Recent content by robert80

Dear all, yesterday I ve read something about Beals conjecture on Wikipedia, But today I've said I will go through some of fake proofs with few lines. The majority of this so called proofs is based on the false logic that Fermats theorem and Beals conjecture are linked directly. By directly I...

Thanks for your kind answer. It seems logical that, when you have 1 proof of some theory or theorem, there are infinite proofs present, the only question which exist is, which is the most simple. So yeah, Perhaps its Wiles, but there will be doubt for a long time still. Just the explanation of...

But to be honest, I doubt it too. I have found a pattern what is wrong with most of the proofs attempts with algebra. It is impossible to find general proof. When you find semi proof and you think its ok, there is a counterexample or some special case it does not work for. When you think you...

Its possible to show (c - b) = (a1)^n when we apply in equation c = d + b, it follows directly, when we rearrange equations. Its possible to show with the same trick (c - a) = (b1)^n but its impossible to show, that (a + b) = (c1)^n, so I am closing this thread. This exact way is not a Fermats...

Perhaps, he was an idealist and didnt want to publish general proof. He anyway did more than a lot. I believe there are some creative Mathematicians, who have wonderful proofs at home in their drawer, I am not applying to anything, but there is a possibility that someone in Russia has proved...

Thanks for your answers. I just think Fermat wouldn't lie nor to be wrong. So I was thinking that there is a proof in its fully divine form, simply waiting somewhere. But after so many years with no success with elegance, or let's say shortness instead (since Wiles proof seem to be very...

Just wondering, what do you think? Does it exist in its elegant and marvelous form? kind regards, Robert KM

I have found the missing link and assistant on Uni found another special case which I proved. I will put this elementary proof into more readable form in few weeks. Thank you for all your patience.

In other words, from the proof we shall see that the necessary condition of existence of a perfect number is : Its smallest prime factor eqauls to 2. Cheers, Robert ps:the only exceptions to this rule as I see it are 3*3*3 or 3 on n power, 3*3*5 and 3*3*7 (the sum of all the possible - double...

Dear Dodo, thanks for your interest. Its a rather clumsy proof, But I started it from the fact, that IF a such perfect number exists, if we factorize it to primes, ALL the possible combinations of multipled primes fe: p1*p2*p3 gives the combinations p1*p2, p2*p3, p1*p3, p1, p2,p3 and 1. Those...

REVISED: If X is ODD and so p1 > 2 than (6) > a so we got a contradiction in (5). When X is EVEN, so p1 is 2, than p1*a – a – p1 – 1 < a so the solution of 5 may exist. So from this proof the perfect odd number does not exist and the even number may exist.

Ok thank you for all the help, this links are preety useful.

Dear all I have 1 simple question. If the solution of Navier Stokes equation exists, its limits for infimum length, time and velocity would be the Kolmogorov Microscale equations, am I correct? Thanks, Robert

REVISED:This could be the way to proof. remember, this is not a proof. today I found a clue to solution to Riemann hypothesis: Let it be Riemann zeta function :ζ(s) The proof that all the non trivial zeroes lie on the critical strip when s = 1/2 + it let us suppose there are other...

Revised : In order to sattisfy DIVERGENCE criteria on interval 1> Re > 0 the zeroes are distributed simetrically to the Re = 1/2. Sorry I mixed the terms ...