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

RE: [PrimeNumbers] Fermat's Last Theorem

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Aug 30, 2001
      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 2 of 19 , Aug 30, 2001
        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 3 of 19 , Aug 30, 2001
          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 4 of 19 , Aug 30, 2001
            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 5 of 19 , Aug 30, 2001
              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 6 of 19 , Aug 30, 2001
                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 7 of 19 , Aug 31, 2001
                  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 8 of 19 , Aug 31, 2001
                    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 9 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
                      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 10 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
                        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 11 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
                          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 12 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
                            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 13 of 19 , Sep 6, 2001
                              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 14 of 19 , Sep 6, 2001
                                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 15 of 19 , Sep 6, 2001
                                  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 16 of 19 , Oct 20, 2013
                                    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 17 of 19 , Oct 20, 2013
                                      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.