May 7th, 2016, 04:51 AM  #11  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,355 Thanks: 2469 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
Does your paper use any mathematics that is not taught in highschool? I very much doubt it (because of the nature of such attempted proofs generally). It's inconceivable that a journal of such prestige could fail to understand your proof, and if it were correct, it it inconceivable that they wouldn't print it.  
May 7th, 2016, 06:18 AM  #12 
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2015 From: Planet Earth Posts: 129 Thanks: 25  Do you agree to acknowledge that it isn't a proof, if we find a flaw in it? History seems to indicate that you won't, so why should we bother? It has to work both ways.

May 7th, 2016, 06:30 AM  #13 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 158 Thanks: 4 
You are demonstrating the same attitude of being in denial. One would doubt if this is a maths forum.Maths is supposed to be discussd here not personalities. Read my proof and make comments that are based on mathematics.

May 7th, 2016, 08:02 AM  #14 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,355 Thanks: 2469 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
I would characterise my attitude as disinterested or impartial. I have no reason to deny your claims if they are correct, and neither has the magazine. As with most people who claim to have solved these problems in a couple of pages of highschool mathematics, I think that you don't understand the problems. 
May 7th, 2016, 08:09 AM  #15 
Senior Member Joined: Sep 2010 Posts: 221 Thanks: 20 
Very interesting. It starts with A^x+B^y=C^z Then appears A^x+B^y=M^n i.e. C^z=M^n and M is assumed to be integer as well as A^x/n and B^y/n. But if n does not divide x, y, z all these numbers are irrational. There's no reason to read the rest. 
May 7th, 2016, 03:25 PM  #16 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 158 Thanks: 4 
Why do you have a problem if they are irrational? You better read the whole thing before you make further comments.

May 8th, 2016, 10:06 AM  #17 
Math Team Joined: Jan 2015 From: Alabama Posts: 3,261 Thanks: 894  
May 8th, 2016, 12:24 PM  #18 
Senior Member Joined: Sep 2010 Posts: 221 Thanks: 20  
May 8th, 2016, 09:38 PM  #19 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 158 Thanks: 4 
Can both of you not see that for the case of FLT the terms are integers to the power of n. All I have done is reduce the problem to something that looks like an identity but shown not to be simply because of the impossibillity of equating coefficients.

May 19th, 2016, 04:51 AM  #20 
Math Team Joined: Jan 2015 From: Alabama Posts: 3,261 Thanks: 894 
Yes, integers required. But your reference to "irrational numbers" immediately assumes that cannot true you are assuming from the start that FLT is true.


Tags 
beal, conjecture, fermat, proof, theorem 
Search tags for this page 
beal conjecture proof,solution to beals conjecture,beal conjecture,beal conjecture site:mymathforum.com
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Simple Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and Beal's Conjecture  MrAwojobi  Number Theory  1  September 29th, 2015 07:22 AM 
Proof Beal's conjecture and Fermat's last theorem  HuyThang1981  Number Theory  17  November 21st, 2014 02:57 PM 
Proof of beals conjecture  akhil verma  Number Theory  29  July 21st, 2013 04:51 AM 
Simple Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and Beal's Conjecture  MrAwojobi  Number Theory  21  January 8th, 2011 09:11 AM 
On The Beal Conjecture And Fermat's Last Theorem.  Don Blazys  Number Theory  15  April 3rd, 2009 09:04 PM 