fermat's last theorem????

[smslca]

What is Fermat's last theorem?
and How is that related to primes numbers of form 3x+1 and 3x+2

 

[bepobalote]

Ever learnt how to use search engines?
First hit on google using the following terms:

"Fermat's last theorem"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_Last_Theorem

P.S.: BTW, in case you didn't know, it was already solved... :wink:

 

[smslca]

Ever learnt how to use search engines?

I know how to google or search something. If fermat's theorem is the only one I am asking for then your link may be sufficient. But in the link I cannot find any relation of 3k+1 and 3k+2 with fermat theorem.
First try to be polite with others. If you know something even its something minute to think, just explain them. because they may be beginners like me or they do not understand something they have studied in their search and have asked in the forum so that someone can explain it clearly.

P.S.: BTW, in case you didn't know, it was already solved... :wink:

what does it mean "it was already solved". what is solved

 

[bepobalote]

I was polite, but your questions were incompatible!!!
1) Your question "What is Fermat's last theorem?" says that you do not know ANYTHING about the theorem, otherwise you will ever never have made such question.
2) because you state that you do not know anything about this theorem, why do you ask the following question "How is that related to primes numbers of form 3x+1 and 3x+2?": please can you explain us in a more detailed way this request?

So, please reformulate your questions in a such way that they can be understood.

- - - -

As I previously wrote, this theorem was solved ONLY 358 years after it was conjectured... Have you found a simpler way to solve it? :wink:

 

[smslca]

I was polite, but your questions were incompatible!!!

sorry from me If your intention to say I have not searched is polite.

1) Your question "What is Fermat's last theorem?" says that you do not know ANYTHING about the theorem, otherwise you will ever never have made such question.

I have read about in wikipedia, I understand what he is saying , but I cant relate it with 3x+1/2 series.

2) because you state that you do not know anything about this theorem, why do you ask the following question "How is that related to primes numbers of form 3x+1 and 3x+2?": please can you explain us in a more detailed way this request?

Actually I am working on factorization of primes numbers product, which has been struck at some point and tending towards ending as a useless work, In the previous posts I gave some examples of my work. As I have also posted those examples in other forms, some one has replied as "ur work seems like "Fermat like method" when I googled "Fermat like method" I found fermat last theorem. I had read it but I found nothing related to my work.
I want to make sure "Is there any relation or not. If there is It can somehow (I must figure it out) helpful to me. If not I must hold my work until I find any other clue to progress it further.

I think It is necessary for me to learn those theorems before I ask a query. But I believe It is not **completely necessary** , for me to learn something completly and then ask a question so that u can answer me.
Another thing is Even I have read something Its not necessary that I should understand it completely to ask a query. If a have understood , I wont ask anything.
It is not only about me It is for all.

As I previously wrote, this theorem was solved ONLY 358 years after it was conjectured... Have you found a simpler way to solve it?

No I did not find any proofs, I can surely say I am not in a level to prove the theorems. Because I know 0.0000000000...1% of maths or science even what u know. I am confident to say that.

 

[123jack]

bepobolote

My understanding is that this was solved only by using a "cheat" which itself cannot be verified. Personally I'm of the opinion that it has not been solved therefore.

jack

 

[bepobalote]

It is just curiosity, but as you say that it was solved using a "cheat" you have also to prove your assertion.
Please can you detail in a mathematical way what was the cheat and the reason(s) why it was not solved?
I'm saying so, because to my knowledge (and not only mine) it was solved and the result was checked by severals peers and they did not found any fault in the solution.

Please remember that any assertions without clear demonstration/explanation is utterly nonsense.
Please, it is your turn to give us a valid reason to you assertions: I'm waiting for it.

 

[harsha_jois]

Hi smslca
I have been following your posts for quite some time
and I'm really happy that you have taken an interest in math.
I'm also interested in math...
I believe math is the only language with which we can understand the universe.
The question you've asked...
https://www.ams.org/notices/199507/faltings.pdf
I think you'll find the proof here.
However, the relationship to prime numbers is not in the theorem but the method used to prove it.
Modular arithmetic
If you go through the article in wikipedia,
you'll find that Fibonacci had proven the theorem for 4 about 400 years before Fermat.
and that eased the proof so much that it was only necessary to prove it for primes...
that is because we use the same method to find primes. Except 2 all other primes are odd
hence We use 3x+1 or 3x+2 to find primes. In the simplest sense the reminder when divided from 2 nad 3 must be 1 or (1,2) respectively. Hope this helps
Good going..
-Harsha S

 

[123jack]

bepobalote

While I admire your zeal for proofs and apparent attempts to wheedle out uneducated nonesense there is no need to go overboard in this case really.

In the case of fermat my point can be made so that everyone can understand - you dont need maths.

When the Englishman Willes "solved" the fermat
issue in 1994 (I just looked that up to be sure of the date for you) - he did so by "assuming" the existance of a class of numbers known as "inacessible cardinals"

This - it is claimed by some - is just a shortcut. In fact many mathematicians are very unhappy about this class being used as it is itself in an uncertain state of proof.

In other words my belief is that Wiles proved one unknown thing only by making use of another unknown thing.

That seems to be unsound to me.

jack