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 16th, 2019, 08:37 AM   #1
Member
 
Joined: Mar 2019
From: california

Posts: 74
Thanks: 0

one page proof of Fermat's Last Theorem

I am sending you an invitation to see the one page proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. This proof uses Fermat's Right Triangle Theorem to prove the Theorem. Also included in the proof is the diagram Fermat could not include in the margin of the book. It is an amazing proof.


Last edited by skipjack; March 24th, 2019 at 02:42 PM.
michaelcweir is offline  
 
March 16th, 2019, 09:01 AM   #2
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,270
Thanks: 934

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
If it could be done by simple Trigonometry, it would have been found out loooooong ago. Ain't buyin' it.

-Dan
Thanks from Denis
topsquark is offline  
March 16th, 2019, 10:17 AM   #3
Math Team
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada

Posts: 14,597
Thanks: 1038

Quote:
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
If it could be done by simple Trigonometry, it would have been found out loooooong ago. Ain't buyin' it.
AND...IF a proof is ever found, what will have been gained?
Denis is offline  
March 16th, 2019, 04:13 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,386
Thanks: 746

For what it's worth, Fermat lived 30 years after writing that note in his copy of Diophantus but never mentioned FLT again. He must have realized he didn't have it else he'd have written up his marvelous demonstration.

ps -- Today I learned!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat...iangle_theorem

Last edited by Maschke; March 16th, 2019 at 05:11 PM.
Maschke is offline  
March 16th, 2019, 08:29 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,386
Thanks: 746

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelcweir View Post
I am sending you an an invitation to see the one page proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.
Question. Where in your proof do you use that n > 2? The way it is right now, your proof goes through for n = 2, but then it's wrong since there are FLT solutions for n = 2.
Maschke is offline  
March 17th, 2019, 11:28 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,386
Thanks: 746

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelcweir View Post
I am sending you an an invitation to see the one page proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. [/youtube]
Can you explain the meaning of $\alpha$?

I'm walking through your proof using the standard Pythagorean triple $3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2$. As far as I can tell, your proof shows this triple to be impossible, since you never used the fact that $n > 2$. You need to explain this else your proof is cooked.

So in this example, $x = 3$, $y = 4$, $z = 5$, and $n = 2$.

Now you say that $W = x^{\frac{n}{2}} - \alpha$. In this case we have $W = x - \alpha$ or $W = 3 - \alpha$.

So what is the meaning of $\alpha$? You write that $0 < \alpha < 1$ but I don't see what $\alpha$ is supposed to be. Do you mean to simply take $W = x$ in this case?

I hope you will take the time to respond to these concerns. To sum up, my questions are:

1) Where do you use that $n > 2$? Without that fact you have disproved the well-known existence of Pythagorean triples.

2) What is $\alpha$? In the case of $x = 3$, $y = 4$, $z = 5$, and $n = 2$, when you write that $W = 3 - \alpha$, what is $\alpha$?

ps -- Fermat's right triangle theorem asserts that not all of the labelled sides can be integers. But in the case at hand, if $0 < \alpha < 1$ then $W = 3 - \alpha$ is already not an integer, so of course you haven't proved anything.

On the other hand if $\alpha = 0$, then all the $\alpha$ terms in your squaring operations are zero and you have no contradiction.

I would say at this point that this basic example of $9 + 16 = 25$ cooks your proof. I do await your response.

Last edited by Maschke; March 17th, 2019 at 11:48 AM.
Maschke is offline  
March 17th, 2019, 04:02 PM   #7
Member
 
Joined: Mar 2019
From: california

Posts: 74
Thanks: 0

0<a<1

This is a good question.
A quick note about notation. W = Z (n/2),- a, not X(n/2)-a, as you state.

1) case n=2 is implicit in using a right triangle. For the case when n = 2, a = 0

2) Let's take your example for 3,4,5 for n = 3.
3(3) + 4(3) = 27 + 64= 91 < 125 = 5(3)

In this case, the cube root of 91 is approximately 4.49. 5(3) is greater than 4.49 (3).

While X(n) is an integer, X(n/2) may not be integer example 3(3) is 27, an integer. But 27(1/2) is 5.38 approximately.

It is relatively easy to show that Z must be smaller than Y +1, whether Z,Y are rational or irrational, and whatever n is greater than 2.

We have constructed 2 right triangles joined together where 2 sides out of the three are chosen to be integers. The square of the third side contains a term with Z(n/2) in the square. If that number is not an integer, then the square cannot be an integer, a contradiction with Pythagoras's Theorem. Therefore the assumption that Z is an integer must be wrong.

Last edited by skipjack; March 24th, 2019 at 02:57 PM.
michaelcweir is offline  
March 17th, 2019, 04:03 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,386
Thanks: 746

ps -- Typo. You have $W = 5 = \alpha$, not $3 - \alpha$. Same objection. If $\alpha$ is strictly positive then $W$ is already a non-integer so you've proved nothing. But if $\alpha$ is zero, then all the $\alpha$ terms in your $W^2$ and similar expressions are zero, so again you've proved nothing.

Your basic problem is that you haven't said what $\alpha$ is. And of course your "proof" would go through for $n = 2$, denying the existence of Pythagorean triples.
Maschke is offline  
March 18th, 2019, 09:51 AM   #9
Member
 
Joined: Mar 2019
From: california

Posts: 74
Thanks: 0

You really don't know what you are taking about, do you?

If you let a = 0 you have every case of a triplet for n=2.

(Z-2)(n) + (Z-1)(n) < Z(n) for every n>2

for n = 3, 3(3) + 4(3) < 5(3) for example.

Other examples are 4,5,6 and 5,6,7.

So the right triangle formed with legs 3(3/2) and 4(3/2) must have a hypotenuse that is shorter than 5(3/2); a designates that difference.

Last edited by skipjack; March 24th, 2019 at 02:52 PM.
michaelcweir is offline  
March 18th, 2019, 11:36 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 863
Thanks: 328

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelcweir View Post
You really don't know what you are taking about, do you?
And here we go. The crackpot appears. It was just a matter of time.

Trust me, Maschke is very well-versed in mathematics. He definitely knows what he's talking about.
You, however, didn't even write down a proof. You just posted a video and didn't even define your terms. Maschke has very politely answered you and pointed out flaws in your reasoning. He has stayed entirely professional and talked about the math at all times. You, of course, didn't like it that he didn't start to worship you immediately, so you lash out angrily... The sign of a true crackpot!!

If I ever prove something and show it to somebody as gifted as Maschke, I would definitely take his questions and criticisms very seriously! But that is the difference between you and me. I just want to learn and improve myself. You just want validation.
Thanks from Denis, Maschke, topsquark and 1 others

Last edited by skipjack; March 24th, 2019 at 02:39 PM.
Micrm@ss is online now  
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.