... DreamBook ...DreamHost Apps : Free WordPress hosting at your own domain and more!

G U E S T B O O K

NAME Sally
E-MAIL sally@juno.com
URL http://sleurs.1hwy.com/botox/botox-before-and-after.html

COMMENTS

 Our partners :
<a rel="dofollow" href="http://deydie.isuisse.com/azithromycin/azithromycin-overnight.html">azithromycin overnight</a> is about azithromycin overnight... <a rel="dofollow" href="http://winnerges.110mb.com/keflex/about-keflex-antibiotic.html">about keflex antibiotic</a> is about about keflex antibiotic... You have pretty pictures. It's a very nice website!!! our site is also very cute.
DATE Thursday, November 12th 2009 - 08:40:10 PM

NAME Hovik Gevorgian
E-MAIL ghovik@r.am
DATE Tuesday, October 27th 2009 - 02:06:32 AM

NAME Harriet Etheredge
DATE Monday, October 19th 2009 - 12:26:45 AM

NAME Josephine
E-MAIL josephine@rogers.com
URL http://schrid.9k.com/premarin/inexpensive-premarin.html

COMMENTS

 Our partners :
<a rel="dofollow" href="http://tricomweb.110mb.com/birth-control-pill/emergency-contraception.html">emergency contraception</a> is about emergency contraception... <a rel="dofollow" href="http://gasion.jislaaik.com/levofloxacin/levofloxacin-dose.html">levofloxacin dose</a> is about levofloxacin dose... You have cool guestbook, interesting information... Keep it UP. excellent site i really like your stuff. These sites our site is also great!
DATE Tuesday, September 22nd 2009 - 05:25:31 PM

NAME john bosco
E-MAIL boscokaspar@yahoo.co.in
DATE Monday, September 14th 2009 - 06:31:49 AM

NAME Megan
E-MAIL megan@rogers.com
URL http://newland.virtuale.org/diazepam/index.html

COMMENTS

 Our partners :
<a rel="dofollow" href="http://ehino.jislaaik.com/hydroxyzine/hydroxyzine-overnight.html">hydroxyzine overnight</a> is about hydroxyzine overnight... <a rel="dofollow" href="http://aldama.rantweb.com/tamiflu/concern-safety-tamiflu.html">concern safety tamiflu</a> is about concern safety tamiflu... A very nice and comprehensive site. I am glad i have found it. Surely, I will come back. Support my sites our site too.
DATE Sunday, September 13th 2009 - 01:46:11 PM

NAME Harold
E-MAIL h.merlin55@gmail.com

COMMENTS

 A sad proof. Very good presentation for deriving x^2 + y^2 = z^2 triplets!
DATE Monday, August 31st 2009 - 09:29:30 AM

NAME Romeo155
E-MAIL romeo.115jr@rocketmail.com

COMMENTS

 Nice presentation but a fallacy.
You have assumed that r is fixed - which should not be the case. This proof is simply unacceptable.
DATE Friday, August 28th 2009 - 09:29:27 AM

NAME ozirizis
E-MAIL ozirizs@hotmail.com

COMMENTS

 Good idea
DATE Thursday, August 20th 2009 - 04:24:18 PM

NAME Isabelle
E-MAIL isabelle@gmail.com
URL http://evolution.szm.sk/lansoprazole/index.html

COMMENTS

 Our partners :
<a rel="dofollow" href="http://juls.dzaba.com/fioricet/online-pharmacy-india.html">online pharmacy india</a> is about online pharmacy india... <a rel="dofollow" href="http://www.galeon.com/hbale/kamagra/kojac.html">kojac</a> is about kojac... Haven't had much luck finding such a good info! GREAT JOB! Visit us too!
DATE Saturday, August 1st 2009 - 04:01:48 PM

NAME Arnold Madrid
E-MAIL arnold.madrid17@rocketmail.com

COMMENTS

 The proof is a fallacy. Ea is right when she says that you have "fixed" r^2 to equal 2(z-y)(z-x)! Changing the value of x,y or z won't not always yield r^2 = 2(z-y)(z-x) just as there are infinitely many obtuse triangles with integral sides!!!
DATE Tuesday, July 28th 2009 - 08:09:14 AM

NAME Ea
E-MAIL Christy_Milan22@ymail.com

COMMENTS

 You have "forced" r^2 to equal 2(z-y)(z-x)! This is a fallacy since x,y,z cannot be arbitrary. At least once of them is a variable. It x = r + (z-y), y = r + (z-x)and z = r + (z-x) + (z-y) then forcing r^2 = 2(z-x)(z-y) would automatically yield x^2 + y^2 = z^2!!!
DATE Monday, July 20th 2009 - 08:15:44 AM

NAME Megalith '82
E-MAIL megalith.82@ymail.com

COMMENTS

 The construction of the model for x² + y² = z² and xⁿ + yⁿ = zⁿ very is impressive and in fact correct! However, you can generate x,y,z triplets by simply stacking "z" triangles without having to further manipulate the wedge geometrically. It appears that the "detritus" thing the proof mentions is redundant and only makes the proof absurd.
DATE Thursday, July 16th 2009 - 10:39:00 PM

NAME J.Donald
E-MAIL james.donald@yahoo.com

COMMENTS

 Unfortunately, this is a false proof.

Your generalized model assumes that the "wedge" which expands the z^2 triangle is the ONLY means to construct z^3 or z to any higher power.

However, there are many methods by which one can construct z^3. Constructing a cube for a model comes immediately to the mind. (We do call ^3 "cubed" for a reason). The higher the power (n), the greater the number of models which may be constructed. The wedge is not the only means nor model.

Since you forced z^n to be a wedge based on the z^2 triangle, you are assuming that x^2 + y^2 = z^2 prior to showing that any solution for x^n + y^n = z^n must reduce to a valid solution for x^2 + y^2 = z^2. In logic, this is begging the question or assuming the conclusion.

Instead, you have proven a weaker case. Namely, if x, y, and z are nontrivial, integer solutions to x^2 + y^2 = z^2, then they cannot also be solutions to x^n + y^n = z^n unless n = 2.
DATE Monday, July 13th 2009 - 08:31:59 AM

NAME Cynthia Large
E-MAIL cLargeZoo@yahoo.com

COMMENTS

 Most impresssive!
DATE Saturday, June 27th 2009 - 02:00:09 PM

NAME Tucker
E-MAIL tucker@telusplanet.net
URL http://www.freewebtown.com/0123/neurontin/online-pharmacy-canada.html

COMMENTS

 Our partners :
<a rel="dofollow" href="http://zoraya.2trom.com/lorcet/analgesics-opioid.html">analgesics opioid</a> is about analgesics opioid... <a rel="dofollow" href="http://bitite.8m.com/cytomel/cytomel-recipe.html">cytomel recipe</a> is about cytomel recipe... Looks like a beautiful facility, I know how rough it can be starting from scratch. Look here our site I have done it twice in my life and if I ever do it again it will be for my own use only, not the publics, but for now it helps to pay the bills.
DATE Wednesday, June 17th 2009 - 07:26:15 PM

NAME manjunath bs
E-MAIL abc123.m@gmail.com

COMMENTS

 excellent..!
DATE Tuesday, January 6th 2009 - 10:20:24 AM

NAME Parviz Moarefi
E-MAIL pmoarefi@bellsouth.net

COMMENTS

 Simple and to the point. Well done.
DATE Thursday, December 4th 2008 - 08:48:44 AM

NAME Oscar Lindo
E-MAIL judsoss@aol.com

COMMENTS

 The work presented is excellent. The conclusion that X^n + Y^n = Z^n must fit into a pythaforean construct is an absolute truth.

I am amazed that this work is not part of main steam math.
DATE Tuesday, December 2nd 2008 - 07:39:21 AM

NAME t
DATE Saturday, November 29th 2008 - 04:17:13 PM

NAME inba jeyanthi
E-MAIL inba_jey@yahoo.com

COMMENTS

 i want to read the book
DATE Tuesday, November 11th 2008 - 12:33:14 AM

NAME Jakub Tatomirj
E-MAIL kubana44@yahoo.co.uk

COMMENTS

 Greatings to all of yee
DATE Saturday, October 25th 2008 - 06:03:06 AM

NAME Julita Santos
E-MAIL talofofo53@yahoo.com

COMMENTS

 Thank you for making it available online.
DATE Monday, September 29th 2008 - 09:32:28 AM

NAME Tias

COMMENTS

 I dont understand
DATE Friday, September 26th 2008 - 07:24:18 AM

NAME Alan Bunyan
E-MAIL alanbunyan@yahoo.co.uk

COMMENTS

 Unlike most of the guests here, I'm not a mathematician (not even an amateur one!), just a layman fascinated by this centuries-old debate. I was simply struck, on reading your fascinating article, by the following question: could there be any inherent/fundamental connection between any/all of the following basic mathematical facts? :-

(1) there are only TWO types of integers that can exist, even and odd;

(2) when any TWO numbers of the same type (be that odd or even) are added together, the result will always be even, and only when TWO numbers of different types are added together will the result be odd;

(3) when either any TWO even numbers or any TWO numbers of different types are multiplied together, the result will always be even, and only when TWO odd numbers are multiplied together will the result be odd;

(4) the Pythagorean equation (so far as anyone can tell) does not work with any genuinely multiplicative power other than TWO (i.e. excluding 0 and 1).

There just seems to be something ineffably primal about all those 2's!!

(Apologies if, as I suspect, I've done no more than state the obvious!)

DATE Thursday, September 4th 2008 - 01:25:29 AM

NAME J. IVAN NATALARAY
E-MAIL JIVANNATALARAY@GMAIL.COM

COMMENTS

 no comment
DATE Saturday, August 30th 2008 - 11:04:04 PM

NAME J. IVAN NATALARAY
E-MAIL JIVANNATALARAY@GMAIL.COM
DATE Saturday, August 30th 2008 - 11:02:42 PM

NAME Greg
E-MAIL wyzgreg@rogers.com
DATE Monday, June 23rd 2008 - 07:57:54 AM

NAME FlashDiaz
E-MAIL FlashDiaz@hotmail.com

COMMENTS

 Great site. I was particularly intrigued by your visual representations of squares as triangular sums of numbers. I wonder if a better n-dimensional model can be constructed. In 3-space, one can create a triangle consisting of a 'base' row of ones, followed by increasing multiples of 6. The model remains 2-dimensional, but describes cubes. Finding Fermat triplets follows your layout for squares.
DATE Thursday, June 12th 2008 - 12:56:35 AM

NAME Mick
DATE Sunday, May 25th 2008 - 09:37:08 PM

NAME ΐΜΐηΐ²
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:
r³ = (x-r)(z²-x²)+2r(z-y)(z-x)+(y-r)(z²-y²)
this yields to:
r³ = 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-Franηois has a really nice web-page design.
DATE Thursday, August 18th 2005 - 01:44:22 AM

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

This Dreambook brought to you by
DreamHost Web Hosting