My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum


Thanks Tree46Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
June 10th, 2019, 01:43 PM   #61
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 796
Thanks: 295

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelcweir View Post
Money doesn't really count in the world of mathematics, does it? Only proofs do. So where is the proof that my proof is wrong? Put up or shut up.
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.
Thanks from Denis and topsquark
Micrm@ss is offline  
 
June 10th, 2019, 01:50 PM   #62
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 796
Thanks: 295

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelcweir View Post
Yes, I am thinking to do that very thing. What do you think the world will think of you when the proof is correct and proven so?
Assuming that the proof is correct, then this will be world news. You'll become very famous, and you'll have quite the opportunities lined up for you.

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.
Thanks from Denis, topsquark and michaelcweir
Micrm@ss is offline  
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.
Thanks from topsquark
Denis is online now  
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 mean-spirited 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.
michaelcweir is offline  
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,
michaelcweir is offline  
June 13th, 2019, 02:13 PM   #66
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,321
Thanks: 714

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelcweir View Post
Maschke never replied.
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.
Maschke is offline  
June 13th, 2019, 02:13 PM   #67
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,194
Thanks: 897

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelcweir View Post
Hi Denis
The Wile's proof of FLT has mathematical manipulations. By your criteria, is the Wile's proof also wrong?
Wiley did not use "algebra" (as taught in HS and College Algebra) but "Algebra" (which contains a bunch of manipulations in Linear Algebra, Number Theory, and probably some kind of Topology, but that last is a guess.) The proof that says FLT can't be solved does not apply here so, yes, Wiley's proof is valid.

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
Thanks from Greens
topsquark is offline  
June 13th, 2019, 02:49 PM   #68
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 20,746
Thanks: 2133

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelcweir View Post
There are statements in my proof that are not a mathematical manipulation.
Why do you think they're correct statements?
Thanks from topsquark
skipjack is offline  
June 13th, 2019, 03:53 PM   #69
SDK
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: USA

Posts: 619
Thanks: 391

Math Focus: Dynamical systems, analytic function theory, numerics
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelcweir View Post
Hi Denis

My reply to to Maschke was that that only applied to proofs that 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?
Nobody said "any proof which has algebraic manipulation must be wrong". Mathematics is about being explicit and clear. What I said was that Hensel's lemma guarantees that any "proof" relying solely on very specific algebraic manipulations must be false.

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.
Thanks from topsquark
SDK is offline  
June 13th, 2019, 04:02 PM   #70
SDK
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: USA

Posts: 619
Thanks: 391

Math Focus: Dynamical systems, analytic function theory, numerics
Quote:
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
Wiley did not use "algebra" (as taught in HS and College Algebra) but "Algebra" (which contains a bunch of manipulations in Linear Algebra, Number Theory, and probably some kind of Topology, but that last is a guess.) The proof that says FLT can't be solved does not apply here so, yes, Wiley's proof is valid.

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
I don't believe his proof was computer assisted. From what I recall, his proof of FLT was merely a Corollary of a proof of the modularity conjecture. This was a longstanding conjecture which noticed a link between complex analysis and algebraic geometry.

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 non-modular. Thus, proving the modularity conjecture (which is what Wiles did) was sufficient to prove that no such counterexample can exist.
Thanks from topsquark
SDK is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

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





Copyright © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.