Nevíte-li si rady s jakýmkoliv matematickým problémem, toto místo je pro vás jako dělané.
Nástěnka
❗22. 8. 2021 (L) Přecházíme zpět na doménu forum.matweb.cz!
❗04.11.2016 (Jel.) Čtete, prosím, před vložení dotazu, děkuji!
❗23.10.2013 (Jel.) Zkuste před zadáním dotazu použít některý z online-nástrojů, konzultovat použití můžete v sekci CAS.
Nejste přihlášen(a). Přihlásit
↑↑ Dacu:
How does from the fact that , are natural numbers follows that , are natural numbers?
Offline
Dear colleagues, I certainly do not want to interfere with this discussion, however, Dacu - if you are sure you have an alternative proof of FLT, I strongly recommend to submit it into a suitable journal, in this case probably to the Annals of Mathematics.
Offline
It can be useful excercise to find weak spots in presented proofs, so we can continue this discussion.
Offline
Hello all,
Dear users of the forum, I will soon show that from variant "2) and where with where and ". results .
For personal reasons I have to postpone the next post. Thank you very much for your understanding!
All the best,
Dacu
Offline
↑ Dacu:
Firstly you have to proove that and that .
Offline
check_drummer napsal(a):
↑ Dacu:
Firstly you have to proove that and that .
Hello,
Because in 5) we have and , then it follows that the equation is a Diophantine equation with rational coefficients.
----------------------------------------
Example of Diophantine equation with rational coefficients:
Solve the Diophantine equation in the set of integer numbers .
Solution:
and where and .
I am waiting for the following questions ...
Thank you very much!
All the best,
Dacu
Offline
↑ Dacu:
Hi,
1) why do both inequalities hold?
and why it is important that they hold?
2) Why it is important that we got Diophantine equation?
Offline
check_drummer napsal(a):
↑ Dacu:
Hi,
1) why do both inequalities hold?
and why it is important that they hold?
2) Why it is important that we got Diophantine equation?
Hello,
1) Correction:
and
2) For demonstration .... and in fact is a Diophantine equation ...
All the best,
Dacu
Offline
↑ Dacu:
So why does the inequalities with absolute values hold?
Edit: I see inequality "<1" - because we are subtracting numbers that are in interval (0;1), but I don't see inequality "<0" ie why those numbers are not equal.
Offline
check_drummer napsal(a):
↑ Dacu:
So why does the inequalities with absolute values hold?
Edit: I see inequality "<1" - because we are subtracting numbers that are in interval (0;1), but I don't see inequality "<0" ie why those numbers are not equal.
Hello,
I repeat:
"From the following possibilities result:
1) and .
2) and where with where and .
Which of the two possibilities can exist, 1) or 2)?"
----------------------------------------------------------------
What inequality are you talking about, what equality of numbers are you talking about?Thank you very much!
All the best,
Dacu
Offline
↑ Dacu:
So - you dont know the answer and this is the question for the whole forum?
Why in 2) this must hold: , ?
Offline
check_drummer napsal(a):
↑ Dacu:
So - you dont know the answer and this is the question for the whole forum?
Why in 2) this must hold: , ?
Hello,
I reformulate variant 2):
2) and where and .
Let and two irreducible fractions , then there are the following possibilities:
a) , , and where with .
b) , , and where where .
Because and , , must have no common divisors, then it is necessary that and so which contradicts .
All the best,
Dacu
Offline
↑ Dacu:
So you are trying to prove that variant 2) cannot hold, right? So I have two questions:
I) How do you know that is whole number and not rational number? (From what fact daes it follow?)
II) Why other variants except a) and b) cannot hold - ie that p,q have the same sign?
III) Why eg in a) equality holds?
Thank you.
Offline