My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > High School Math Forum > Trigonometry

Trigonometry Trigonometry Math Forum


Thanks Tree20Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
March 27th, 2019, 12:23 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,329
Thanks: 720

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelcweir View Post
Yes, you are right. I have a problem with notation, but notation can be fixed. You are also right that the idea behind the notation is what really matters.

if a <0 then Z(n/2) is longer than Y(n/2) and by extension Z > Y. This violates the assumption that Z>Y.

So a = 0 or a > 0. If a=0 then the proof shows the right triangle must be the representation of a non-primitive Pythagorean triple.

When a >0 then Z(n) is greater than X(n) + Y(n).

I did want to thank you for bringing up so many issues. This has made me examine the theorem in a different way. It may be possible to construct a different proof. So thank you for that.
You're very welcome. Glad I was able to help clarify the issues.
Maschke is offline  
 
March 27th, 2019, 01:13 PM   #22
Math Team
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada

Posts: 14,597
Thanks: 1038

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelcweir View Post
It may be possible to construct a different proof.
If there is, then it certainly would have been found by now....
Denis is offline  
March 30th, 2019, 11:16 AM   #23
Member
 
Joined: Mar 2019
From: california

Posts: 57
Thanks: 0

Challange to find an error

Of course you don't have a proof that my FLT proof is wrong. Nor does anyone else on this forum.

Why don't you make yourself useful and find some other better mathematicians to look and see if they can find an error in the proof.
michaelcweir is offline  
March 30th, 2019, 11:29 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,329
Thanks: 720

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelcweir View Post
Of course you don't have a proof that my FLT proof is wrong. Nor does anyone else on this forum.
I already showed you the error in your proof. If there were a Fermat triple $x^{10} + y^{10} = z^{10}$ then there would be a Pythagorean triple $(x^5)^2 + (y^5)^2 = (z^5)^2$ and your $\alpha$ would be zero. Then the rest of your proof would fail.

You seemed to acknowledge this error earlier, and now you're back to ... what, exactly? You haven't got a new proof and you already acknowledged the failure of your earlier proof.
Maschke is offline  
March 30th, 2019, 03:26 PM   #25
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,203
Thanks: 901

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelcweir View Post
Of course you don't have a proof that my FLT proof is wrong. Nor does anyone else on this forum.

Why don't you make yourself useful and find some other better mathematicians to look and see if they can find an error in the proof.
You understand that the burden of proof is on you, don't you? If a member (or anyone else in the world) wants to look at your proof and finds an objection then it is upon you to defend it. It doesn't matter if someone agrees with you or not. It doesn't matter if you don't like the person or the question. Denis does not need to go over your proof to find a proof that says your ideas are wrong. You just have to accept that this is going to happen. Sorry but that's the real world of academia.

In addition there have been a number of Mathematicians that have worked to show that there is no simple proof of FLT using algebra and that should translate into no proof by trigonometry as well. This is why you are getting so much resistance.

Someone in this thread once asked you to disprove $\displaystyle a^3 + b^3 = c^3$. You haven't done so. If you could give the full argument about why this equation fails it will generate you some more support for your ideas.

-Dan
Thanks from Denis
topsquark is offline  
March 30th, 2019, 04:06 PM   #26
Math Team
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada

Posts: 14,597
Thanks: 1038

Quote:
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
Denis does not need to go over your proof...
You mean Maschke...
Denis is offline  
March 30th, 2019, 05:17 PM   #27
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,203
Thanks: 901

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denis View Post
You mean Maschke...
I thought he was refering to post 22. But either way.

-Dan
topsquark is offline  
March 30th, 2019, 09:42 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,329
Thanks: 720

Quote:
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
I thought he was refering to post 22. But either way.
I thought he was addressing Denis. But then he said, "Nor does anyone else on this forum.' I'd been under the impression earlier that I've made my point.

Not only that ... I had a rare experience, that of getting through to an, let us say, alternative thinker. I rarely engage with FLT threads because of the likely futility of the enterprise. I was gratified that I was able to make a mathematical point and that the OP agreed that it refuted his proof.

The OP's latest makes me doubt all that. Perhaps that didn't happen earlier at all. Or perhaps the OP got the point earlier but now isn't so sure.

I await clarification from the michaelcweir.
Thanks from Denis and topsquark

Last edited by Maschke; March 30th, 2019 at 09:48 PM.
Maschke is offline  
March 30th, 2019, 09:47 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 803
Thanks: 301

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maschke View Post
I thought he was addressing Denis. But then he said, "Nor does anyone else on this forum.' I'd been under the impression earlier that I've made my point.

Not only that ... that I'd had a wonderful and rare experience, that of getting through to an, let us say, alternative thinker. I rarely engage with FLT posts because of the likely futility of the enterprise. So I was gratified that we had a mathematical meeting of the minds and that I was able to communicate some math to someone who understood that it showed that they don't have a proof.

The OP's latest makes me doubt all that. Perhaps that didn't happen earlier at all. Or perhaps the OP got the point earlier but now isn't so sure.

I await clarification on this point from the michaelcweir.
Yes. If you get an amateur FLT-prover to admit his proof is bad, that is an accomplishment on par of proving the FLT itself. But I doubt you did it, if I saw his latest post.
Thanks from Denis, Maschke and topsquark
Micrm@ss is online now  
March 31st, 2019, 05:55 AM   #30
Math Team
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada

Posts: 14,597
Thanks: 1038

YES....all this is quite WEIRd
Denis is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > High School Math Forum > Trigonometry

Tags
fermat, page, proof, theorem



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New proof for Fermat's little theorem moussaid521 Number Theory 1 December 18th, 2016 09:02 PM
Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem mathsman1 Math 14 July 9th, 2016 05:45 PM
Fermat's Last Theorem 1 Page Proof MrAwojobi Number Theory 39 August 5th, 2014 10:34 AM
Fermat's last theorem proof MrAwojobi Number Theory 20 June 16th, 2014 08:32 PM
6 Step Fermat's Last Theorem Proof jhon13 Algebra 4 May 24th, 2012 08:26 AM





Copyright © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.