Recent content by The Seeker

I get it now, thanks again :)

I think I understand you, I should really have said that in order to establish the reductio I assume the existence of a particular set of natural numbers A, B, C, P, M such that in (2) and (3) P=C which would assert both that C > A and B and C=A=B. I'm a novice and I'm in the dark about so much...

I suppose what I'm wondering is - if we assume there is at least one natural number solution for which P=C for (1) and (3) would that immediately establish the contradiction?

Thanks, would it still be a reductio if it could hold for only some natural numbers?

In trying to work out what Fermat may have conceived of as his proof, using the mathematics available at the time I have the following suggestion: Fermat's Last Theorem can be expressed the following way: There are no natural numbers A, B, C, N >1 for which a non-trivial solution of the...

It does seem a shame if the previously discussed notion of mobius strip theory, as a modification of string theory, remains untenable. Perhaps some 'mobiusness' can still be adopted into the logic of string theory; it could serve as a visualizable explanatory model of one-handedness. Thoughts...

If you imagine that fabric stretching to infinity, however, you will quickly see that the curvature is neccessarily flattened over time. This would correspond to the "Big Chill" principle in which gravitationally bound systems and bodies break down slowly in response to the universal expansion...

I'm deriving the relation e=mc^2 Is my working out here valid: Firstly I start with the formulas KE = mv^2/2 and p=mv Then I assume that in separate frames of reference, what may look like a static object to one observer may appear to move with a certain velocity to another. This raises...