Re: Some perspective, math society
- From: jstevh@xxxxxxx
- Date: 10 Jul 2006 10:08:14 -0700
judsoss@xxxxxxx wrote:
James,
It is incredible that the math community is not looking for a short
proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. The fact that the theorem is true
make a very powerful argument for the existence of a short proof. The
"Wiles-Taylor" proof make a strong argument that a short proof does not
exist, however, the arguments for existence of a short proof are
stronger.
For a long time I was somewhat energized by believing that Wiles had a
proof, and my start of looking for a short proof came after the
publicity about his work.
After over four years I found a method of mathematical analysis using
what mathematicians call identities:
x + y = vz (mod x+y+vz)
That may look strange but it is equivalent to
x+y+vz = x+y+vz
and I was giddy with excitement when I thought to use that start,
expand out
x+y = -vz + (x+y+vz)
and see what I could figure out with it and the FLT equation, and years
again went by, as nothing worked until I used
x^2 + y^2 + vz^2 = 0 mod (x^2 + y^2 + vz^2)
but I got more than I bargained for.
A short proof would dispell some of the myths that flows from the
complex proof of 1995. One problem with the existing proof is that it
gives creedence to the conjecture "that Fermat could not or did not
prove his Last Theorem". In order to prove this conjecture one must
first find Fermat's Proof. Seondly, one must find the error in
Fermat's Proof. The conjecture implicitly calls for a continued search
for Fermat's Proof.
Well consider what happened with my proof. After I found it I argued
about it on Usenet, as I'd been talking out my ideas on Usenet for
years, and remember, for years I'd not had anything that worked.
Over four years of failures, including ideas I thought proved FLT that
turned out to be flawed.
It was a natural place to talk out what I became increasingly certain
was an actual proof.
But the arguments didn't stop, so I pulled out what seemed to be the
most controversial piece of the proof, expanded on it and wrote a
paper.
After some drafts and submissions, I came across a mathematical journal
that published it and then retracted it:
http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html
That link is to a site mirror as the actual journal managed one more
edition, and then died, after around a decade of existence.
Fermat was a scientist (an applied mathematician) in the tradition of
Archimedes and many of the other great experimentalist. I do not know
how Fermat Formulated his Last Theorem, but, I am sure that he did.
But most modern mathematicians are sure he didn't.
I hope that you are successful in your work on Fermat's Last Theorem.
Work on Fermat's Last Theorem is important.
I thought that, and with all my errors before, I always assumed that
any success would be accepted. But consider that dead math journal.
They published a piece of the full theory--and the journal retracted
when sci.math people went after my paper, and then died.
That doesn't happen every day, but had you heard about it?
Did it make any news outside of Usenet?
No.
So what was the big deal about this paper?
Well, the proof of FLT relies on techniques that show a flaw in modern
mathematical techniques that have been used for generations. It's an
easy to show flaw, but it unseats a lot of careers.
It is more than big enough for one electroric math journal to die to
suppress the information.
James Harris
.
- References:
- Some perspective, math society
- From: jstevh
- Re: Some perspective, math society
- From: judsoss
- Some perspective, math society
- Prev by Date: Time to get a watch
- Next by Date: My central disappointment
- Previous by thread: Re: Some perspective, math society
- Next by thread: Re: Some perspective, math society
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
