Fermat's Last Theorem CLARIFICATION

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jun 6 04:52:49 EST 2002


CLARIFICATION:

Kenneth Collins wrote in message
<93zL8.23329$LC3.1751601 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>The Proof of FLT is quite simple.
>
>"Among Fermat's cherished Latin translations of ancient texts was a book
>called _Arithmetica_, written by the Greek mathematician Diophantus who
>lived in the third century A.D. Around 1627, Fermat wrote in Latin in the
>margin of his Diophantus, next to a problem on breaking down a squared
>number into two squares:
>
>'On the other hand, it is impossible to separate a cube into two cubes, or
a
>byquadrate into two biquadrates, or generally any power except a square
into
>two powers with the same exponent. I have discovered a truly marvelous
proof
>of this, which, however, the margin is not large enough to contain.'"
>[_Fermat's Last Theorem_, by A. D. Aczel, [c] 1996, ISBN0-385-31946-0, p9]
>
>Fermat's Last Theorem: x^n + y^n = z^n has no whole number solution where n
>is greater than 2." [ibid, pviii.]
>
>1. when n=2, the equation restates the Pythagorean Theorem, in which z^2
>forms the hypotenuse of a right triangle.
>
>2. the Pythagoreans verified that, when n>2, the hypotenuse of a right
>triangle is Incommensurable. there exist no unit measures other than 1 and
>2, all the way out to infinity, that can measure the lengths sides of the
>triangle and the length of its hypotenuse.

sorry, 2. is  not what i meant to state (i don't even know if it's True :-)

it's the ratio of side to hypotenuse that's incommensurate.

what's important is that this property defines the Fermat equation in an
infinitely-precise way.

>
>3. integers are discrete.
>
>4. it follows from integer-discreteness and infinitely-rigorous Pythagorean
>incommensurability, that if n=2 works, then no integer >2 can work in the
>Fermat equation. [1 'works' because any number raised to the 1-power is
just
>the original number, so the equation becomes non-exponent-ed [x + y = z],
>which isn't the equation of FLT.]
>
>i believe that this simple Proof is a good candidate for what was in
>Fermat's mind when he wrote the problem in the margin of the book he was
>reading.
>
>i'd stated it [using other words; "a square is a square..."]] before
reading
>the Author's article. After reading the article, i wrote a program that did
>a numerical analysis. the program verified that all integers >2 behave
>asymptotically re. the Fermat equation. this asymptotic stuff reiterates
>integer-discreteness.

...with specific respect to the Fermat equation.

a Square is an infinitely-precise entity.

when n=2, the Fermat equation describes a Square.

if it's infinitely-precise, and the integers are discrete, then it cannot be
reproduced for n>2.

it is. they are.

why all this 'hubbub?

"because it's there."

ken

>
>other matter: if folks want to get a handle on all the data that's been
>'slipping-through' [FBI, CIA, NSA], its meaning undetected, and
>unintegrated. i'll be happy to show [those folks] how to build a system
that
>can do the Integration and present its integrated-meaning in a way that's
>accessible in 'real-time' [with respect to putting the info in].
>[...]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list