20191024, 13:41  #23 
Feb 2019
7·13 Posts 
No one can come up with a counterexample to disprove the truth of Beal's conjecture because I have proved it. The poster you referred to never came up with any counterexample as I have shown in a previous post what his original equation simplifies to.
I don't understand what you mean when you say I haven't used in my proof the fact that the variables you mentioned are positive integers. Beal's conjecture says they are positive integers and so what is the problem? If you look at my proof of FLT, I believe I have made a statement as to why if 2 of the powers are 2 then my whole argument brakes down i.e. no coefficients to compare just like there were no coefficients to compare in the other posters failed equation which I simplified. 
20191024, 15:05  #24 
May 2019
161_{8} Posts 
Looks like Awojobi is missing the point, I shall give a quadratic counterexample.
Let d=5 and e=2. 3d+4e^2+0e = 3.8d+0e^2+6e happens to be the same for this particular set of d and e, but it is not the same for all d and e. Yet, by comparing coefficients of d, you can’t say that 3=3.8. By comparing coefficients of e^2, you get 4=0. That make s no sense at all. And you find a way to hand wave your way through because you believe that you are always right. You compared coefficients to show that two polynomial expressions which happen to be equal for some particular values of h,i,d,e cannot be equal in general (up to there still ok), and hence get a contradiction that they cannot be equal. Wrong. Not equal in general does not mean not equal for any set of possible h,i,d,e. It’s the wrong concept to say that if some polynomial power does not appear on one side of the equation, you cannot compare coefficients. You can compare coefficients, just that you are comparing it with 0. Conclusion: Awojobi probably needs to relearn secondary school/high school math concepts Last fiddled with by 2M215856352p1 on 20191024 at 15:11 
20191024, 15:25  #25 
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
2^{2}·7·11·29 Posts 

20191024, 16:14  #26 
Feb 2019
7×13 Posts 
Another wrong example given, yet again. Your coefficients are actual numbers. My coefficients are variables. I have equated corresponding coefficients (which, I emphasize again, are variables) and loads of contradictory values for each one of the variable begin to arise.

20191024, 16:20  #27  
Jun 2003
11251_{8} Posts 
Quote:


20191024, 16:35  #28 
Feb 2017
Nowhere
3×5×11×23 Posts 
If you simply use the author's definitions, the invalidity of the "equating coefficients" argument becomes manifest. The hypotheses are,
n = odd positive integer, M = positive integer, d, e = positive rational numbers such that d  e = M. Then OK, so that means we can solve for h and i in terms of the other variables: Substituting these expressions into the author's equation will give a valid identity  regardless of whether the expressions for h and i are equal. 
20191024, 16:50  #29 
Feb 2019
7·13 Posts 
I don't get the point the last poster is trying to make. What invadility of equating coefficients are you talking about. Can you not see that when corresponding coefficients are equated, conflicting values of each variable begin to arise?

20191024, 17:09  #30 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
9,157 Posts 
MOD: This thread is becoming circular and of a trollfeeding kind.
After a couple more pointless circles we will be compelled to lock it. 
20191024, 20:43  #31 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
21262_{8} Posts 

20191025, 00:50  #32  
May 2019
1110001_{2} Posts 
Quote:
I believe that the purpose of you sending random crank proofs is to convince mathematical fools in this forum that you are right, instead of a good critique. When you said good critique, I think you actually meant a confirmation from everybody in this forum that you are right. People have been pointing out all the errors but you have been rudely dismissing them as if you are the most powerful, with your own ridiculous theories, which in turn were already pointed out to be wrong, which makes you look even more like a mathematical fool. This is against the spirit of mathematical research. If Awojobi continues that way, he will forever be a crank, a troll and a mathematical fool. Sorry for the harshness, but I think I have lost all my patience on Awojobi. Time to stop feeding the troll. To help you, if you don’t understand a point, please do not reiterate the main idea of your proof because people will see that you are insistent and not willing to learn new things. Last fiddled with by 2M215856352p1 on 20191025 at 00:58 

20191025, 01:19  #33 
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
9,323 Posts 
It always amuses me when I see something like that.
Developer: "Let's keep the human engaged by showing them this animated GIF which we've already downloaded. Absolutely no correlation with what is actually going on, but most won't understand that... It's like when VoIP finally got good, and we had to start introducing "comfort noise" into the streams... Sigh... 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
A Flawed Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem  paulunderwood  Miscellaneous Math  16  20191021 23:40 
Proof of Fermat's last theorem h^n+k^n=N^n with N even  Alberico Lepore  Alberico Lepore  7  20191020 21:06 
The Beal Conjecture Proof  Arxenar  Miscellaneous Math  1  20130907 09:59 
abc conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem  jasong  jasong  3  20121024 08:45 
Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem  McPogor  Miscellaneous Math  18  20071019 11:40 