mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-10-24, 13:41   #23
Awojobi
 
Feb 2019

7·13 Posts
Default

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.
Awojobi is offline  
Old 2019-10-24, 15:05   #24
2M215856352p1
 
May 2019

1618 Posts
Default

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 2019-10-24 at 15:11
2M215856352p1 is offline  
Old 2019-10-24, 15:25   #25
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

22·7·11·29 Posts
Default

LaurV is offline  
Old 2019-10-24, 16:14   #26
Awojobi
 
Feb 2019

7×13 Posts
Default

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.
Awojobi is offline  
Old 2019-10-24, 16:20   #27
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

112518 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Awojobi View Post
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.
You're absolutely correct. You may now move onto proving Twin Prime Conjecture and Riemann hypothesis.
axn is offline  
Old 2019-10-24, 16:35   #28
Dr Sardonicus
 
Dr Sardonicus's Avatar
 
Feb 2017
Nowhere

3×5×11×23 Posts
Default

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

A^{\frac{x}{n}}\; = \; hd\text{, }B^{\frac{y}{n}} \; = \; ie\text{.}

OK, so that means we can solve for h and i in terms of the other variables:

h\;=\;\frac{A^{\frac{x}{n}}}{d}\text{, }i\;=\;\frac{B^{\frac{y}{n}}}{e}

Substituting these expressions into the author's equation will give a valid identity -- regardless of whether the expressions for h and i are equal.
Dr Sardonicus is offline  
Old 2019-10-24, 16:50   #29
Awojobi
 
Feb 2019

7·13 Posts
Default

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?
Awojobi is offline  
Old 2019-10-24, 17:09   #30
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

9,157 Posts
Default

MOD: This thread is becoming circular and of a troll-feeding kind.
After a couple more pointless circles we will be compelled to lock it.
Batalov is offline  
Old 2019-10-24, 20:43   #31
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

212628 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
After a couple more pointless circles we will be compelled to lock it.
Pointless circles ->
Uncwilly is online now  
Old 2019-10-25, 00:50   #32
2M215856352p1
 
May 2019

11100012 Posts
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Awojobi View Post
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?
This one explains why your equation substitution is correct, in support of your proof, but at the same time, also explaining why comparing coefficients will lead to the wrong conclusion that that could not be the case, hence in the end you ended up contradicting not anybody but yourself.

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 2019-10-25 at 00:58
2M215856352p1 is offline  
Old 2019-10-25, 01:19   #33
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

9,323 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
Pointless circles ->
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...
chalsall is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Flawed Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem paulunderwood Miscellaneous Math 16 2019-10-21 23:40
Proof of Fermat's last theorem h^n+k^n=N^n with N even Alberico Lepore Alberico Lepore 7 2019-10-20 21:06
The Beal Conjecture Proof Arxenar Miscellaneous Math 1 2013-09-07 09:59
abc conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem jasong jasong 3 2012-10-24 08:45
Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem McPogor Miscellaneous Math 18 2007-10-19 11:40

All times are UTC. The time now is 09:05.

Thu Nov 26 09:05:47 UTC 2020 up 77 days, 6:16, 3 users, load averages: 1.24, 1.45, 1.42

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.