20191025, 05:04  #34 
May 2019
113 Posts 
Proof that Awojobi’s proof is garbage
Suppose, on the contrary, that Awojobi managed to prove Beal’s conjecture.
Now, let’s generalise Beal’s conjecture! Let A,B,M be positive integers and n be an integer at least three. Let x,y be integers > 0. Prove or disprove that if A^x + B^y = M^n, then A,B and M must have a highest common factor greater than 1. **Shamelessly copies Awojobi’s ‘proof’ of Beal’s conjecture and pastes it here, since the logic works perfectly.** Since Beal’s conjecture is a subset of this conjecture, Beal’s conjecture must be true. However, one can easily contrive an example to disprove that. 2^2+11^2=5^3. Contradiction. Therefore, Awojobi’s proof is wrong. This is my question: Without reiterating the steps of your proof, stating that it is due to the conditions of the conjecture or any form of stubborn insistence that you are correct, please explain why your proof does not work for x < 2 or y < 2. If you violate the part in bold, I will have to ignore you for one week for this thread to protect our own sanity. I’m sorry for being like a teacher who tends to nag. Only trolls will do the part in bold and I cannot convince any of the people in this category. The moderators have described you as a troll and all others in this forum as trollfeeders. Last fiddled with by 2M215856352p1 on 20191025 at 06:00 
20191025, 11:16  #35 
May 2019
113 Posts 
Oops, for the question, I actually meant x<=2 or y <=2 rather than x < 2 or y < 2
Last fiddled with by 2M215856352p1 on 20191025 at 11:48 
20191025, 11:40  #36 
Feb 2017
Nowhere
111011000011_{2} Posts 
I'm done with this thread. It was good practice in assessing argumentation.
However, the range was limited. A step reminiscent of an old Sidney Harris cartoon ("Then a miracle occurs"). A failure to use hypotheses. My posts to this thread were predicated on the hypothesis that the OP was interested in learning. The OP's responses have convinced me that this hypothesis is wrong, and that the OP is merely trolling. I am therefore also done not only with this thread, but with this poster. The OP can expect no further responses from me. Ever. 
20191025, 12:34  #37 
Feb 2019
133_{8} Posts 
2M215856352p1 the points you raise are pointless. If you cannot see that if x and or y and or z are 2 or less, then there are no coefficients to compare, sorry I can't help you any further. If you can't see that if the variables have a highest common factor, the form of the equations cannot be altered, then I can't help you. The only time the form of the equations
can be altered is if the variables have a highest common factor that is greater than 1. In this situation the equation morphs into a different form such that equating coefficients can no longer happen i.e. Beam's equation can only happen if the highest common factor is greater than 1. 
20191025, 12:36  #38 
Feb 2019
7·13 Posts 
.
Last fiddled with by Awojobi on 20191025 at 12:39 
20191025, 12:42  #39 
May 2019
113 Posts 
Please read your proof carefully. I think you misinterpreted your own proof, which is the worst thing I could have imagined in this thread. x and y can be equal to two for the logic in your proof to work, only when z=2 then there are still coefficients to compare, just no contradiction. It’s the value of z that dictates the polynomial expansion. When z=2, I understand where you are coming from.
Last fiddled with by 2M215856352p1 on 20191025 at 12:48 
20191025, 12:42  #40 
Feb 2019
91_{10} Posts 
Highest common factor of 1, I meant to say.

20191025, 12:48  #41 
Feb 2019
7·13 Posts 
You are not even being coherent enough to say exactly what problems you have with my proof. You have not given any good mathematical reason why it doesn't make very good sense for coefficients to be compared. You're just being dismissive because you are unable to disprove all my proofs of maths conjectures.

20191025, 12:50  #42 
Mar 2019
126_{10} Posts 
Okay, okay, you've convinced us! Clearly the proof is airtight and it's time to close this thread and move on to other things....

20191025, 12:50  #43 
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
13365_{8} Posts 
Hehe, none so blind as those that refuse to see.

20191025, 12:51  #44  
May 2019
1110001_{2} Posts 
Quote:
EDIT: This thread is finally going somewhere... Last fiddled with by 2M215856352p1 on 20191025 at 13:42 

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 