Nice. I hope you get your hits cuz I'd be interested in seeing your proof. But I don't think I'm going to watch it 150,000 times. Oh, and it would help if you shortened the audio to match the visual.
Andrew Wiles where got solve Fermat's Last Theorem (otherwise we would have resolved world problems). It is just like he is using Japan war machine to cope with a napkin issue.
Where can I get his thesis, can I understand one, is it French-made ?
why are people trying to prove that something isn't true. it doesnt make sense, surely there are better ways to spend 10+ years of your life as wiles did.
If the power n is any real number greater than 1 or less than -1, then in order for any similar equation to Fermat's equation with r variables to be true, the r variables in that equation must be the lengths of the sides of some r-sided polygon, where r is any integer greater or equal to 3.
"Maybe fermat was saying that in the case of n=3, a cube can be cut into 3 cubes, not 2 "
Just want to point out to you one thing, it's that people aren't interseted in things that seem oridinary, they are interested in the things that seem out of the ordinary !
If it is true what you quoted. then there wouldn't be all this fuss to try to prove his original theory! ...
Actually it's like this; seeing the simplicity of something is harder to do. When you see it, the mind-dazzling confusion vanishes. The intriguing thing about Fermat is still unknown by all but me.
Here's as much as you'll be able to grasp: what Fermat did is claim he had a proof for FLT which he left "formless" thus no one will ever know if any other proof is Fermat's original proof.
Other proofs are being thought up more frequently that we know. The thing is - if you prove it what do you prove -that there are no solutions, right? In other words - nothing.
Finally a good question. "sequential whole numbers" means 1,2,3,4 etc ie whole numbers in sequence. Using n=2 as the exponent you get: 1,4,9,16,25,36 etc. Differentiating 4-1=3,9-4=5,16-9=7,25-16=9 etc which means the first level differentials are 3,5,7,9 etc Differentiating these you get 5-3=2,7-5=2,9-7=2 etc the 2nd or nth level differential The factorial of n=2 = 2 X 1 = 2. Try it for n=3 or any n and it always works.
Is this something you found? You don't even give mathematical proof for what you said so why do you say stuff like 'Freeman's Expo Facto Theorem' like you found something great?
Since my "Garageband" composition is only a minute long, however, I chose to use induction from the 2nd (Fermat) to the 3rd (Freeman) dimension to illustrate the truth of my "Expo-Facto Theorem" which has its basis in Kaballa, is indeed true in all cases, and could "possibly" be a proof for FLT. In other words, that's all I had room for.
OK I think I get it. The part you're stuck on in this film seems to be the words "and so on for all higher dimensional forms." Yes, (although not my main concern here and thus merely alluded to by the words "and so on...") a deductive rigorous proof for dimensional transcendence does result in deviations from a desirable "infallible simple formula or conjecture" that would work in all cases.
im not talking about your observation of factorial behaviour at the nth differential level (as others have mentioned that requires a rigorous mathematical proof which by the way isnt too hard to do i.e.: by induction), im talking about everything after where you said "in other words...". anyway, your observation of the link between exponents and factorials actually has nothing to do with FLT and ergo is the fallacy in logic
no its not youve ended up making exactly the same conjecture and since this particular conjecture of Euler's is wrong the logic by which you arrived at the same conclusion must also be faulty look it up
I looked it up. Euler has nothing to do with factorials or the (as until me) relationship between exponents and factorials which when understood properly cannot be denied.
"in the case wher n=3 a cube can be cut into 3 cubes, not 2, and so on for all higher dimensional forms" sounds exactly like Euler's sum of powers conjecture, which has been disproven.
I agree with Slimdawgc and tuxfather. What you said might be right but without any mathematical proof such as why that thing works, it is meaningless. Pythagoras proved his theory that is why Pythagoras theorem exists
I do own a copy of Wiles's proof myself, though - I cannot fully understand it (yet..). But it has nothing to do with this.. Wiles is using modular forms, elliptic curves and much more;)
Slimdawgc is right , this is not a proof and if you say that it is a proof,so you're being a little - sorry to say that- ridiculous. If you don't believe me, open some math books and take a look what is it like to make a proof
How do you know it's ALWAYS true? Did you go over all the numbers, all possibilities? In addition to this I did NOT say that there is no intuition but this is not a proof. I f you really believe that this is proof send this video - you might think to work on a little bit though - to American Mathematical Society. And if they accept this as a proof all my apologies to you...
That was an absolutely ridiculous proposition. You can't start with a concrete proof and use that to make a general case for all numbers greater than 2. You must first prove the case in general, and then only is your proof valid. This is what Andrew Wiles did.
How do you or does anyone know what Wiles did? Have you seen his proof? My Expo-Facto Theorem is true in all cases and it doesn't take a genius to understand it. Also, although I truly appreciate genuine criticism, I have come to understand that people who begin their criticism with strong words like "absolutely ridiculous" are, in fact, referring to themselves.
To know about the new Fermat's proof, click on the left.
Watch the video and read the entire description.
fermatxxi 1 year ago
@fermatxxi
Nice. I hope you get your hits cuz I'd be interested in seeing your proof. But I don't think I'm going to watch it 150,000 times. Oh, and it would help if you shortened the audio to match the visual.
yfree19158 1 year ago
@yfree19158
Thanks for your opinion, but the audio will stay anyway.
fermatxxi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, this is the biggest bullshit I have ever seen. What did you smoke before making this vid? I want some!
kcarlsson89 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, this is the biggest bullshit I have ever seen. What did you smoke before making this vid? I want some!
kcarlsson89 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, this is the biggest bullshit I have ever seen. What did you smoke before making this vid? I want some!
kcarlsson89 1 year ago
Wow, this is the biggest bullshit I have ever seen. What did you smoke before making this vid? I want some!
kcarlsson89 1 year ago
Andrew Wiles where got solve Fermat's Last Theorem (otherwise we would have resolved world problems). It is just like he is using Japan war machine to cope with a napkin issue.
Where can I get his thesis, can I understand one, is it French-made ?
MachinePRISM 2 years ago
why are people trying to prove that something isn't true. it doesnt make sense, surely there are better ways to spend 10+ years of your life as wiles did.
HoodSta93 3 years ago
nobs
ultraspeedy 3 years ago
If the power n is any real number greater than 1 or less than -1, then in order for any similar equation to Fermat's equation with r variables to be true, the r variables in that equation must be the lengths of the sides of some r-sided polygon, where r is any integer greater or equal to 3.
jahdallah 3 years ago
a cube can be cut into 2 cubes? dude... what are you smoking. i want some!!!
Krahl123 3 years ago
(the cubic root of x all cubed) + (the cubic root of y all cubed) = the cubic root of z all cubed.
jahdallah 3 years ago
this doesnt make sense at all
ImSoConstipated03 4 years ago 2
you quoted
"Maybe fermat was saying that in the case of n=3, a cube can be cut into 3 cubes, not 2 "
Just want to point out to you one thing, it's that people aren't interseted in things that seem oridinary, they are interested in the things that seem out of the ordinary !
If it is true what you quoted. then there wouldn't be all this fuss to try to prove his original theory! ...
eMra99 4 years ago
Actually it's like this; seeing the simplicity of something is harder to do. When you see it, the mind-dazzling confusion vanishes. The intriguing thing about Fermat is still unknown by all but me.
yfree19158 4 years ago
Here's as much as you'll be able to grasp: what Fermat did is claim he had a proof for FLT which he left "formless" thus no one will ever know if any other proof is Fermat's original proof.
yfree19158 4 years ago
Other proofs are being thought up more frequently that we know. The thing is - if you prove it what do you prove -that there are no solutions, right? In other words - nothing.
yfree19158 4 years ago
Wiles constructed a proof and gave it a "form" - 200 pages. But he still proved nothing. So who's smarter, Fermat or Wiles?
yfree19158 4 years ago
Fermat was also know as a trickster so I wouldn't be surprised if he never had a proof which would make him infinitely more intelligent than Wiles.
yfree19158 4 years ago
So much for that. If you got that far, cool. The rest, the really intriguing thing about FLT, is simply too simple to explain.
yfree19158 4 years ago
wiles proved that all elliptic curves are modular
SuperAwesomeGroke 2 years ago
es muy fácil 2+2=3 :D
elgranvitorio 4 years ago
Finally a good question. "sequential whole numbers" means 1,2,3,4 etc ie whole numbers in sequence. Using n=2 as the exponent you get: 1,4,9,16,25,36 etc. Differentiating 4-1=3,9-4=5,16-9=7,25-16=9 etc which means the first level differentials are 3,5,7,9 etc Differentiating these you get 5-3=2,7-5=2,9-7=2 etc the 2nd or nth level differential The factorial of n=2 = 2 X 1 = 2. Try it for n=3 or any n and it always works.
yfree19158 4 years ago
I am interested to see the proof
timeage 4 years ago
Thanks but I'm not planning any trips to Greece. Meantime check out my movie asacredproofdotcom for proof of G-d's existence if you need proof.
yfree19158 4 years ago
Is this something you found? You don't even give mathematical proof for what you said so why do you say stuff like 'Freeman's Expo Facto Theorem' like you found something great?
timeage 4 years ago
If there's enough interest I'll present the proof.
yfree19158 4 years ago
1. I noticed others have stated things like with no proof the link you have oberved cannot be guaranteed to hold true in all cases
2. check on something like wiki for "proof by induction"
anon914034 4 years ago
So check out my website \asacredproof.. com for an irrefutable biological proof for the existence of G-d.
yfree19158 4 years ago
Since my "Garageband" composition is only a minute long, however, I chose to use induction from the 2nd (Fermat) to the 3rd (Freeman) dimension to illustrate the truth of my "Expo-Facto Theorem" which has its basis in Kaballa, is indeed true in all cases, and could "possibly" be a proof for FLT. In other words, that's all I had room for.
yfree19158 4 years ago
OK I think I get it. The part you're stuck on in this film seems to be the words "and so on for all higher dimensional forms." Yes, (although not my main concern here and thus merely alluded to by the words "and so on...") a deductive rigorous proof for dimensional transcendence does result in deviations from a desirable "infallible simple formula or conjecture" that would work in all cases.
yfree19158 4 years ago
im not talking about your observation of factorial behaviour at the nth differential level (as others have mentioned that requires a rigorous mathematical proof which by the way isnt too hard to do i.e.: by induction), im talking about everything after where you said "in other words...". anyway, your observation of the link between exponents and factorials actually has nothing to do with FLT and ergo is the fallacy in logic
anon914034 4 years ago
1) "as others have mentioned"
2) "which by the way isnt too hard to do i.e.: by induction"
.... please expound
yfree19158 4 years ago
no its not youve ended up making exactly the same conjecture and since this particular conjecture of Euler's is wrong the logic by which you arrived at the same conclusion must also be faulty look it up
anon914034 4 years ago
I looked it up. Euler has nothing to do with factorials or the (as until me) relationship between exponents and factorials which when understood properly cannot be denied.
yfree19158 4 years ago
"in the case wher n=3 a cube can be cut into 3 cubes, not 2, and so on for all higher dimensional forms" sounds exactly like Euler's sum of powers conjecture, which has been disproven.
anon914034 4 years ago
This is totally new or at least undiscovered until I figured it out and has nothing to do with Euler.
yfree19158 4 years ago
This isn't a proof.
sorabji91 4 years ago
I agree with Slimdawgc and tuxfather. What you said might be right but without any mathematical proof such as why that thing works, it is meaningless. Pythagoras proved his theory that is why Pythagoras theorem exists
PiBBP 4 years ago
you mean you want more so you can understand it better?
yfree19158 4 years ago
I do own a copy of Wiles's proof myself, though - I cannot fully understand it (yet..). But it has nothing to do with this.. Wiles is using modular forms, elliptic curves and much more;)
MagnusDenDigge 5 years ago
Slimdawgc is right , this is not a proof and if you say that it is a proof,so you're being a little - sorry to say that- ridiculous. If you don't believe me, open some math books and take a look what is it like to make a proof
tuxfather 5 years ago
If something is always "true" what more proof is needed? Perhaps you would care to take a shot at disproving it rather being resorting to ridicule?
yfree19158 5 years ago
How do you know it's ALWAYS true? Did you go over all the numbers, all possibilities? In addition to this I did NOT say that there is no intuition but this is not a proof. I f you really believe that this is proof send this video - you might think to work on a little bit though - to American Mathematical Society. And if they accept this as a proof all my apologies to you...
tuxfather 5 years ago
Interesting.I'm not sure whether part of Andrew Wiles proof was related to this. . but it may have been.
Certainly makes you wonder the calculations and what is involved in the 200 pages.
TicTac2 5 years ago
That was an absolutely ridiculous proposition. You can't start with a concrete proof and use that to make a general case for all numbers greater than 2. You must first prove the case in general, and then only is your proof valid. This is what Andrew Wiles did.
Slimdawgc 5 years ago
How do you or does anyone know what Wiles did? Have you seen his proof? My Expo-Facto Theorem is true in all cases and it doesn't take a genius to understand it. Also, although I truly appreciate genuine criticism, I have come to understand that people who begin their criticism with strong words like "absolutely ridiculous" are, in fact, referring to themselves.
yfree19158 5 years ago
excellent I liked it
mathproblems 5 years ago