Fermat’s Last Theorem: A one-operation proof

[Hurkyl]

Ok, I'm going to face the fact that I'm just not finding the time to devise demonstrations of the flaws in the sequence of calculations.

Victor, you're going to have to start actually writing a proof or I'm going to close this. A proof involves writing out clear claims and a clear justification of them. A proof is not simply a list of equations, occasionaly with a couple words of explanation.

 

[Chronos]

Perhaps dissecting Wiles proof and pointing out the unnecessary steps would be instructive.

 

[symplectic_manifold]

You guys should change your forum policies...I wonder how you can stand that ignorance directed to you and spend your precious time with stupidness of this degree!...You should have closed this topic at the very beginning!
Only one look at the paper of this V.S. is enough to make clear for oneself what we are dealing with here: scientific incompetence, ignorance, insolance and the attempt to distinguish one's own "genius".

 

[Chronos]

I liked the VS conjecture. He gave the 'math' and asked fair questions. No harm in that. It was good science, and I enjoyed the discussion. I'd rather hear that kind of argument 100 times over than another 'logical' brief on why Einstein was wrong.

 

[ramsey2879]

I liked the VS conjecture. He gave the 'math' and asked fair questions. No harm in that. It was good science, and I enjoyed the discussion. I'd rather hear that kind of argument 100 times over than another 'logical' brief on why Einstein was wrong.

True, there was no harm and Victor did present enough material to interest me as I learned something out of this thread. But it's time to insist that Victor present a proof that can be followed in the manner set forth by the forum. I would wait until Victor at least makes a reasonable attempt to do this.

 

[Victor Sorokine]

For my Friends

I liked the VS conjecture. He gave the 'math' and asked fair questions. No harm in that. It was good science, and I enjoyed the discussion. I'd rather hear that kind of argument 100 times over than another 'logical' brief on why Einstein was wrong.

Thank! +:

Dear Friends!
Your criticism has help to me to finish the research.
While the proof is executed, I give any fact:

1) Obligatory transformation of the number u into 99…9900…00, which has s digits.
2) The contradiction is discovered in the digit… u_t, where t > s [EVRICA!]:
- or U'_"t" = a_(t)^n + b_(t)^n – c_(t)^n =/ 0,
- either the number of the digits in the number u is equal to t.
Attention: there are two specieses of digits u_t = 0:
(a_t + b_t – c_t)_1 = "9" and
a_t + b_t – c_t = – v (where 0 < v < n).

Thank + thanks
V.S.

 

[Victor Sorokine]

For interesting reflections

True, there was no harm and Victor did present enough material to interest me as I learned something out of this thread. But it's time to insist that Victor present a proof that can be followed in the manner set forth by the forum. I would wait until Victor at least makes a reasonable attempt to do this.

For interesting reflections

The digits and the endings in the proof + inequalities

Let s – the number of digits in the number u = 99…9900…00 и
t [t > s] – the least [and only one!] rank with an equality a_t + b_t – c_t = – v_"t" (where 0 < v_"t" < n). Then:

The numbers a_(s), b_(s), c_(s) is such:
*) at best: a_(s) = "9/2""9/2""9/2"…, b_(s) = "9/2""9/2""9/2"…, c_(s) = 000…;
*) at worst: a_(s) = 999…, b_(s) = 999…, c_(s) = 999… [Here "9" = n – 1].
But [a_(s) + b_(s) – c_(s)]_{s+1} = 1. Therefore:

If s < i < t, then for digits of the rank i there is htly the equality:
(a_i + b_i – c_i)_1 = 9, and again:
*) at best: a_(i) = "9/2""9/2""9/2"…, b_(i) = "9/2""9/2""9/2"…, c_(i) = 000…;
*) at worst: a_(i) = 999…, b_(i) = 999…, c_(i) = 999… [Here "9" = n – 1].

For the digits and endings of the rank t there is the equality:
**) (a_t + b_t – c_t)_1 = – 1 и [a_(t) + b_(t) – c_(t)]_{t+1} = 0

For rank i, where s =< i < t (cases *), there is the equality: a_(i)^n + b_(i)^n – c_(i)^n > 0.
For rank t (case **) there is the equality: a_(t)^n + b_(t)^n – c_(t)^n > < 0.

Therefore, there exist such u_r, where r > t, for which (U'_"r")_{r+2} = [a_(r)^n + b_(r)^n – c_(r)^n]_{r+2} =/0, а (U''_"r")_{r+2} = 0.

V.S.

 

[ramsey2879]

I am sorry Victor, but what you recently posted is not comprehensible, and is completely without merit given the warnings to avoid unjustified statements, i.e. which have no appearance of logical basis. We are not mind readers! See http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/AoPS_R_A_HowWriteJustify.php

 

[moshek]

I am sorry Victor, but what you recently posted is not comprehensible, and is completely without merit given the warnings to avoid unjustified statements, i.e. which have no appearance of logical basis. We are not mind readers! See http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/AoPS_R_A_HowWriteJustify.php

Hi ramsey2879

I appreciate very much your effort to glide victor with is very interesting intuition about FLT. Remember that Fermat did nor write any prove and A.Wiles did not answer if Fermat have the solution in his mind.
Therefore I think that this thread should be open.

Victor is certenly doing progress in his direction by our remarks, manly yours.

Moshe


Dear victor

Please write now all your paper on FLT
from the beginning to the end.

thank you
Moshe

 

[ComputerGeek]

Ok, I'm going to face the fact that I'm just not finding the time to devise demonstrations of the flaws in the sequence of calculations.

Victor, you're going to have to start actually writing a proof or I'm going to close this. A proof involves writing out clear claims and a clear justification of them. A proof is not simply a list of equations, occasionaly with a couple words of explanation.

please oh please kill this thread.

 

[moshek]

please oh please kill this thread.

Please explain to me why ?