Fermat's Theorem

[wolf_meister]

Dr Starfish
Oh and for algorithms for cubic equations try this:
http://www.1728.com/cubic2.htm

and for quartics go to:
http://www.1728.com/quartic2.htm

[Cabbage]

You may be right about the general practice, but Fermat published numerous proofs in his lifetime.

Do you have a cite for that?

In fact, for various reasons,
Fermat almost never decided to publish anything. (This had both
advantages and disadvantages for his reputation; it denied him some
of the credit for differential calculus, but it also preserved
“plausible deniability” for his various mis-statements.)

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath363.htm

Although Fermat did not publish his findings, he communicated with nearly every great mathematician of his day on a variety of mathematical topics, including analytical geometry, number theory, geometry, differential calculus and trigonometry. He proposed problems, offered solutions, and presented statements of fact that he had proven, challenging others to do so as well

http://mathsforeurope.digibel.be/fermat.htm

It’s been said that Fermat never wanted anything to be published as he considered math to be his hobby. The only one thing he did publish - he did so anonymously.

Math

Also surprising is the fact that he published only one mathematical paper in his life, and that was an anonymous article written as an appendix to a colleague’s book. Because Fermat refused to publish his work, his friends feared that it would soon be forgotten unless something was done about it. His son, Samuel undertook the task of collecting Fermat’s letters and other mathematical papers, comments written in books, etc. with the object of publishing his father’s mathematical ideas.

http://govschl.ndsu.nodak.edu/~rausch/fermat.htm

[Dr.Starfish]

When I poses this question, I wasn’t talking about Fermat. Mathematicians and scientists have claimed that there whole integers x,y,z such that x^n+y^n=z^n and n is any whole integers greater than 2. Others claim there aren’t.
Has Mr. Wiles’s proof been documented online? I’ve been trying to find that.

[Mathochist]

@Dr. Starfish

When I poses this question, I wasn’t talking about Fermat. Mathematicians and scientists have claimed that there whole integers x,y,z such that x^n+y^n=z^n and n is any whole integers greater than 2. Others claim there aren’t.
Has Mr. Wiles’s proof been documented online? I’ve been trying to find that.

Go to a library.

Wiles, A. Modular elliptic curves and Fermat’s last theorem. Ann. of Math. (2) 141 (1995), no. 3, 443–551.

And by the way, people who claim to have a counterexample of Fermat’s “Last Theorem” are wrong.

[Dr.Starfish]

@Mathochist

Go to a library.

Wiles, A. Modular elliptic curves and Fermat’s last theorem. Ann. of Math. (2) 141 (1995), no. 3, 443–551.

And by the way, people who claim to have a counterexample of Fermat’s “Last Theorem” are wrong.

How do you know it hasn’t been disproved?
The man at this site claims he disproved it:
http://home.mindspring.com/~jbshand/ferm.html
But as I said, he’s using approximations, not whole numbers.
I’m assuming Fermat’s last Theorem is the same as Fermat’s Theorem?
Can anyone post any proofs or counerproofs that are valid?

[ultrafilter]

@Dr. Starfish

How do you know it hasn’t been disproved?
The man at this site claims he disproved it:
http://home.mindspring.com/~jbshand/ferm.html
But as I said, he’s using approximations, not whole numbers.
I’m assuming Fermat’s last Theorem is the same as Fermat’s Theorem?
Can anyone post any proofs or counerproofs that are valid?

That page is a joke, and obviously intended as such. It’s actually pretty funny.

[ultrafilter]

But more seriously, Wiles’ proof is 200 pages long and requires knowledge that’s beyond what undergraduates in math would generally be exposed to. It’s been picked over by very many knowledgeable people, and except for an error that was corrected, it’s generally accepted to be correct.

If anyone has a “counterproof”, it’s either a joke or incorrect. Math isn’t like other disciplines, where there’s evidence for something and against, or good arguments either way. If something is true, the only correct arguments are for it, and if something is false, the only correct arguments are against it. There’s no room for interpretation or differences of opinion–either a claim is correct or incorrect.

[Dr.Starfish]

Go to this page:
http://www.fermatproof.com/

It’s a simplified proof af Fermat’s Theorem.

[ultrafilter]

@Dr. Starfish

Go to this page:
http://www.fermatproof.com/

It’s a simplified proof af Fermat’s Theorem.

It’s an interesting argument, but it’d need a lot more detail to be an actual proof.

[Dr.Starfish]

@wolf_meister

Dr Starfish
Oh and for algorithms for cubic equations try this:
http://www.1728.com/cubic2.htm

and for quartics go to:
http://www.1728.com/quartic2.htm

Thank you, but I found some sites that show you how to find exact roots of cubic and quartic equations:
http://www.karlscalculus.org/quartic.html
http://www.sosmath.com/algebra/factor/fac12/fac12.html
http://www.karlscalculus.org/cubic.html
http://www.sosmath.com/algebra/factor/fac11/fac11.html

[Dr.Starfish]

@Dr. Starfish

Thank you, but I found some sites that show you how to find exact roots of cubic and quartic equations:
http://www.karlscalculus.org/quartic.html
http://www.sosmath.com/algebra/factor/fac12/fac12.html
http://www.karlscalculus.org/cubic.html
http://www.sosmath.com/algebra/factor/fac11/fac11.html

There is a more elaborate algorhythm that I know for solving cubics; as I said before, it involves making a number of algebraic substitutions to get the answer. Right now, I can’t seem to find a website that showcases it.

[Mathochist]

@ultrafilter

That page is a joke, and obviously intended as such. It’s actually pretty funny.

I. Savant. I stands for Idiot.