Another "solution for Fermat's Last Theorem"

[Batalov]

Just for exercising the reading/parsing/error-finding skills, have a look at the cross-posted message (that was politely ignored by everyone) in primenumbers yahoo group.

I will only address the last statement therein (page 12):

Hence the reason I want to conclude the document with a proposition that for any positive integers x_i, y
and n the following statements is true
y^n = x₁^n + x₂^n + x₃^n … + x_i^n
if and only if i >= n.

It is curious that this is easily refuted by demonstration (with i=4 < n=5):
144^5 = 133^5+110^5+84^5+27^5 (due to found in the abstract of T.Womack's thesis; circa 1997).
Wiki tells us that this is the reinvented Euler's conjecture, and the disproof is due to L. J. Lander and T. R. Parkin (1966)

[TheMawn]

It's almost unfortunate that this was disproved. It would have been a very interesting theorem.

I saw this video about it the other day. I really quite like Numberphile. Interesting stuff. It's just some information that most people here probably already know, but dumbed down a bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNcEguuFSA

[Batalov]

The first line of this video is a grook by Piet Hein!

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Batalov

Just for exercising the reading/parsing/error-finding skills, have a look at the cross-posted message (that was politely ignored by everyone) in primenumbers yahoo group.

I will only address the last statement therein (page 12):
It is curious that this is easily refuted by demonstration (with i=4 < n=5):
144^5 = 133^5+110^5+84^5+27^5 (due to found in the abstract of T.Womack's thesis; circa 1997).
Wiki tells us that this is the reinvented Euler's conjecture, and the disproof is due to L. J. Lander and T. R. Parkin (1966)

And of course Noam Elkies constructed infinitely many counter-examples
for n = 4.

See also:

http://euler.free.fr/