 
Senior Member Joined: Dec 2007 Posts: 687 Thanks: 47  
October 3rd, 2015, 09:29 AM  #12 
Member Joined: Oct 2013 Posts: 57 Thanks: 5 
thank you magicterry! It's a superb visualisation about a hot discussed problem. 
October 6th, 2015, 02:14 PM  #13 
Member Joined: Aug 2015 From: Chiddingfold, Surrey Posts: 57 Thanks: 3 Math Focus: Number theory, Applied maths  
October 6th, 2015, 02:26 PM  #14  
Member Joined: Aug 2015 From: Chiddingfold, Surrey Posts: 57 Thanks: 3 Math Focus: Number theory, Applied maths  Quote:
getting my work to show easily in the forum. I find it far easier to email in PDF format. I see that on page 2 there is a reply where a PDF version has been included. That works but is not as straight forward as with email. So if you like I will email you a copy. Best wishes Terry  
November 1st, 2015, 07:27 AM  #15 
Member Joined: Aug 2015 From: Chiddingfold, Surrey Posts: 57 Thanks: 3 Math Focus: Number theory, Applied maths  Correction
On the first diagram on page one pf my document, the list of element sizes shown as 1,2,3,5 etc. should be 1,2,4,5 etc

November 1st, 2015, 07:57 PM  #16 
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  
November 2nd, 2015, 05:50 PM  #17  
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2015 From: Barto PA Posts: 170 Thanks: 18  Quote:
one ever since I installed an electric starter. Besides, the Cword is now PIC and offensive. {There's no excuse for not keeping up with this S.}  
November 2nd, 2015, 06:14 PM  #18  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,649 Thanks: 2630 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
You are saying that the word "crank" is offensive? Perhaps it is to the sort of selfimportant person who posts that sort of junk. But then I find it offensive that they post such spam. At least with most spam threads you can tell they are spam without even opening them. (Although any reference to FLT is quite a red flag usually). As to there being no excuse for keeping up with something, I don't even know what you think I'm not keeping up with. But since I don't live in a culture that is anything like yours, that's not much of a surprise. Why would you imagine and insist that I keep up with your culture? You don't keep up with mine. Most people can think of only one or two things to say about this country, and guess what: they don't represent anything like the reality for most people here.  
November 3rd, 2015, 12:19 AM  #19  
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2015 From: Barto PA Posts: 170 Thanks: 18  Quote:
have written PI, but then what do I know. Lighten up  it was meant as a joke. And as far as your keeping up with that S**t goes, it doesn't matter to me if you do or don't because that's exactly what it is  S**t. As far as "cranks" are concerned, not everyone who writes an alleged proof of FLT is one  it's just the ones that persist in claiming they have a proof even after it has been pointed out to them numerous times by many people that their arguments are flawed. Unfortunately, there are way too many of those people on line. On the other hand, there may actually be a few people who have written proposed proofs that can not be easily refuted by you or anyone. What then? Would you label those people as cranks if they could logically rebut every one of your objections? What if you persisted in saying the argument could not possibly be correct just because it's too simple, even though you couldn't refute it? Who would be the crank then? By the way, you effectively quoted me out of context by not including the first part of my post  thereby giving the impression that my post was meant to be serious instead of TIC.* *Tongue In Cheek (in the modern meaning of the phrase)  
November 6th, 2015, 12:21 AM  #20 
Senior Member Joined: Dec 2007 Posts: 687 Thanks: 47 
I took a look at it, I can't say I understood, but maybe that's my problem. Since the idea is to decompose geometrically the nth powers, it must have some argument somewhere showing how to keep with integral values, I didn't find any so I didn't further the reading. So I cannot call him a crank, it is rather offensive prejudge like that especially when he wrote "The attachment provides convincing visual evidence in favor of FLT, buy[sic] not a 100% proof. Perhaps it could lead someone to a simple 100% proof.". Also the paper display some naivety: even if that works for some cases, we cannot take for granted that some annoying exceptions won't occur somewhere, looks like this is not comprehended but, again, I just skimmed through. So even applying the principle of charity in my reading looks like it lacks something, but the OP himself didn't claim he had a proof. As a side note, an example of a flawed proof for the case $n=3$ using geometrical reasoning. Assume that we projected the triangle upwards, in such way that we should be able to make two perfect cubes equal to a perfect cube which is drawn from the hypotenuse. That means, we have $(a,b,c)$, where it holds that $a^2+b^2=c^2$, and now we have $(a',b',c')$ and likewise $a'^2+b'^2=c'^2$. Connecting the three vertices of both triangles we should have edges $(u,v,w)=(a,b,c)=(a',b',c')$ for suitable $(a,b)$ (either $a=b$ or $a\not=b$), but that's not possible insomuch we must have $u=v=w$, and necessarily WLOG $a\not=c$. What does it prove? Not even a fairly comprehensive subcase of the case $n=3$, since it is not necessary that the cubes must relate as above. It shows that it is sufficient to have $(a,b,c)$ so that $a^2+b^2=c^2$ to conclude that $a^3+b^3\not=c^3$, what is anyway very clear already. I'm not sure whether the paper has some mistake as the mistake above, which I found elsewhere. 

Tags 
flt, proof, visual 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Book/article describing the process of "creating" the proof  honzik  Math Books  3  June 11th, 2012 12:49 PM 
A "simple" application of dirac delta "shift theorem"...help  SedaKhold  Calculus  0  February 13th, 2012 11:45 AM 
"separate and integrate" or "Orangutang method"  The Chaz  Calculus  1  August 5th, 2011 09:03 PM 
"Mathematical Logic" by Cori and Lascar: Incomplete proof?  omoplata  Applied Math  4  June 3rd, 2011 02:53 PM 
sample exerimentneed help finding "statistic" and "result"  katie0127  Advanced Statistics  0  December 3rd, 2008 01:54 PM 