Fermat: mathematical troll?

does the proof exist?
will it ever exist?
discuss fags, i think he was just a legendary troll

There's a proof by andrew wiles I think

anybody with a brain doesnt genuinely believe that hsi proof is complete. if it was successful proof then there would be no disagreement.

[eqn]\sqrt[3]7^3+1^3=2^3[/eqn]
disproven

i think (maybe) op meant does femats proof exist. a simple elegant proof. not andrew wiles proof

[math]x,y,z \in \mathbb{Z} [/math]

what are the numbers that satisfy the equation anyway or is it much more complicated than that?

There is none

unless you meant where =/= z then every combination of distinct positive integers will not equal z

If it did exist, why would he have published a proof of a special case of the theorem (as he did later in his life, if I'm not mistaken).

>when the joke goes over your head

Well, if that is true, I can think of n being an odd number, say 3. Then, I want x to be 4, and y will be -4. From there, 4^3 + (-4)^3 = 0 = 0^3, considering Z as the group of integers including 0.

If this wouldn't be the kind of answer desired, the best thing to do would be to create a MATLAB script and go through several combinations for x and y and test, for both, values between 1 and 1000, so we would have a good range. I don't see much sense on this main statement anyway...

They have to be positive integers you mong

>proof of over a hundred pages
What a load of bull, no one actually believes this, right?
It would be impossible to verify such a proof.

hehe

It is actually unbelievable... I actually made the matlab script to verify, through brutal attack, whether if this is truth or not...

This is the code I have so far
fprintf('start\n')
tic

for n = 3:1:5
fprintf('%f', n)
for x = 1:1:1000
for y = 1:1:1000
z = nthroot((x^n + y^n), n);
if rem(z,1) == 0;
fprintf('found %f %f', x, y)
end
end
end
end

fprintf('end\n')
toc

So that means I'm making a sweep through all possible combinations of x and y from 1 to 1000, and testing it for n =3, 4 or 5... So far, nobody's home...

I will broaden it to 10000x10000 possibilites and run, then I'll bring it back to you all

what a crock of shit
>what are pythagorean triples

So, I guess it will take three hours for me to get any output from the method now... Because this got me intrigued, I will reply whenever I can to say the numeric 'veredict' of this haha

why bother? its already been proven that there are no such integers to satisfy the equation

> actually writes the script and explain it to people
> condescendingwonka.jpg

Please , explain to us why it is not complete.
You see user, criticism on the internet is easy. Doing real, rigorous math is kinda difficult.

Yes, it is possible to verify it.
You just go line by line.

>using brute force

This if the kind of proof Z3 was born for.

>criticism
his trollpost is not criticism,
it's merely denial

[math]1782^{12} + 1841^{12} = 1922^{12} [/math]

easy

> even number + odd number = even number
please try harder

[math]3987^{12} + 4365^{12} = 4472^{12}[/math]

yes, we all have watched that numberphile video
knock it off

> divisble by 3 + divisible by 3 = not divisible by 3
still not good enough, mate. But I think your examples are not off by much.

I don't have more Simpsons references...

:(

I've been bored too. I just finished calculating 1 000 000 x 1 000 000, all for the cube root. no hits! :D so the proof stands for cubes

They dont exist. Its Fermats Last Theorem, proven by Wiles. For n>2 no x, y, z exist in N such that x^n + y^n = z^n. So literally every triple of natural numbers satisfies x^n + y^n =/= z^n as long as n>2.

richard taylor really got fucked by history here

this is my assumption as well
people have guesses as to what mistake he might have made. probably he made some assumption tantamount to unique factorization, "checked" it in a couple cases and was satisfied with that
he wasn't trolling, just careless by today's standards

I have this old proof from 1977

It might need checking though...

2541210258614589176288669958142428526657 =/=
2541210259314801410819278649643651567616

63976656349698612616236230953154487896987106 =/=
63976656348486725806862358322168575784124416

band of retarded yanks

wiles' proof was technical but brought many, many new things with the links he made between many kinds of maths - his most known link is the introduction of elliptical curves

wiles' proof is a proof and it is logically correct, and by many aspects, it is a very fruitful work.

Whhy? if it's contained in Z

It took hundreds of pages to prove it, and Fermat claimed the proof was too long to fit in the margin of his book, so he was correct. The proof was also incredible because it was so much ahead of its time.