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:
Re: Primitive Pythagorean Triplets
Replies:
2
Last Post:
Oct 1, 2017 4:37 AM




Re: Primitive Pythagorean Triplets
Posted:
Sep 30, 2017 11:22 AM


> On Wednesday, September 27, 2017 at 11:27:53 PM > UTC+3, konyberg wrote: > > tirsdag 26. september 2017 11.14.18 UTC+2 skrev > bassam king karzeddin følgende: > > > On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:17:00 PM > UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 5:50:05 PM > UTC+3, bassam king karzeddin wrote: > > > > > Why it is impossible to find a single > primitive Pythagorean triplet (in positive integers) > being with all terms as powerful numbers? > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > Bassam King Karzeddin > > > > > > > > Just imagine how little and how so tiny and > how unnoticeable is the world of mathematicians for > sure > > > > > > > > A new theorem had been stated since a long > time, not a single professional historian could claim > older sources nor a single genius mathematician could > also refute it, but still, doesn't count to be > adopted by any mathematical establishment, especially > that it is published in a Usenet as sci.math > > > > > > > > As if the word publish means only in a > Journals, (not learning any lesson from > > > > the history) > > > > But just imagine if this (half line theorem > without a single mathematical notation) was announced > by a top known genius mathematician or an alleged top > (Journal or University), then how the mathematical > press would immediately act with so much music and so > many analysis with especially those many so > professional talents that acquire very long tongues > and deepest throats (that are good for something > else) > > > > > > > > So where are they hiding now from this > simplest challenge? wonder! > > > > > > > > Don't we live in an era of supercomputers > also? wonder! > > > > > > > > I also announced a modest prize for you genius > mathematicians > > > > > > > > Is it your so negligible and so unnoticeable > dignity that make you pretend to be deaf and so > blind? wonder! > > > > > > > > Or is it the inherited dishonesty that the > vast majority of the professional mathematicians > acquire? no wonder! > > > > > > > > Aren't you so shameful of your little > selfbeing as real traitors to the science that > feeds, drinks, and cloths you? wonder! > > > > > > > > Or is it that your inferiority complex that > makes you have hated a lot of real challenges for the > sake of making easy baseless maths based on > nonexisting concepts as many as here (infinities, > epsilon, delta, Approximations, famous meaningless > cut, Average, endless sequences, ...etc), wonder! > > > > > > > > So, if this is the case then you really don't > need to worry at all, because you are dancing alone > in the dark > > > > > > > > And just imagine the football world where a > little boy only scores a goal of a win in a > competitive football match, then see how the whole > world firstpage coloured photos in newspapers, in > the world press, in every TV station, ... etc > > > > > > > > Just compare yourself and certainly, you would > find yourself facing a mirror mathematicians, but > wait and don't break the mirror... > > > > > > > > And I was only comparing you with a class of > another little category, and there are much higher > categories for sure > > > > > > > > But why all this is happening with a class of > people who generally think that they were born genius > and very distinct from others, but the fact is really > shocking, but why? > > > > > > > > It is because mathematicians had been deceived > and upsetminded for so many centuries by now for the > sake of worshipping some few devils that mislead them > globally, otherwise, if true mathematicians are > sufficient number, then they would never accept to be > less than the top leaders of this mad world that are > generally governed by mad people who can't even > comprehend a simplest theorem like the Pythagorean > even you assign the best teachers for them for all > their lives, and they will destroy the world over > your heads for sure > > > > > > > > Just look and listen carefully around, but > those helpless wouldn't change their inevitable > destiny unless they learn the biggest unforgottable > lesson for sure > > > > > > > > BKK > > > > > > And observe carefully here the complete absence > in this thread of few wellknown TROLLS (at least in > sci.math ? Google) as (Dan, Jan, Markus, Zelos, ? and > other so strange forgotten creatures), where at the > same time they, they usually do appear very often in > my other threads in many much less talkative topics > than real challenging mathematics as number theory > where generally any mathematician can say repeatedly > anything that he learnt blindly from books > > > > > > I really wonder about those incomprehensible > characters > > > > > > And I know that they would run away and hide > immediately once they read the first line, and not > because they don?t understand any big issue in > mathematics, but certainly because they have no word > to add here, and they would be so glad if anyone > could prove me wrong, and they would immediately > appear in this case > > > But here in such area, there isn?t any hope for > anyone to turn it down (for sure) > > > > > > And not because that I can?t prove it, of > course, I can and (so easily), but my real intention > is to make my Theorems (which seem only as > Conjectures for you all) as a suitable and permanent > curse and real punishment for such common typo > mathematicians in the era of free word internet > publishing, which will soon invade and throw away the > official traditional publishing as peerreviewed > > > > > > Noting that, if the wellknown Euler?s (sum of > powers wrong conjecture) was only announced today > then most likely it will be refuted in the same day > mainly due to computer engineers and mathematicians > programmers, but that actually took few centuries to > be refuted > > > > > > Ref. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_sum_of_powers_ > conjecture > > > > > > I also challenge all those (themselves) called > world Peerreviewed (Top Journals and Universities) > to prove me wrong in any of my PUBLISHED theorems > > > > > > In fact, I want to make a great fun of them > mainly for school students and another > nonprofessionalmathematicians, especially for > footballers and in the best area they feel so proud > (for sure) > > > > > > Regards > > > Bassam King Karzeddin > > > Sep. 26, 2017 > > > KON wrote: > > The answer is so easy that non here has thought you > were serious. It is not solved. If you have a > solution; give it. > > > > KON > > So, it is unsolved problem, and I don't know truly > y why one shouldn't be serious here > > And if it isn't a truly unsolvable problem, then why > y the mathematical establishments announce it so as > an unsolvable problem in number theory? wonder! > > Or is it that they consider sci.math as a SH*T > T source or a reference for mathematical problems? > wonder! > > Then, they should have to get ready for a stage > e where a reference or a source may be also > considered from any SH*TY reference or any rubbish > source as here for example as long as it contains > challenging problems (with documented dates that no > one on earth could solve it yet) > > Or maybe they would think about it once they > y deliberately conclude it from any future fabricated > old references from an alleged reputable source, as > usual, especially if they truly could solve it, > wonder! > > Isn't so strange that people came to know about so > o many others who wrote only notes for themselves in > much older centuries, whereas something PUBLISHED > REPEATEDLY to the whole WOLRD and so freely nowadays > goes unnoticeable? wonder! > > Also, I wouldn't be stingy with you mathematicians > s by not showing you the solution, but I would prefer > giving a big hint to it from my PUBLISHED and well > documented and also irrefutable formula (certified by > others) for the real number (r), for (x^r + y^r = > z^r), where (x, y, z) are distinct positive integers, > > > And don't pretend that you didn't see my formula > a that was announced repeatedly and in other sites > too > > However, the formula was done (in 1990) by the > e formal mathematical analysis that mathematicians > usually are familiar > > BKK > > >
Read it so carefully here
https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3257/sumoflikepowersinrealnumbers
BKK



