Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Topic: The non existence of p'th root of any prime number, for (p>2)
prime

Replies: 46   Last Post: Oct 12, 2017 1:41 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 bassam king karzeddin Posts: 1,662 Registered: 8/22/16
Re: The non existence of p'th root of any prime number, for (p>2) prime
Posted: Mar 25, 2017 11:51 AM

On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 6:28:59 PM UTC+3, Charlie-Boo wrote:
> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 1:19:52 PM UTC-5, abu.ku...@gmail.com wrote:
> > wTf is that supposed to mean?
> >

> > > ($\sqrt[p]{q}$)?
> > >
> > > Where (p) is odd prime number, and (q) is prime number

>
> Sounds like he's saying there's no reason to drag in a theorem that took 350 years to write.
>
> C-B

To explain it further, the Pythagorean theorem can so easily show you infinitely many of irrational numbers on a straight line (which is the same as real number line), such as (sqrt(2), sqrt(sqrt(7)), 31^(1/16), ...),

But tell me frankly if any known theorem can show you exactly and only one of those infinitely many alleged numbers such as the arithmetical cube root of two only, denoted by 2^(1/3), or (\sqrt[3]{2})?

There is not any (for sure), beside there is not any rigorous proof of their existence, but only deliberate naive and devilish or foolish conclusion for a very narrow and dirty purpose only, check history section if a valid proof is available, wonder!

So, why up to date the top professional mathematicians are adding unnecessary fiction numbers only, wonder!?

How come they still can not comprehend big and so silly puzzles that are thousands of years now ?

Or do they want to live with it (inside box) for ever?, wonder!

Beside my published irrefutable proofs that were based on INTEGER analysis, and not simply were based on fake real analysis

Wake up for something useful mathematicians, for sure

Regards
Bassam King Karzeddin
25/03/2017