The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Replies: 65   Last Post: Mar 17, 2001 11:59 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
jstevh@my-deja.com

Posts: 348
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Posted: Jan 16, 2001 6:16 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply



In article <940akc$d9p$1@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
Michael Hochster <michael@rgmiller.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
> : Given x^2 + y^2 = 0, x and y nonzero integers, show that no solution
> : exists.
>
> : Proof by contradiction:
>
> : (x+sqrt(-1)y)(x-sqrt(-1)y) = x^2 + y^2 = 0, so
>
> : x = sqrt(-1)y *or* x = -sqrt(-1)y.
>
> Still waiting for an explanation of this step.


Here's a case where I've left out what I think are obvious steps, and
this person disagrees. Some may think it unnecessary for me to add
them, others may not.

Here are the missing steps:

Starting from (x+sqrt(-1)y)(x-sqrt(-1)y) = x^2 + y^2 = 0,

(x+sqrt(-1)y)(x-sqrt(-1)= 0, so

x + sqrt(-1)y = 0 or x -sqrt(-1)y = 0, so

x = -sqrt(1)y or x = sqrt(-1)y.

Some, for reasons I'd like them to explain, have complained that I
don't know that x + sqrt(-1)y = 0 or x -sqrt(-1)y = 0, if

(x+sqrt(-1)y)(x-sqrt(-1)= 0.

(Sort of like if AB = 0, A or B = 0. These people are saying that must
be proven, and that it is a "gap" in my proof that I don't do so.)

If so, I'd like them to say that is their position here and we can see
if we can't work that one out.


>
> : There doesn't exist an integers that multiplies times itself to

give a
> : negative number, and an integer can't be the product of an integer
and
> : a non integer, so there's a contradiction.
>
> An integer *can* be the product of an integer and a non-integer.
> 2 * 0.5 = 1.


Yup, you're right.

And that folks outlines how people can *help* make a proof clearer.

Notice that the issue is clear and the resolution is as well.

Basically, I know that sqrt(-1) isn't rational, and that an integer
can't be the product of an integer and a non rational.

So, now I present a correction, and we see where things go from there.

Purists among you may note that I started out in integers as my ring,
and that what I was doing was sticking to my ring.

Rationals are part of a field, and for some fraction to come in and
invalidate my conclusion, some weird things have to happen.

But, with that said, I've decided to just go ahead and mention
rationals, and see where the discussion goes.


>
> So, your proof of this simple fact still needs work.
>


Ok, let's say you're right, and it did need work, and you may think it
still does. I don't have a problem with that.

What I want to emphasize is that there is a process that can lead to
resolution and it is clear that there are those of you willing to
engage in it based on the fact that you made those comments here.

So, a reasonable person may now ask, why hasn't that process played out
this way with my claims of a simple proof of Fermat's Last Theorem?


James Harris


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/






Date Subject Author
1/15/01
Read FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/15/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dik T. Winter
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Charles H. Giffen
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Michael Hochster
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Peter Johnston
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Doug Norris
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Doug Norris
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dik T. Winter
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dik T. Winter
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/20/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/20/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
oooF
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Peter Percival
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/26/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Algebra...
Franz Fritsche
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
gus gassmann
1/20/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/20/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Doug Norris
1/26/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Matrix or not, that's NOT the question...
Franz Fritsche
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/17/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/20/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Peter Percival
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
3/17/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Ross A. Finlayson
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/29/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dik T. Winter
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dennis Eriksson
1/15/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Michael Hochster
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Michael Hochster
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Peter Percival
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
oooF
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dik T. Winter
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
oooF
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Edward Carter
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
W. Dale Hall
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Michael Hochster
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/17/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
W. Dale Hall
1/17/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying (Grammar fix)
W. Dale Hall
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
oooF
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Charles H. Giffen
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
David Bernier
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/18/01
Read Hi - little fun about FLT
Arthur
1/30/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
plofap@my-deja.com
1/30/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
plofap@my-deja.com
1/30/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
plofap@my-deja.com

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.