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 ]
Peter Percival

Posts: 188
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Posted: Jan 18, 2001 7:42 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply



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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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


Sorry, but it hasn't helped me. Ring of integers, I understand. Ring
of complex numbers, I understand. And if I didn't I could look them up
in an algebra book. Ring of polynomials? Well, it's nearly ok. But
what indeterminants and what coefficients? But ring of symbolic
expressions? Hell, everything that any mathematician has written down
is a symbolic expression (and I'm including letters to his Mom). What
is a ring of symbolic expressions? What are the elements? What are the
operations + and * defined on them?

What James _hopes_ it is, is something in which his "proof" will work;
but he can't define it.

> 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.
>
> --
> Bill Hale
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/



--
The from address is fictional
peter dot percival at cwcom dot net






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.