June 10th, 2019, 01:43 PM  #61 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 796 Thanks: 295  Hensel's lemma proves that your proof must be wrong. Whether we were smart enough to find the flaw in the proof or not. Explain why Hensel's lemma does not apply and you got yourself a winner. Otherwise, no single soul is going to listen to you.

June 10th, 2019, 01:50 PM  #62  
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 796 Thanks: 295  Quote:
It will be a total embarrassment for the mathematical world. An outsider proved something that took mathematicians centuries to do. A famous tool, Hensel's lemma, will have been proven wrong. But aside from a big embarassment and a lot of media coverage, nothing will change mathematically. FLT is famous but is a fringe result. Only a few specialists really care, it is not important for more than 99% of mathematicians. There's this last thing I want to share though. Even if your proof is entirely correct, you might not convince many people of this. Luckily, there is a foolproof way to 100% convince everybody your proof works. The key is in proof automation. It happened before where a mathematician proved something, and it was in doubt. He proceeded to automate the proof, so a computer can check it. After that, a proof will never be in doubt any more. Home Page  Metamath here a lot of theorems are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. If you can use this language, or another, write down your proof and let the proof checker verify it, everybody willl have to accept your proof as valid. If I were you, this would be the way I would proceed. Computerize the proof and publish it.  
June 10th, 2019, 01:57 PM  #63 
Math Team Joined: Oct 2011 From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada Posts: 14,580 Thanks: 1038 
Seems to me that your steps should have been: 1: submit your proof as YOU had it (no help asked for) 2: wait for the verdict, which would be "wrong"! 3: go to math help site(s) to have above verified/confirmed. 
June 13th, 2019, 01:59 PM  #64 
Member Joined: Mar 2019 From: california Posts: 55 Thanks: 0 
Hi Denis My reply to Maschke was that that only applied to proofs where every line of the proof is mathematical manipulation. Maschke never replied. There are statements in my proof that are not a mathematical manipulation. The Wile's proof of FLT has mathematical manipulations. By your criteria, is the Wile's proof also wrong? So now, are going to say nothing , like Maschke did? I deliberately did not answer a previous question of the same sort, just to see how hostile people are to this proof. Maschke said nothing, nor did the person who also asked about this issue as well. If they were interested in whether the proof was right or wrong, they would have mentioned the statement I made as an answer. They did nothing. I know that you Denis, were able to follow the proof in the form that I presented, because you found an error. But to date, you have not said anything wrong about the proof. The silence is shouting that you still have something against the proof. Is there something wrong about the mathematics? Even the suggestion to take this proof to arbitration is just a polite request to go away. there is no dispute that needs to be arbitrated. I could make comments about the mocking statements that other people made about sharing the prize money. You can go read it for yourself. My intention in making that offer was that I had come to the conclusion that this was a meanspirited environment, and that it would be better to move on. I was interested in finding someone who would help me navigate the hostility that I was seeing before me. I can certainly figure out how to convert to mathematical notation but what would be the point if I didn't master the hostility? I WAS LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO HELP WITH THAT. This whole experience has made me wonder whether Fermat may have had the same experience with mathematicians of his time. And that later in life, he found a different proof for n =4 because he wanted to find another way to validate the proof in a different way. If that was the case, then Fermat had experience that I lacked. So it may be that I will experience this same hostility wherever I submit it. I'll have to think about that. Last edited by skipjack; June 14th, 2019 at 05:40 AM. 
June 13th, 2019, 02:01 PM  #65 
Member Joined: Mar 2019 From: california Posts: 55 Thanks: 0 
I have replied to this issue earlier to Maschke and now to Denis. Go read either of those replies,

June 13th, 2019, 02:13 PM  #66 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,321 Thanks: 714  I did reply to you recently. I pointed out that you've posted several different versions of the proof, each one assuming different hypotheses. I pointed out that you've ignored specific objections people have raised. I explained to you a couple of weeks ago that in general FLT is not something I know much about nor do I generally get involved in claimed proofs. I made a run at trying to understand your ideas and at some point ran out of interest. I would still find it helpful if you would write out a clear exposition of your official version of the proof. But you needn't take it personally if I don't have anything more to add in this thread. 
June 13th, 2019, 02:13 PM  #67  
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 2,194 Thanks: 897 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff.  Quote:
As I understand it Wiley used some kind of new type of "integer" that cut down FLT to a finite number of possibilities, which he then used a computer to dismiss. Dan  
June 13th, 2019, 02:49 PM  #68 
Global Moderator Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 20,746 Thanks: 2133  
June 13th, 2019, 03:53 PM  #69  
Senior Member Joined: Sep 2016 From: USA Posts: 619 Thanks: 391 Math Focus: Dynamical systems, analytic function theory, numerics  Quote:
If you don't understand why your "proof" falls in this category, then its up to you to spend some time reading. It is not on anyone here to spoon feed it to you. Also, while I can't speak for Maschke, I can guess why he stopped replying. You are showing all signs that you are a crank. There appears to be a 0% chance that you are actually interested in learning anything and pointing out a mistake in your proof doesn't cause you to rethink your approach, but rather to return hours later with a corrected version. Each correction grows in length and involves pages of computations which nobody is going to check. This is almost the defining quality of a mathematical crank (see e.g https://web.mst.edu/~lmhall/WhatToDo...ectorComes.pdf) At no point are you willing to consider that your proof might be wrong. At no point have you spent time critically thinking about how you are presenting your material, or questioning your own knowledge, or spent time learning what other people have already done on this (extremely well studied) problem. So no. Nobody is going to listen to you because you aren't willing to listen to anyone else. I recommend spending more time reading and less time writing.  
June 13th, 2019, 04:02 PM  #70  
Senior Member Joined: Sep 2016 From: USA Posts: 619 Thanks: 391 Math Focus: Dynamical systems, analytic function theory, numerics  Quote:
Roughly, the conjecture stated that a special class of elliptic curves are always modular. Modular functions are periodic analytic functions which play nicely with a certain Lie group. This conjecture is related to FLT by another theorem proved in the 1960s or 1970s which showed that if you have a counterexample to FLT it can be used to construct a rational elliptic curve which is nonmodular. Thus, proving the modularity conjecture (which is what Wiles did) was sufficient to prove that no such counterexample can exist.  

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 