My Math Forum A Visual "Proof" of FLT
 User Name Remember Me? Password

 Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum

 October 3rd, 2015, 04:26 AM #11 Senior Member   Joined: Dec 2007 Posts: 687 Thanks: 47 Here are the OP's files in pdf format zipped. http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php...88999355395784 Thanks from Martin Hopf
 October 3rd, 2015, 09:29 AM #12 Member   Joined: Oct 2013 Posts: 60 Thanks: 6 thank you magicterry! It's a superb visualisation about a hot discussed problem. Thanks from magicterry
October 6th, 2015, 02:14 PM   #13
Member

Joined: Aug 2015
From: Chiddingfold, Surrey

Posts: 57
Thanks: 3

Math Focus: Number theory, Applied maths
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Country Boy I don't understand your refusal to post this in a form anyone could see.
Not that I am refusing, just everything I have tried doesn't seem to work. But see section 2 where someone has converted my files to pdf format.

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:
 Originally Posted by v8archie When has any FLT crank ever made things easy? At least with this I'm not even tempted even look.
Sorry you find it not easy. The reason it is not easy is that I have had great difficulty in
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
Quote:
 Originally Posted by v8archie When has any FLT crank ever made things easy? At least with this I'm not even tempted even look.
I feel like this might be intentional, at least subconsciously; if no one can read the work, no one criticizes it.

November 2nd, 2015, 05:50 PM   #17
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2015
From: Barto PA

Posts: 170
Thanks: 18

Quote:
 Originally Posted by v8archie When has any FLT crank ever made things easy? At least with this I'm not even tempted even look.
Crank??? I'll have you know I haven't needed
one ever since I installed an electric starter.
Besides, the C-word 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: 7,675
Thanks: 2655

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
 Originally Posted by uvkajed Besides, the C-word is now PIC and offensive. {There's no excuse for not keeping up with this S.}
What is PIC?

You are saying that the word "crank" is offensive? Perhaps it is to the sort of self-important 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:
 Originally Posted by v8archie What is PIC? You are saying that the word "crank" is offensive? Perhaps it is to the sort of self-important 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.
PIC: Politically InCorrect. Perhaps I should
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 n-th 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 sub-case 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 Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post honzik Math Books 3 June 11th, 2012 12:49 PM SedaKhold Calculus 0 February 13th, 2012 11:45 AM The Chaz Calculus 1 August 5th, 2011 09:03 PM omoplata Applied Math 4 June 3rd, 2011 02:53 PM katie0127 Advanced Statistics 0 December 3rd, 2008 01:54 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top