May 10th, 2019, 11:02 PM  #31  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,356 Thanks: 738  Quote:
@michaelweir We know there's a mistake because we saw a few days back that no proof based on elementary algebraic manipulations can work. And there's the metareason that if there were in fact an elementary algebraic proof, someone would have found it in 350 years. So there is a mistake in there, and I was hoping (1) or (2) would be false, but if they are both true then somebody needs to dive in. Any volunteers? Last edited by Maschke; May 10th, 2019 at 11:05 PM.  
May 11th, 2019, 08:35 AM  #32 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2019 From: iran Posts: 318 Thanks: 14 
the post #2 shows the proof and the final result are wrong
Last edited by youngmath; May 11th, 2019 at 08:46 AM. 
May 13th, 2019, 11:11 AM  #33 
Member Joined: Mar 2019 From: california Posts: 74 Thanks: 0 
Masche  Thank you for spending the time you have spent on this proof. I THINK YOU WILL BE REWARDED FOR SPENDING THE TIME. I haven't spent the time to rebut the argument to show that proof is outside the parameters of an algebraic manipulation, as is this one. To make the claim that this proof about algebraic applies you will have to label every statement in a proof is an example of a algebraic manipulation. I don't think you can do that. The Nautilus construction is much more than a way to solve FLT. I have come up with a way to combine the number line analysis of this proof with the Nautilus to come up with another FLT. There are probably other proofs of FLT using the Nautilus. It's like using a fishing net of the ocean of Mathematics, instead of a single fishing line. Who knows what fish will be caught next? Last edited by skipjack; June 4th, 2019 at 02:30 PM. 
June 4th, 2019, 01:59 PM  #34 
Member Joined: Mar 2019 From: california Posts: 74 Thanks: 0 
Just saying something doesn't make it right. I ignored replying until now, to see if you would have something to say. You didn't. Nor has anyone else made any comments. So, am I right in believing that the proof is right?

June 4th, 2019, 02:29 PM  #35 
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 2,257 Thanks: 928 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff. 
I can't speak for anyone else but I think the silence is more likely that we've given up on your "simple" approach to a problem that has been proven not to have one. Dan 
June 4th, 2019, 03:05 PM  #36 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2019 From: iran Posts: 318 Thanks: 14 
in the second pdf equation 5 is wrong because you wrote e/f*h instead of e/f*h*y

June 6th, 2019, 04:15 PM  #37 
Member Joined: Mar 2019 From: california Posts: 74 Thanks: 0 
youngmath Yes i made an error in equation 4, where I should have factored the Y out then. So, th error was corrected by taking it out equation 5. So the proof is still good. I am looking for someone to help me with writing the proof in an acceptable from to submit to a mathmatical journal. I will share credit and prizes with whoever helps. the field medal is worth $700,000 at leqst. 
June 6th, 2019, 06:01 PM  #38 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2019 From: iran Posts: 318 Thanks: 14 
equation 3 h*y*(c^2/d^2 * h * y  2 c/d * y  e/f * h * y) = 2 y^2 multiply h*y by the bracket in LHS h^2 * y^2 * c^2/d^2  2 * h * y^2 * c/d  h^2 * y^2 * e/f = 2 y^2 factor y^2 out of both sides h^2 * c^2/d^2  2 * h * c/d  h^2 * e/f = 2 as you see y doesn't remain in the equation 
June 6th, 2019, 06:39 PM  #39 
Math Team Joined: Oct 2011 From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada Posts: 14,597 Thanks: 1038  https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...2+y%5E2+for+y Equation simplifies to: y^2(c^2*h^2/d^2  2*c*h/d  e*h^2/f + 2)=0 Last edited by Denis; June 6th, 2019 at 06:51 PM. 
June 6th, 2019, 07:58 PM  #40 
Member Joined: Oct 2018 From: USA Posts: 88 Thanks: 61 Math Focus: Algebraic Geometry  Well, the first step for that would be to learn how to use $\LaTeX$. If you wrote your post in latex you would be able to copy paste into a latex document. Also, if you rewrote your post with it i'm sure a lot more people would be willing to read through it since it wouldn't be a haphazard mess of "*"s and "^"'s.


Tags 
analysis, diophantine, diopphantine, fermat, theorem 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Fermat's last theorem  Lourie  Number Theory  3  April 1st, 2017 12:37 AM 
About Fermat's Little Theorem  McPogor  Number Theory  5  December 7th, 2013 07:28 PM 
Fermat's Last Theorem  mathbalarka  Number Theory  2  April 3rd, 2012 11:03 AM 
More Fermat's Last Theorem.  theomoaner  Number Theory  29  November 26th, 2011 10:23 PM 
Fermat's last theorem.  SnakeO  Number Theory  10  September 25th, 2007 04:23 PM 