Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Randy Poe Posts: 1,185 Registered: 12/6/04
Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Posted: Jan 16, 2001 7:25 PM

On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:16:19 GMT, jstevh@my-deja.com wrote:

>Some, for reasons I'd like them to explain,

The reasons have been given, many times. The primary reason is that if
asked to supply a proof, the standard proof relies on knowledge that
x^2 + y^2 = 0 for reals. You can't use that in this proof, because
you're trying to prove it for the integer case.

> 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.)

It's not "sort of like", it's "exactly like".

>
>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.

OK. That's my position here. Let's see if we can't work that one out.

To fill in the gap, you need to prove:
AB=0 implies either A=0 or B=0, without relying on the fact that x^2 +
y^2 > 0 for all nonzero real x, y.

- Randy
>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.

As soon as you write (x + iy), or (x + sqrt(-1)y), you're no longer
"sticking" to your ring, if your ring is the ring of integers with

What is a ring?

>>
>> 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?

You mean the process where people say "you need to prove this step"
and you offer a proof? It hasn't played out because you haven't done
the part where you offer a proof of the step in question.

- Randy

Date Subject Author
1/15/01 jstevh@my-deja.com
1/15/01 Dik T. Winter
1/16/01 Charles H. Giffen
1/16/01 jstevh@my-deja.com
1/16/01 Randy Poe
1/18/01 jstevh@my-deja.com
1/18/01 Michael Hochster
1/18/01 Peter Johnston
1/18/01 Randy Poe
1/18/01 Doug Norris
1/16/01 Doug Norris
1/16/01 Randy Poe
1/16/01 Dik T. Winter
1/18/01 jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01 Dik T. Winter
1/19/01 Randy Poe
1/20/01 jstevh@my-deja.com
1/20/01 oooF
1/21/01 hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/21/01 Peter Percival
1/21/01 Randy Poe
1/26/01 Franz Fritsche
1/19/01 gus gassmann
1/20/01 jstevh@my-deja.com
1/20/01 Doug Norris
1/26/01 Franz Fritsche
1/16/01 hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/16/01 Randy Poe
1/17/01 hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/18/01 jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01 hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/20/01 jstevh@my-deja.com
1/21/01 hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/18/01 Peter Percival
1/19/01 hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
3/17/01 Ross A. Finlayson
1/16/01 hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/18/01 jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01 hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/29/01 jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01 Dik T. Winter
1/21/01 Dennis Eriksson
1/15/01 Michael Hochster
1/16/01 jstevh@my-deja.com
1/16/01 Michael Hochster
1/18/01 jstevh@my-deja.com
1/18/01 Peter Percival
1/18/01 Randy Poe
1/19/01 oooF
1/21/01 Dik T. Winter
1/21/01 oooF
1/18/01 Edward Carter
1/19/01 W. Dale Hall
1/19/01 Michael Hochster
1/16/01 Randy Poe
1/16/01 Randy Poe
1/17/01 W. Dale Hall
1/17/01 W. Dale Hall
1/19/01 oooF
1/16/01 Charles H. Giffen
1/16/01 David Bernier
1/16/01 jstevh@my-deja.com
1/18/01 Arthur
1/30/01 plofap@my-deja.com
1/30/01 plofap@my-deja.com
1/30/01 plofap@my-deja.com