March 2nd, 2018, 05:33 PM  #241 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2017 From: . Posts: 295 Thanks: 6 Math Focus: Number theory 
Haha.. the Marigian Lemma, Mariga's Formula... or even better, Missing Piece theorem. I might be back some day maybe soon because of my love for science. Last edited by Mariga; March 2nd, 2018 at 05:37 PM. 
March 20th, 2018, 10:13 PM  #242 
Banned Camp Joined: Apr 2016 From: Australia Posts: 197 Thanks: 24 Math Focus: horses,cash me outside how bow dah, trash doves 
Ok I have skimmed through a lot of this, but I have not seem anything relating to padic numbers. Now I have done *some* work on padic expansion and the conversion of a number from a xadic representation to a yadic representation, and have been able to determine the digital root of a number from such methods. Although I have not gotten to the point where it is clear to me exactly how this problem would be approached with padic numbers, if the OP could please visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padic_number you will see they do indeed mention Fermat's Last Theorem as being related. So in as much as my experience does not match that of Wiles nor does my calibre, the work I have done on padic numbers is enough for me to be certain that they are an absolute necessity for a proof of this theorem *somehow*. Anyway you have 1 week while I am sleeping starting from today to formulate a response that demonstrates you have done some reading on the works of Kummer as a starting point on the subject. Last edited by greg1313; March 22nd, 2018 at 11:07 AM. 
March 22nd, 2018, 07:27 AM  #243 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2017 From: . Posts: 295 Thanks: 6 Math Focus: Number theory 
There is even a much simpler proof of this theorem that directly links it with and solves beal's conjecture. This proof is correct, as hard as it may be to believe. I did a very nice edit on it to remove irrelevant parts and to shorten bridges and so forth and it is much clearer. Will post it too. The simpler proof has been missed for ages because of a very very tiny mistake the first mathematicians to attempt to solve it did. That's why it became as hard as it has been. 
March 22nd, 2018, 07:48 AM  #244 
Math Team Joined: Oct 2011 From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada Posts: 11,862 Thanks: 768  
March 22nd, 2018, 09:08 AM  #245 
Banned Camp Joined: Apr 2016 From: Australia Posts: 197 Thanks: 24 Math Focus: horses,cash me outside how bow dah, trash doves  just to be certain
Ok but since you know the answer, can you please tutor me on Andrew Wile's proof and why he overlooked your proof for so many years? it's just that I have been focusing entirely on number theory for at least 5 years now, and I have delegated this problem to the later part of the next decade. Also can would you mind telling the forum how old you are and how long you have been focusing on number theory, this is important, if you really are someone that has found a solution that all others have overlooked for centuries, you will indeed be a very famous mathematician! 
March 22nd, 2018, 03:08 PM  #246 
Global Moderator Joined: Oct 2008 From: London, Ontario, Canada  The Forest City Posts: 7,767 Thanks: 1017 Math Focus: Elementary mathematics and beyond  Adam Ledger is serving a oneday ban for posting a profane and insulting message.


Tags 
fermat, proof, simplest, theorem 
Search tags for this page 
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Fermat was correct... he had a truly marvelous simple proof of his last theorem.  RanberSingh  Number Theory  2  April 27th, 2017 08:06 AM 
Simple Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and Beal's Conjecture  MrAwojobi  Number Theory  1  September 29th, 2015 07:22 AM 
Simple Fermat Proof a^n+b^n=c^n  M_B_S  Number Theory  15  July 29th, 2015 05:14 AM 
Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????  RanberSingh  New Users  3  August 10th, 2014 01:44 PM 
Simple Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and Beal's Conjecture  MrAwojobi  Number Theory  21  January 8th, 2011 09:11 AM 