Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
G. A. Edgar

Posts: 2,497
Registered: 12/8/04
Re: Beal's Conjecture Definition correct?
Posted: Jun 24, 2013 8:50 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <80157950-0df3-4e72-962d-e3aa13a2fa24@googlegroups.com>,
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/



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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.