I have played around with it from time to time...
I, for one, would rather believe that fermat had a trick or two up his sleeve and solved this thing the clever way...
thoughts?
I play around with taylor series and properties of logarithms... what do you try?
Other urls found in this thread:
math.stackexchange.com
arxiv.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
extremely unlikely that Fermat had a valid proof, most probably thought he did but was mistaken. I've messed around with the problem before, mostly trying modular representations and such
i still hold faith that fermat was too based to make a mistake...
there has got to be a simple solution though... that shit seems too simple to require wiles tier math to solve it...
Probably through the Triangle Inequality Theorem he found some sense of a geometric proof as an extension of Pythagoras' Theorem.
it has a relatively simpler proof if you use the abc theorem
triangle inequality sounds like a good approach actually... I have played with expanding the nth root of the equation and seeing what headway I could make...
post it bruh...
soooo you presented someones proof that doesnt work... nice contribution bruh... anything else to add???
Humans make mistakes all the time.
Many seemingly simple statements are very hard to prove.
he trolled everyone
bruh... i disagree... but these digits though... i don't know how to argue with that!!!
paper was removed...
Are you people fucking retarded? This theorem has already been proven.
en.wikipedia.org
are you fucking retarded... lurk more new fag... we are talking about the og fermat proof... you clearly do not understand... take your wiggerpedia elsewhere...
sooooooo i presented someone proof that show that Fermat could not have possible proved his last theorem. neck yourself brainlet
It seems like someone would have found whatever semi-convincing false proof Fermat thought he had though. Enough people have tried to prove it that you'd think whatever proof Fermat had (or thought he had), someone would have recreated it.
suppose x, y, z
take nth root
x+y=z
contradiction
Freshman need to stop sleeping in class
not if z = x + y
How do we know they haven't?
If you could prove two things, you'd have it:
a^n + b^n = c^n only works for prime numbers
a^n + b^n = c^n only works for even numbers
It will probably be found by a neural network, modern mathematicians are too busy with homophobic manifolds and shit
Doesn’t n=1 be true but not fit?
1 isn't prime.
>Comments: The paper is correct, but the results were known to 19th-century mathematicians. Thus, the paper should be removed
what a stupid inference
FLT being incorrect is equivalent to the existence of an elliptic curve that is both modular and not modular, contradiction.
That's a minor edge case of measure zero.
No one can read that autistic nips proof of that theorem though
>you can only prove a theorem one way
Prove it, dubsman.