[View]

G U E S T B O O K

NAME	АМАзАІ
E-MAIL	leejaeyul5@yahoo.co.kr
URL	http://blog.empas.com/leejaeyul5/
COMMENTS	Our proofs are perfect and plain. 4 Color Theorem proof of the regions on global surface Two each methods about FLT proof All Pythagorean triples cannot be the power numbers. We believe in the Fermat. And we believe that the space and the matters come into existence, when the numbers come into existence and we also believe that all cosmic materials and lives change but the number theory cannot change now and forever. Thanks.
DATE	Thursday, May 15th 2008 - 03:33:12 PM

NAME	sama
E-MAIL	sanam718@yahoo.com
COMMENTS	a history of time from black holes
DATE	Wednesday, May 14th 2008 - 11:41:22 AM

NAME	Berrier Dale Byrom
E-MAIL	dbyrom51@plateautel.net
DATE	Saturday, May 3rd 2008 - 08:58:51 AM

NAME	Karsten Tjugen
E-MAIL	kars-tj@online.no
COMMENTS	Working at the moment with an idea for a SHORT proof for last FERMAT assumption,I find you approach interesting. I find also your proof to be fairly long, and I am looking for a shorter one.
DATE	Thursday, December 6th 2007 - 05:39:09 AM

NAME	Mario De Paz
E-MAIL	mario.depaz@fastwebnet.it
COMMENTS	I am with you that Fermat had a simple proof of his last theorem. At present I cannot say that your proof is correct for any n: I have not studied it enough to understand its deep significate. I appreciate much your efforts which deserve attention.
DATE	Monday, October 29th 2007 - 12:06:38 AM

NAME	Sophie Germain
COMMENTS	Nice proof for n=3. I will be very pleased, if you could show the same for n=7. I think, you will run into trouble!
DATE	Wednesday, April 18th 2007 - 11:00:34 AM

NAME	Walther Bush
COMMENTS	Trinare system: 1^3=1, 2^3=22, 10^3=1000, 11^3=2101, 12^3=11122, 20^3=22000, 21^3=110201, 22^3=200222, 100^3=1000000, 101^3=1101001, 102^3=1211022, 110^3=2101000, 111^3=10000101. Do you see the pattern?
DATE	Friday, February 16th 2007 - 01:32:27 PM

NAME	MPENDULO V. MAGAGULA
E-MAIL	126941@uniswacc.uniswa.sz
COMMENTS	no comments
DATE	Wednesday, January 10th 2007 - 06:01:19 AM

NAME	Jo
COMMENTS	This query was raised in the 1600's??? Since the mid 70's(that's 1970's), my favourite professor at Queen's University spent the greater part of his life wrestling like Jacob with this one...Out of sincere compassion and love for this gentleman and others that have been preoccupied with this one, may I respectfully suggest reading Phil 4:8 then get some rest! Blessings in Him.
DATE	Monday, January 8th 2007 - 05:49:35 PM

NAME	Clefort
E-MAIL	ipub@charter.net
COMMENTS	Thanks for sharing your proof and your invaluable notes. CL.
DATE	Monday, December 4th 2006 - 04:04:08 PM

NAME	ajumunisha
E-MAIL	ajumunisha_begam
COMMENTS	i want the real proof of fermats last theorem
DATE	Sunday, November 26th 2006 - 10:17:25 PM

NAME	Allan H H
COMMENTS	x = a – b, y = a + b <=> (a – b)^3 + (a + b)^3 = z^3 <=> z^3 = 2a(a^2 + 3b^3) x = c - d, y = c + d <=> (c – d)^3 + y^3 = (c + d)^3 <=> y^3 = 2d(d^2 + 3c^3) x = a – b, y = a + b <=> x^3 + (e – f)^3 = (e + f)^3 <=> x^3 = 2f(f^2 + 3e^3) 2a = (x + y), 2d = (z – x), 2f = (z – y) <=> x = (2a – 2d + 2f) / 2, y = (2a + 2d – 2f) / 2, z = (2a + 2d + 2f) / 2 (a – d + f)^3 + (a + d – f)^3 = (a + d + f)^3 <=> a3 – d3 – f3 – 3a2d + 3ad2 – 3a2f + 3af2 – 3d2f – 3df2 – 18adf = 0 (a – d – f)^3 <=> a3 – d3 – f3 – 3a2d + 3ad2 – 3a2f + 3af2 – 3d2f – 3df2 + 6adf (a – d – f)^3 = 3(2a)(2d)(2f) This is absurd, but it is only for proof n=3. Like your story, higher n is more complex. You can’t proove all n, just telling about n=3.
DATE	Saturday, October 21st 2006 - 02:32:32 PM

NAME	E. Terrell
E-MAIL	eterrell00@netzero.net
COMMENTS	Well... What can I say...? ...your proof is interesting - But! Like Andrew Wiles... Its wrong! Still, if you are indeed interested in the proof and the meaning of the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem - read: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-terrell-math-quant-ternary-logic-of-binary-sys-01.pdf In other words, the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem / Pythagoras Theorem is established by the Distributive Law... The Alternate Mathematical it represents - The Binary System...!
DATE	Tuesday, June 6th 2006 - 11:50:01 PM

NAME	james w. barclay
E-MAIL	rom1210@verizon.net
COMMENTS	Here goes: Fermat was a man of the 17th century. A man who lived in the middle of the greatest creative era of the renaissance. Especially in building and architecture. He was well-educated, was a thinker, a lawyer, a killer Bridge player and an amateur mathematician. He enjoyed the whole thing that was going on. One can imagine him, several days out on walks or coming home from court or his office and seeing all this fantastic stuff. One day he looks up and notices the stonemason's crane, not changed in hundreds or even a thousand years. Not even DaVinci could improve it. It was a right triangle of thick wood so steady it could, and did, haul stones, mortar, other materials machine and equipment up to where the masons were working. Could he improve up this? He may have thought: You know, I could make some money improving of this concept which is ancient." He knew, as well as any person who had studied geometry or trigonometry, that for x(n)+y(n)=Z(n) and he would certainly have been taught that n=0,1or 2, but that any hgher number of n would not work. It was an absurdity and invalid. He goes back home and starts playing with the idea of making a new crane. But everytime he comes to stability factor, every design fails. He must, of course, make a crane of the same simplicity, but better. Is he nuts? No. He just thinks he can come oup with something better. Its a game of sorts. But, should he indeed bump into another unique solution, he might have something that will make him famous or at least thought of as a very clever boy. And he knows he's not the smartest guy in Paris. He fails and, in doing so, one day simply puts down that the solution to the Pythagoran statement of the Right Triangle has never been solved to be wrong, and never will. And what does he use for his proof? He simply defies anyone to prove him wrong. Its unique because he puts in mathematical form so that it must be. He's not worried about how many variations or new algebras or diagrams. Why put them in? They don't work. Unfortunately, he puts down that he can't fit the fact that it is unique in the margins of his papers. He dies. Fermat is known as a lawyer and killer card player, and a lawyer and judge.His papers, or some them get collected. Of course, he has been famous. Do, obviously someone wants possession of his papers, just for the art of collecting. Nothing is unusual or really out of the ordinary. After all, who gave a box of wig powder about Sir Christopher Wren's assistant? Who the dickens cared about King Louis' accountant, Montesque? Back then, civil fame was a very short game. Folks just didn't have much of a lifespan. and the average height of a man was like 5'4" or less. The normal height of a house's ceiling was about 6'. Mathematicians got ahold of it and said: "Here is a great genius. HE must have known so much about mathematics. He was smarter than us. I know, we'll use all our higher math to solve this. It got famous, too. A head finally came when a little English mathematical whizz kid found the theorem in a public library and wanted a go at it, an obsession it became and it dominated his life. Its all he really wanted to do: solve that claim of uniqueness for the Pythagoran Theoram. Finally, when he had the means to do it, he spent virtually all his time on it using the most sophisticated mathematics in the known world and molding them into what he formulated to be a solution. In other words he want to prove "uniqueness" anther way of proving a set of negatives. Pretty wild. One day he looked and said: "This is it." He presented it to a very elite group of pure mathematicians and they went nuts, cheering and hooting and so on. He goes back a hero. His paper goes to the dreaded Peer Review. It comes back, "close, but no cigar. Therefore, you didn't do it." He goes back home and works on the thing for about another six months and he's getting nowhere- and worse, everyday and night. One morning he give it a break and goes out for a walk in the woods. Couple of hours I guess. When he comes back, his assistant has made some notes. HE uses the notes and straightens out his math. He galnces at it and then looks. This guy, Andrew Wiles, literally breaks down and sobs. He cannot even look anyone straight in the face and talk about it without bursting into tears. Needless to say it is published and he's again the hero of pure math. Its published, he's on the news, he's a superstar with everyone, but the public and other scientists outside his little sphere. finally, there is this guy, Simon Singh, a mathematician and famous writier who has already had a best seller on cipers. He writes "Fermat's Last Theroem" abouth this journey, excluding probably how Fermat actually did it. WGBH-TVs "Nova" does an episode according to Singh and then he really is famous. There is only one thing. The kid looks so fragile he might break in half. Singh kind of goads him to tell the story about how he know he actually had it. Again, Wiles breaks down in tears and really can't finish. Its heart wrenching to watch. But, not only had this little guy Wiles solved Fermat, he also solved the mystery of Elliptical Curves and a thing called the "Tanayama-Simura Theory" which stated that Tanayama-Shimura math is exactly equal to Elliptical Curves. Now it becomes the "Tanayama-Shimura Principle". He also proves a couple of theorists wrong. (Tanayama committed suicide in 1959 due to his perception of his failure in his life long quest.) When Shimura was asked about the prinicple he said: "They should have listened to us. It would have save them a lot of work." But no one, no one ever thought to examine the history around Fermat and his intrigueing study of the stonemason's crane, which is still used today. Sometimes, oftimes, the answere lies in the most obvious place and under the most common circumstances. Back in the old days of science they had to. Modern science forgot it and the old pronouncement of Richard Feynman echoes: "If you can't explain you theory to me in plain language I don't want to hear about it. I've a feeling Dick could have done it lying on his couch drinking orange juice. He was truly the last 'common sense' genius. Maybe somewhere up there Fermat and Feyman are laughing their heads off and seeing our foolishness.
DATE	Sunday, May 21st 2006 - 09:40:22 AM

NAME	james w. barclay
E-MAIL	rom1210@verizon.net
COMMENTS	I think I have an idea what may have prompted Fermat to consider this among his theorems. It was actually pretty simple and not very remarkable. What made it so weird is that many mathematicians did not consider Fermat's environment, the times in which he lived, what was happening all around him that interested his inquisitive intellect and possibly his penchant for playing practical jokes. I think he had one on us all. Wile's proof, as gigantic as it was, could never have been Fermat's or any of his colleague's proofs. I'll send this message. And if any you want to know my little theory, I'll tell you a little and very delightful story you may want to entertain your friends with. You decide it you think its a good one. I'm pretty sure no one's thought of this one. It may be absurd. It may be the dumbest thing you've ever read. OR, you may just be intrigued. Whatever, it all just for fun.
DATE	Sunday, May 21st 2006 - 08:24:25 AM

NAME	Tim
E-MAIL	-----
URL	http://www.digiflux.biz
COMMENTS	This is my father's proof. I can guarantee that he wasn't from "La La Land". With regard to Wiles's proof: Has anybody seen it? If so, did you understand it? As far as I know, there are only a handful of people on the planet who SAY that they understand it and they are all from Princeton. Furthermore, Wiles had a flaw in his original proof and had to enlist the aid of several other mathematicians to help him. It was a collaborative effort, but Wiles got all the accolades. You can beat the Wiles drum if you like but just because he worked on a proof for his entire life, doesn't mean that it's worth a diddly.
DATE	Monday, April 10th 2006 - 06:00:25 AM

NAME	howard hackman
E-MAIL	hjhack@cox.net
COMMENTS	Saw this page as i was looking for prime number theories.
DATE	Saturday, February 4th 2006 - 07:42:48 PM

NAME	George Runyan
E-MAIL	mathhead@aol.com
URL	http://www.digiflux.biz
COMMENTS	This is an excellent piece of work. It's a shame that it hasn't gotten more notoriety.
DATE	Sunday, October 30th 2005 - 12:51:46 PM

NAME	Bill Gates
DATE	Saturday, August 20th 2005 - 02:53:15 PM

NAME	H. Flores
E-MAIL	rotceh1974@yahoo.com.mx
URL	http://www.itwm.fhg.de/de/opt__Mitarbeiter/Flores/
COMMENTS	It was really nice to read. Pity that it is wrong, as Jean-Fr. pointed. Just a few positive comments: A general strategy for solving equations is the following: 1) Add one or some additional variables. 2) Using them, find additional equations (easier to solve). This is done for example with Lagrange multipliers. In this case he introduce 'r' and two new equations: (1,2,3) r=x+y-z and (4) r^2 = 2(z-x)(z-y) But (4) is true ONLY for two dimensions. (4) comes from the necessity to have equal areas for the shaded triangle and parallelogram in fig. 2. For three dimensions the triangle is a "wedge" but the complement is a complicated object whose volume is not what (4) states. The projection on fig. 10 destroys the information on the volume! For 3-Dim (4) will be somethign like: rі = (x-r)(zІ-xІ)+2r(z-y)(z-x)+(y-r)(zІ-yІ) this yields to: rі = 3(x+y)(z-y)(z-x) Provided that the algebra is ok (what would be a miracle if I did it) it may be possible to prove that no triplet exist for n=3. (That would be nice enough!) Just to finish. A simpler "model" (I don't like to use that word here) is a square of 1's instead a triangle of 1's and 2's. Try it. Just draw a square of side z and in opposite corners small squares of sides x,y. If they intersects an inner square will be formed, call r to the side. And you will have your equations again. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Regards. PS. Jean-Franзois has a really nice web-page design.
DATE	Thursday, August 18th 2005 - 01:44:22 AM

NAME	tkd
E-MAIL	tkd32088@msn.com
COMMENTS	This proof seems very solid and I agree with your result, but I do have one question. The methods outlined in this paper do indeed keep x,y,z as integers... but as I recall from the equation, the variable n does not have to be an integer. If n were to be a part of the real domain rather than just the set of integers then I do not completely understand how the arguments in this paper still apply. Perhaps there is something that I missed or do not completely understand. If you have already addressed this possiblity, I would greatly appreciate it if you could enlighten me.
DATE	Friday, August 5th 2005 - 04:31:13 PM

NAME	Jon Chandler
E-MAIL	jon_m_chandler@yahoo.com
COMMENTS	You are correct...I have the proof you are looking for...I started with two general restraints and the resulting series included x^2=2(a-x)(b-x) where a+b=c+x and n=2. This generated all of the known triples. But, you are missing the series terms for higher orders of N. It is quite surprising and clearly shows why n>2 does not work...Your use of Egyptian geometry is correct. I also extended it for N space. Although graphics cannot show n>3.
DATE	Tuesday, March 8th 2005 - 11:29:17 AM

NAME	Gareth
E-MAIL	gchantle@smu.edu
COMMENTS	What a sham. It is very immature that one would so quickly and sloppily condemn the long years of work and effort that Wiles put into his proof. This proof is either some sort of prank, or the poster of this page lives in la la land.
DATE	Wednesday, February 16th 2005 - 03:54:41 PM

NAME	Eduardo Corominas
E-MAIL	eduardocorominas@hotmail.com
COMMENTS	Sorry it is a wrong proof. Jean-Francois posted the reason. There is an easy way to see the mistake. You can assume without loosing generality that 0<x<y<z and of course x,y,z are integers. Under such situation in order to have a Pithagorean solution it is easy to proof that z has to be an odd number. Therefore the tridimensional figure shown, with the assumption to be a solution of Fermat last teorem and the absurd because it is a simultaneous Pithagorean solution does not work for z even values, and this example it is enough. Never the less thanks for the attempt. Eduardo
DATE	Monday, November 8th 2004 - 07:31:39 AM

NAME	Eduardo Corominas
E-MAIL	eduardocorominas@hotmail.com
COMMENTS	Sorry it is a wrong proof. Jean-Francois posted the reason. There is an easy way to see the mistake. You can assume without loosing generality that 0<x<y<z and of course x,y,z are integers. Under such situation in order to have a Pithagorean solution it is easy to proof that z has to be an odd number. Therefore the tridimensional figure shown, with the assumption to be a solution of Fermat last teorem and the absurd because it is a simultaneous Pithagorean solution does not work for z even values, and this example it is enough. Never the less thanks for the attempt. Eduardo
DATE	Monday, November 8th 2004 - 07:25:44 AM

NAME	Eduardo Corominas
E-MAIL	eduardocorominas@hotmail.com
COMMENTS	Seems ok
DATE	Thursday, October 21st 2004 - 08:03:51 AM

NAME	LALISTA
E-MAIL	LALISTA@LALISTA.ORG
URL	http://WWW.LALISTA.ORG
COMMENTS	LALISTA IS WITH YOU
DATE	Wednesday, September 22nd 2004 - 08:08:18 AM

NAME	Jean-Francois Bouzereau
E-MAIL	jfbouzereau@netcourrier.com
URL	http://membres.lycos.fr/jfbouzereau
COMMENTS	Hello, I've read with the utmost interest the paper, because Fermat's theorem has always intrigued me. Your first part, explaining how to generate P. numbers is unquestionnably correct. But I dont agree with the second part. You seem to suggest that when one meets a P. triplet "framework" as in figure 10, the three numbers are P. But this is not true. First, for any three integers, as soon as x+y > z, we do have this framework. Second, the three equations 1) x = r + (z-y) 2) y = r + (z-x) 3) z = r + (z-x) + (z-y) are merely three different ways of saying the same: r = x + y - z Third, the three numbers are P ONLY IF we have also the condifion: r^2 = 2 (z-x)(z-y) This is easily prooved : r^2 = 2 (z-x)(z-y) (x+y-z)^2 = 2 (z-x)(z-y) x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + 2xy -2xz -2yz = 2z^2 -2xz -2yz +2 xy x^2 + y^2 = z^2 But nowhere in the reasoning in three (or higher) dimensiosn you demonstrate that r^2 = 2 (z-x)(z-y) ! Well, it's a pity because I'm convinced, as you are, that there must be a simple proof of this theorem. I'am also convinced that Fermat had this proof. Since this is a question of non-existence, the proof must be ad absurdum, be supposing it true and arriving to some contradiction. So, keep trying, and good luck... Sincerely, J.F.
DATE	Sunday, August 1st 2004 - 05:57:52 AM

NAME	Russell E. Rierson
E-MAIL	analog57@yahoo.com
COMMENTS	The General Equation? 3(3+4) + 4\|4-3\| = 5^2 3(3+4) + 41 = 5^2 3(3+4) + 4(1 + 5^2) = 5^3 3(3+4) + 4(1 + 5^2 + 5^3) = 5^4 3(3+4) + 4(1 + 5^2 + 5^3 + 5^4) = 5^5 etc... 5(5+12) + 12\|12 - 5\| = 13^2 5(5+12) + 12(7 + 13^2) = 13^3 5(5+12) + 12(7 + 13^2 + 13^3) = 13^4 etc... The equation? : p is a prime number > 2. z^p = x(x+y) + y( \|y-x\| +...+ z^(p-1) )
DATE	Sunday, May 16th 2004 - 11:16:13 PM

NAME	Neil Parker
E-MAIL	neil@wizzy.com
COMMENTS	Too complicated - I have much simpler PT generator and one page proof. But I need to run it past some 'referees' first! Neil.
DATE	Tuesday, May 11th 2004 - 09:47:22 AM

NAME	Russell E. Rierson
E-MAIL	analog57@yahoo.com
COMMENTS	Some very interesting ideas. Thank you for putting your dad's proof on the internet.
DATE	Saturday, February 28th 2004 - 08:04:53 PM

NAME	Snow
E-MAIL	snow@strongnet.co.nz
COMMENTS	Well I've come back to this site, and after a second read it is different to what I had thought of... But I still agree with this method :)
DATE	Monday, February 9th 2004 - 02:26:33 PM

NAME	Snow aka Dr TiTus
E-MAIL	snow@strongnet.co.nz
URL	http://drtitus.orcon.net.nz
COMMENTS	I came up with this same concept as well, and I also think Wiles proof suxx because its so damned complex! Go this method! It is certain proof!
DATE	Wednesday, November 26th 2003 - 02:54:10 PM

[Sign] [View] [A Short-Form Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem]

This Dreambook brought to you by
DreamHost Web Hosting