Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fermat's Last Theorem

Expand Messages
  • paulmillscv@yahoo.co.uk
    To Professor Chris Caldwell and members of the Primenumbers Yahoo Group. Hello to all, I am very happy to present my proof of Fermat s Last Theorem
    Message 1 of 19 , Aug 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      To Professor Chris Caldwell and members of the Primenumbers Yahoo
      Group.

      Hello to all,
      I am very happy to present my proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
      http://members.tripod.co.uk/comms1/fidn1/fermat.html

      This proof has been submitted to the Royal Society of London,
      England. I would appreciate any comments, typos or corrections.
      Thank you. The nature of the lengthy, but straightforward proof, is
      that there may be `slight' logic slips, similar to the `bunker' that
      Andrew Wiles found with his tee shot. But as with his proof I don't
      anticipate too many problems fixing it, as the proof is very
      structured and uses classical techniques. So, get yourself a cold
      beer, sit back and enjoy the fun!

      Regards,
      Paul Mills,
      England.
    • Phil Carmody
      ... In lemma 3.2 you say otherwise x, y, z would not be pairwise coprime , however nowhere have you stated that they ought to be pairwise coprime (note that
      Message 2 of 19 , Aug 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 30 August 2001, paulmillscv@... wrote:
        > I am very happy to present my proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
        > http://members.tripod.co.uk/comms1/fidn1/fermat.html

        In lemma 3.2 you say "otherwise x, y, z would not be pairwise coprime", however nowhere have you stated that they ought to be pairwise coprime (note that it is the first mention of the term in the document).

        Then you procede to perform "division".

        By this stage are you in a ring or a field?
        Either way, which one?

        To be honest, this kind of post is better off discussed on the newsgroup sci.math, where there are several people who debunk two elementary proofs of FLT before breakfast each day.

        Phil
        Phil

        Mathematics should not have to involve martyrdom;
        Support Eric Weisstein, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com
        Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
        http://www.shopping.altavista.com
      • Hadley, Thomas H (Tom), NLCIO
        In Lemma 3.2, section (1), you calculate d=z-y, then proceed to divide y by d and set this value to t. From then on you presume t to be an integer, but it is
        Message 3 of 19 , Aug 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          In Lemma 3.2, section (1), you calculate d=z-y, then proceed to divide y by
          d and set this value to t. From then on you presume t to be an integer, but
          it is not necessarily one.

          Tom

          -----Original Message-----
          From: paulmillscv@... [mailto:paulmillscv@...]

          Hello to all,
          I am very happy to present my proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
          http://members.tripod.co.uk/comms1/fidn1/fermat.html
        • d.broadhurst@open.ac.uk
          Phil Carmody wrote ... Oh dear, Phil, I think you may just have contradicted one of the top 10 number theorists in the world:
          Message 4 of 19 , Aug 30, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Phil Carmody wrote

            > To be honest, this kind of post is better off discussed on the
            > newsgroup sci.math, where there are several people who debunk
            > two elementary proofs of FLT before breakfast each day.

            Oh dear, Phil, I think you may just have contradicted
            one of the top 10 number theorists in the world:

            http://members.tripod.co.uk/comms1/fidn1/world1.html

            Please note that

            > Their deliberations in number theory matters is considered
            > authoritative according to the best of their present
            > knowledge and belief.

            Who are the likes of thee and me to try to educate
            one of this "Curia" ?

            David
          • Hugo Scolnik
            I guess you are wrong Phil. Just below (1.1) it says that the x,y,z are assumed to be pairwise relatively prime Hugo Scolnik If we knew what it was we were
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 30, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              I guess you are wrong Phil. Just below (1.1) it says that the x,y,z are
              assumed to be pairwise relatively prime


              Hugo Scolnik

              "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
              would it?"
            • Alan T.W. Wong #Q=#N
              Dear all, In fact, I saw the same major problem mentioned below when I was reading Paul Mills proof of Fermet s Last Theorem this morning. Also, in Lemma
              Message 6 of 19 , Aug 30, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear all,

                In fact, I saw the same major problem mentioned below when I was reading
                Paul Mills' "proof" of Fermet's Last Theorem this morning. Also, in Lemma
                3.2 on page 3, "Dividing equation 3.6 by d" should read "Dividing 3.6 by
                d^p". This is just a minor typo.

                At present moment, I don't see how you (Mills) can easily fix the problem
                mentioned below (t is not necessarily in Z_p).

                Thanks!

                Regards,
                T. W. Alan Wong
                U of Toronto, Canada

                On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Hadley, Thomas H (Tom), NLCIO wrote:

                > In Lemma 3.2, section (1), you calculate d=z-y, then proceed to divide y by
                > d and set this value to t. From then on you presume t to be an integer, but
                > it is not necessarily one.
                >
                > Tom
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: paulmillscv@... [mailto:paulmillscv@...]
                >
                > Hello to all,
                > I am very happy to present my proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
                > http://members.tripod.co.uk/comms1/fidn1/fermat.html
                >
                >
                >
                > Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbers-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                > The Prime Pages : http://www.primepages.org
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
              • Phil Carmody
                ... Thanks Hugo. Bells started ringing on the lines below, so I rewound a few lines to make sure I had the full context, and for some strange reason the word
                Message 7 of 19 , Aug 30, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Thu, 30 August 2001, "Hugo Scolnik" wrote:
                  > I guess you are wrong Phil. Just below (1.1) it says that the x,y,z are
                  > assumed to be pairwise relatively prime

                  Thanks Hugo. Bells started ringing on the lines below, so I rewound a few lines to make sure I had the full context, and for some strange reason the word coprime jumped out at me, I thought I'd not seen it before, did a text-search of the document for both 'coprime' and 'co-prime', and came to the conclusion that I was right in not seeing the concept introduced before. I was wrong. I think that I was skipping over the first few sections too quickly as it was stuff that I had seen before. If only I'd searched for 'pairwise', I'd have found it.

                  Phil

                  Mathematics should not have to involve martyrdom;
                  Support Eric Weisstein, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com
                  Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
                  http://www.shopping.altavista.com
                • Chris Nash
                  Dear friends ... Let us try to gain something from the experience. Find a counterexample to Mr Mills statement that (x+y)^p = x^p + y^p + pX = X is an
                  Message 8 of 19 , Aug 30, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear friends

                    Since Paul Mills wrote:

                    >Hello to all,
                    > I am very happy to present my proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
                    > http://members.tripod.co.uk/comms1/fidn1/fermat.html

                    Let us try to gain something from the experience. Find a counterexample
                    to Mr Mills' statement that

                    (x+y)^p = x^p + y^p + pX => X is an integer, not divisible by p.

                    Since Dr Mills recently posed a problem to France and imposed a time
                    limit, I would like to offer Dr Mills a similar time limit to find the
                    error.

                    Readers of these pages not included in the number theory world rankings
                    may use the clue at

                    http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/glossary/WieferichPrime.html

                    instead, and their time limit is three seconds.

                    Chris Nash
                    Lexington KY
                    UNITED STATES
                  • paulmillscv@yahoo.co.uk
                    Dear Chris, Hello. I apologise, I knew I had missed someone from the rankings, Chris Mr Primeform Nash. Your comment is interesting and points to a `main
                    Message 9 of 19 , Aug 31, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Chris,
                      Hello. I apologise, I knew I had missed someone from the
                      rankings, Chris 'Mr Primeform' Nash. Your comment is interesting and
                      points to a `main point' of the proof straightaway.
                      By Lemma 3.2 equations 3.6 and 3.7 have no solutions.
                      Therefore, with z = aq, (z,p) =1, x and y are also co-prime to
                      p. Therefore any term x^(p-j)y^j in the Binomial expansion of (x
                      + y)^p has no factor of p and the integer X is not divisible by p.
                      Then we go into equation 3.7 and deduce a contradiction.

                      Regards,
                      Paul Mills
                      England.
                    • d.broadhurst@open.ac.uk
                      ... Counterexample (Wieferich, 1909): x=1, y=1, p=1093. You are 90 years out of date; please retract. David
                      Message 10 of 19 , Aug 31, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Paul: Chris Nash has clearly identified an error:
                        > (x+y)^p = x^p + y^p + p*X (3.37)
                        > Where X is an integer, not divisble by p.
                        Counterexample (Wieferich, 1909): x=1, y=1, p=1093.
                        You are 90 years out of date; please retract.
                        David
                      • paulmillscv@yahoo.co.uk
                        Hello to all, Thank you for your critical responses to my posting of Fermat s Last Theorem. I have gathered the results together in a notes paper at this
                        Message 11 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hello to all,
                          Thank you for your critical responses to my posting of Fermat's
                          Last Theorem. I have gathered the results together in a notes paper
                          at this link.

                          http://members.tripod.co.uk/comms1/papers/fltnotes.pdf

                          Could you please indicate the step (A-G) you are on when you make a
                          critical comment so I know where to place it and the reply in this
                          notes paper. All notes updates will be placed in this paper. Again,
                          thank you for your help.

                          Regards,
                          Paul Mills
                          England.
                        • Chris Nash
                          Hi folks, The administrative assistants of many math faculties throughout the world are often deluged with proofs of FLT/Goldbach/Riemann/whatever. The only
                          Message 12 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi folks,

                            The administrative assistants of many math faculties throughout the
                            world are often deluged with "proofs" of FLT/Goldbach/Riemann/whatever.
                            The only way they can suitably handle the workload is a stock letter as
                            follows.

                            Dear __________,

                            Thank you for your generous submission of your proposed proof of ____.
                            An error has been found on page __ line __. Please correct and
                            resubmit.

                            Should anyone pass through the AA's office (professors, alumni,
                            undergraduates, tramps) they could cast a cursory glance over the
                            paper, take a letter, fill in the blanks. The letters go into a file,
                            and should the candidate resubmit, there was usually another letter
                            left in the file ready to send. Eventually the war of attrition ends by
                            the candidate giving up on the proof attempt. In this way neither the
                            faculty members nor the AA needed to do excessive or unwarranted work.
                            It's very rare for anything to get through this process and require
                            significant attention.

                            It wouldn't take anyone with a little Web savvy much work at all to
                            write a script to generate such letters (perhaps indeed one already
                            exists). Unless this debacle is resolved quickly, I may do so.

                            In other words, unless candidates desire to receive e-mail continually
                            from a web bot, they'd better start listening to objections that are
                            generously offered in good faith. Many members of the list have quite
                            high tolerance for this sort of thing. Others, however, have little or
                            zero.

                            Chris
                          • Phil Carmody
                            On Sat, 01 September 2001, Chris Nash wrote: [SNIP - sage words on FLT proofs ] Personally, I view FLT as a) proved already. b) _off-topic_ for a _primes_
                            Message 13 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Sat, 01 September 2001, "Chris Nash" wrote:
                              [SNIP - sage words on FLT "proofs"]

                              Personally, I view FLT as
                              a) proved already.
                              b) _off-topic_ for a _primes_ list.

                              I say the latter as I participate in 3 other more general mathematical online groups on which FLT discussions are far more on-topic. To say that FLT is related to primes as one only has to prove prime cases (with 2^2 of course) is to say that Douglas Adam's 42 is related to primes as it's 2.3.7. I don't deny that the history of FLT has spawned several interesting prime-related concepts (such as Sophie Germain primes), but those spawnings were a hundreds of years ago now, and the concepts have their own independent life now, independent of FLT.

                              Usenet's sci.math is _the_ place for amateur FLT proofs.

                              Writing solely as an ordinary list member, nothing more.

                              Phil


                              Mathematics should not have to involve martyrdom;
                              Support Eric Weisstein, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com
                              Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
                              http://www.shopping.altavista.com
                            • d.broadhurst@open.ac.uk
                              Phil Carmody wrote ... Of which Wieferich s is one. Paul Mills may be excused for being 90 years off the pace, but his reluctance to admit that Wieferich kills
                              Message 14 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Phil Carmody wrote

                                > the history of FLT has spawned several interesting
                                > prime-related concepts

                                Of which Wieferich's is one.

                                Paul Mills may be excused for being 90 years off
                                the pace, but his reluctance to admit that
                                Wieferich kills his paper stone dead is lamentable.

                                ? x=3860385325121537;
                                ? y=4047907402674639732737;
                                ? p=3511;
                                ? X=((x+y)^p-x^p-y^p)/p;
                                ? if(X%p==0,print("Paul Mills' paper is plain wrong"));
                                Paul Mills' paper is plain wrong
                              • paulmillscv@yahoo.co.uk
                                Hello to all, Here is version 2 of my proof of Fermat s Last theorem. Am I on the green or a greenside bunker? Have fun.
                                Message 15 of 19 , Sep 6, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hello to all,
                                  Here is version 2 of my proof of Fermat's Last theorem. Am I on
                                  the green or a greenside bunker? Have fun.

                                  http://members.tripod.co.uk/comms1/papers/flt2.pdf

                                  Of course, FLT is relevant to primes because if you can prove x^p +
                                  y^p = z^p for odd primes p then FLT is proved.

                                  Regards,
                                  Paul Mills,
                                  England.
                                • Nathan Russell
                                  ... Couldn t the same be said for the numbers q(n), where q(n) is the number of cards in Nathan Russell s nth Magic the Gathering deck? Nathan
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Sep 6, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 11:46:11 -0000, paulmillscv@... wrote:

                                    >
                                    >Hello to all,
                                    > Here is version 2 of my proof of Fermat's Last theorem. Am I on
                                    >the green or a greenside bunker? Have fun.
                                    >
                                    >http://members.tripod.co.uk/comms1/papers/flt2.pdf
                                    >
                                    >Of course, FLT is relevant to primes because if you can prove x^p +
                                    >y^p = z^p for odd primes p then FLT is proved.

                                    Couldn't the same be said for the numbers q(n), where q(n) is the
                                    number of cards in Nathan Russell's nth Magic the Gathering deck?

                                    Nathan
                                  • Phil Carmody
                                    ... Don t confuse the tool and the application . FLT proofs may involve primes, but that doesn t mean that FLT is _about_ primes. FLT is about _all positive
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Sep 6, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Thu, 06 September 2001, paulmillscv@... wrote:
                                      > Hello to all,
                                      > Here is version 2 of my proof of Fermat's Last theorem. Am I on
                                      > the green or a greenside bunker? Have fun.
                                      >
                                      > http://members.tripod.co.uk/comms1/papers/flt2.pdf
                                      >
                                      > Of course, FLT is relevant to primes because if you can prove x^p +
                                      > y^p = z^p for odd primes p then FLT is proved.

                                      Don't confuse the 'tool' and the 'application'.
                                      FLT proofs may involve primes, but that doesn't mean that FLT is _about_ primes. FLT is about _all positive integers_.
                                      One could say that _every_ theorem that _anywhere_ uses properties of UFDs is 'prime related'.

                                      Apart from that, it appears that all you've done is add some handwaving to 3.2, and created a bizarre mathematical structure, the �modulo rational plane�, which you do not prove to be either a Ring or Field. You do not even claim it to be either of those, and the operations you perform in the structure I consider to be inconsistent with both.
                                      The few "definitions" that you do give are either inconsistent with the usage of the things you are trying to define, or are so ambiguously worded that they don't actually define anything.
                                      e.g. "Note that modulo rationals are defined in pairs." causes nothing but confusion at this end.

                                      Can you _please_ move this to sci.math, In particular you appear to have reached a similar position to where the resident FLT prover got to about 2 weeks ago, before he flew off at a normal (not a tangent), so all the relevant arguments are fresh in the debunkers' minds.

                                      It appears a de-'bunker' is what is required...

                                      Phil

                                      Mathematics should not have to involve martyrdom;
                                      Support Eric Weisstein, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com
                                      Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
                                      http://www.shopping.altavista.com
                                    • Peter Lesala
                                      Recently I completed a paper to prove Fermat s Last Theorem. I would like a feed back from members of this group before trying to publish the paper. Thank you.
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Oct 20, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Recently I completed a paper to prove Fermat's Last Theorem. I would like a feed back from members of this group before trying to publish the paper.

                                        Thank you.

                                        {eter/

                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Peter Lesala
                                        I will have to put the paper on the Interne; and then send another message. Peter ... From: Peter Lesala To: primenumbers@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, October
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Oct 20, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I will have to put the paper on the Interne; and then send another message.
                                           
                                          Peter
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 8:27 PM
                                          Subject: [PrimeNumbers] Fermat's Last Theorem

                                           

                                          Recently I completed a paper to prove Fermat's Last Theorem. I would like a feed back from members of this group before trying to publish the paper.

                                          Thank you.

                                          {eter/

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.