March 2nd, 2018, 06:33 PM  #241 
Banned Camp Joined: Mar 2017 From: . Posts: 338 Thanks: 8 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 06:37 PM. 
March 20th, 2018, 11:13 PM  #242 
Banned Camp Joined: Apr 2016 From: Australia Posts: 244 Thanks: 29 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 12:07 PM. 
March 22nd, 2018, 08:27 AM  #243 
Banned Camp Joined: Mar 2017 From: . Posts: 338 Thanks: 8 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, 08:48 AM  #244 
Math Team Joined: Oct 2011 From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada Posts: 13,627 Thanks: 954  
March 22nd, 2018, 10:08 AM  #245 
Banned Camp Joined: Apr 2016 From: Australia Posts: 244 Thanks: 29 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, 04:08 PM  #246 
Global Moderator Joined: Oct 2008 From: London, Ontario, Canada  The Forest City Posts: 7,885 Thanks: 1088 Math Focus: Elementary mathematics and beyond  Adam Ledger is serving a oneday ban for posting a profane and insulting message.

March 24th, 2018, 05:13 AM  #247 
Banned Camp Joined: Mar 2017 From: . Posts: 338 Thanks: 8 Math Focus: Number theory 
Guys, I think we are now winding up number theory...or preparing it for more complexity. I also have with me the formula for finding prime numbers. Indeed these findings are not fit for posting them here. After this I will jump to Riemann hypothesis and then that's it. Mathematics is not coming to an end. It is taking a huge step in becoming more complex. Out of the work I have, there will spring up even more and more and for those dealing with various related problems, I hope this will provide a better foundation for the solution of the problems. 
March 26th, 2018, 03:01 PM  #248 
Banned Camp Joined: Apr 2016 From: Australia Posts: 244 Thanks: 29 Math Focus: horses,cash me outside how bow dah, trash doves 
a lot of your inequalities involve statements that simplify to "therefore m>m". I really am not familiar with an algebra in which this can be true, but it cannot be said for elements of N. I had an individual contact me via facebook with very similar assertions or collages of symbols that had me spending a lot of my time numerically verifying functional equation for the Riemann hypothesis that involved the collatz function, and similar false or trivial statements made in regard to inequalities when he showed the proof for it. Anyway I just think that you should go left field, and as much as I hate the subject I would recommend some heavy reading time in the field of psychology, particularly the condition of mania. 
March 27th, 2018, 03:33 AM  #249  
Banned Camp Joined: Apr 2016 From: Australia Posts: 244 Thanks: 29 Math Focus: horses,cash me outside how bow dah, trash doves  Denis why Quote:
Could even end up with shareholders, and office in California, who knows how much traffic it will draw in.  
March 27th, 2018, 12:32 PM  #250 
Banned Camp Joined: Mar 2017 From: . Posts: 338 Thanks: 8 Math Focus: Number theory 
You could point out an example of a case where the m>m statement is implied. Your point is well taken and it is fair enough. You could either be right or wrong despite previously having made a poor first impression. According to Jeff I am a troll and you are busy feeding me. If I was to return the favour and I happen to be very honest I would describe you more accurately than your description of me, and I am certain you wouldn't like the words I would use despite them being true. It is now few days to a year since I started pursuing maths and I joined the site with aim of finding someone, or some people with whom I can lias with and do a great job. It hasn't happened yet, but I do remember having joined the platform with quite a number of personal issues that it might have been hard for me to connect with anyone or for anyone to connect with me. Anyway it is now approaching a time where I will have to rethink things and choose either to continue, to look for other means or to quit. Whichever choice I will eventually make I will be at peace with it. 

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 09:06 AM 
Simple Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and Beal's Conjecture  MrAwojobi  Number Theory  1  September 29th, 2015 08:22 AM 
Simple Fermat Proof a^n+b^n=c^n  M_B_S  Number Theory  15  July 29th, 2015 06:14 AM 
Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????  RanberSingh  New Users  3  August 10th, 2014 02:44 PM 
Simple Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and Beal's Conjecture  MrAwojobi  Number Theory  21  January 8th, 2011 10:11 AM 