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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: There are liars among you
Replies: 2   Last Post: Aug 4, 2000 8:43 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
John Savard

Posts: 601
Registered: 12/8/04
Re: There are liars among you
Posted: Aug 4, 2000 8:43 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 16:01:51 GMT, wrote, in part:

>When I post, I typically put in mathematical content.

>There are people who never do in reply.

Yes, I'm one of them. There are those, though, who have shown errors
you have made in the past.

Your argument here is an invalid one, simply because there are many
people who claim to have proved FLT or done something else amazing,
and real mathematicians have better things to do than go through such
claims and prove exactly where they're wrong. So the fact that they
don't doesn't prove all these other people right.

>Answer this post with an actual math error from my post

>"For mathematicians who lack flexibility".

Well, I found a post titled "For mathematicians lacking flexibility";
will that do?

First you say:

>I take the expressions

> z^2 = kxy(mod (x+y+vz)/h)

> x+y+vz = 0(mod x+y+vz)


> x^p + y^p = z^p.


>It's easy to handle h, since it's just

> (x+y)^{1/p} for Case 1 or (p(x+y))^{1/p} for Case 2.

And then:

>You see, x^p + y^p is divisible by x+y. So, since z^p = x^p + y^p, it
>shares factors in common with x+y.

I do remember that x^2 - y^2 equals x+y times x-y. This is because the
xy term cancels out.

Now, if x=2, y=1, and p=3, it's true that 8+1 is divisible by 3. If
x=5 and y=3, with p still equal to 3, 125+27 is 152, and that is a
multiple of 8. So without performing fancy polynomial divisions, at
least I've checked and seen that this could be true.

>That leaves k and v.

>I start with v, and from v, I find out about everything else.

In other words, you are setting v= some expression "without loss of
generality". Mathematicians do that all the time.

> x+y+vz = 0(mod x+y+vz), which as a tautology doesn't say anything at
>this point, but it will be useful later,

> z^2 = kxy(mod (x+y+vz)/h), and finally

> x^p + y^p = z^p.

The rest is for p=3, and we do know that there _is_ a simple proof for
the p=3 case of FLT. So there doesn't have to be an error in this post
for your "proof of FLT" to be wrong! Not a single one.

> 3v = k(v^3 + 1)(mod (x+y+vz)/h).

You are then claiming that the obstacle to understanding your proof

>Of all these values can any of you accept that

> 3v = k(v^3+1)

>might just be included as one of them?

Well, if v and k are supposed to be integers, v^3 is usually bigger
than 3v, unless v=1. And in that case, k is 3/2, which isn't an

But maybe they don't have to be integers. There really isn't that much
claimed in this post of yours to be able to find an "error" in it.

John Savard (teneerf <-)

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 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.