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

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
bassam king karzeddin

Posts: 1,257
Registered: 12/8/04
Re: Primitive Pythagorean Triplets
Posted: Sep 30, 2017 11:22 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

> 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

> self-being 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
> non-existing 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 first-page 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 upset-minded 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 well-known 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 peer-reviewed

> > >
> > > Noting that, if the well-known 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 Peer-reviewed (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
> non-professional-mathematicians, 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/sum-of-like-powers-in-real-numbers

BKK



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 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.