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 18, 2001 6:53 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply



In article <943am4$59r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu wrote:
> In article <3a6506aa.270916173@news.newsguy.com>,
> randyp@visionplace.com (Randy Poe) wrote:

> > On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:57:50 GMT, hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
wrote:
> >
> > >For example, I might be asked to justify the following step
> > >(I will assume that I am working in the field of complex numbers,
> > >which you have refused to do for some reason):

> >
> > The reason is that if he admits that saying "x and y are integers"

is
> > insufficient to discuss the behavior of (x+sqrt(-1)y) here, he'd
have
> > to admit it's insufficient in the FLT proof.
>
> Yes.


Not exactly. I like simplicity. My feeling (and you can believe I'm
wrong, or maybe prove it I guess) is that you're asking for unnecessary
layering.

The reasoning I'm giving is relatively simple.

x,y and z are integers, so I'm working with integers.

I'm not forced from this assumption *until* I reach a contradiction.

But that's the whole point.

You say, I'm forced to act like I'm outside of integers at the start,
but what if there were an integer solution to FLT?

Then wouldn't your objection fall away?

And you know why, because then the square root in my proof would give
an integer for v with those x, y and z.

It'd have to.

Now Hale, you've been a serious and fairly reasonable person about all
of this and I appreciate that. I want to emphasize to you what I just
said. Isn't it true that if integer solutions existed that the square
root that's caused all of this discussion would produce an integer with
those solutions?

I've already emphasized that everything work with x,y and z in finite
rings of integers. Why there's this push to claim that the transition
to the infinite rings of integers makes it all invalid bemuses me.

>
> But, nothing will be lost for James Harris if he would admit that
> he is working in the field of complex numbers, and a lot would be
> gained since he could use all the theorems proved for complex
> numbers.


Unnecessary complexity.

>
> However, this would only serve to make his statements to be
> meaningful and allow him to define things like "mod" and
> "fractional". He would still need to specify a subring of
> the complex numbers, since the complex numbers contain "too
> many" numbers for what he wants to do.
>
> James Harris has admitted that he is working in at least two
> distinct rings: ring of integers and ring of polynomials.
> His statements in the proof also imply that he is working
> in the ring of complex numbers and the ring of symbolic
> expressions (like sqrt(x^2+y^2)).
>
> My first impressions were that he was working in just a
> subring of the complex numbers. When he claimed that
> he was also working in the ring of polynomials, I thought
> that would not be possible since he is using the equation
> x^5+y^5 = z^5, which is not true in a polynomial ring.
> But, he nicely got out of that problem by eliminating
> the z and claiming that he is also working in the ring
> of symbolic expressions. This clarification has helped
> a lot. But, now he is going to the other extreme of
> rejecting these known mathematical rings and he is
> trying to create his own rings from scratch, which
> will demand even more explanations and proofs than
> what was originally required.
>


To me, that's making it all way more complicated than necessary.

I can get a lot done by assuming certain things exist, like the
factorization of x^5 + y^5 - z^5. I can start off one of its factors
as x +...+y+...-z. Now, that's not a polynomial, but the question with
respect to FLT is not that. The question with respect to FLT is
whether or not for nonzero integer x, y and z is that an integer.

In that format, we can't tell.

That's why FLT is hard.

All I did is figure out how to use that factorization in a context
where it gets wrapped into a radical.

Think about this.

sqrt(x^2 + y^2) = x+...+y, there are an infinite number of terms in
there, and don't ask me what they look like. If I have x and y both
equal 1, then all of that infinity is used to get 1.414...

But if x = 3 and y =4, that infinity of terms adds up to 5.

We casually deal with the first case and happily use sqrt(2) all over
the place without caring about the higher abstraction, and act as if
the operator with its object is the actual number, which is like using
1+1 for 2, except that it is more convenient than the alternative.

It just so happened that I had to care about that higher level of
abstraction to prove FLT.


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.