
Re: Beal's Conjecture Definition correct?
Posted:
Jun 24, 2013 8:50 AM


In article <801579500df34e72962de3aa13a2fa24@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.ohiostate.edu/~edgar/

