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: Beal's Conjecture Definition correct?
Replies: 10   Last Post: Dec 19, 2013 7:54 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 G. A. Edgar Posts: 2,510 Registered: 12/8/04
Re: Beal's Conjecture Definition correct?
Posted: Jun 24, 2013 8:50 AM

Andre Bruton <andrebruton@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 23, 2013 7:58:57 PM UTC+2, Peter Percival wrote:
>

> > > We got the following solution.
>
> > Meaning what by 'solution'? Conjectures are proved or refuted (or
> > neither, so far at least).

>
> Having a solution means it's proved in my books...??? Must I have some other
> proof?
>

> > > Does this apply to the rules (if we understand them correctly)
> > The conjecture says that if A^x + B^y = C^z with x, y, z > 2 then A, B,
> > C have a common prime factor. In your case the common prime factor is 2.

>
> Ok, so there is a common prime factor. What is missing? I don't get your
> statement..?

So, they have verified the conjecture in one case. But of course there
are infinitely many cases that must be verified in order to prove the
conjecture.

>
> Best regards
>
> Andre

--
G. A. Edgar http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~edgar/

Date Subject Author
6/23/13 Andre Bruton
6/23/13 Peter Percival
6/23/13 Peter Percival
6/23/13 Andre Bruton
6/23/13 Andre Bruton
6/23/13 quasi
6/23/13 Thomas Nordhaus
6/24/13 G. A. Edgar
8/2/13 Phil H
7/3/13 Debra Axon
12/19/13 Josh Jaggard