Solution to Fermat's Last Theorem?

[dvdrdiscs]

x^n + y^n = z^n

It's a 300+ year old problem that was only recently proved in a 150+ page proof. Does anyone know where I can get a copy of this proof in a nice, elegant form (preferably adobe acrobat)?

 

[toekramp]

Pretty Elegant

 

[AgentEL]

was it a proof for x^n + y^n = z^n?

I thought it was a proof that there does not exist a set of constants, x, y, z, (for n > 1), where the above equation is true?

 

[BullsOnParade]

Only thing i can think of is to search goolge for Andrew Wiles (mathematician that derived the proof).

Here's a link to something that might be it. Here.

 

[DBL]

PDF

 

[dvdrdiscs]

Originally posted by: toekramp
Pretty Elegant

I was trying to find something more "free." Hehe but I'll check into that. Thanks.

 

[toekramp]

Originally posted by: DBL
http://www.the-origin.org/fermat.pdf[/q

my new theorem 150 page = 4 pages

 

[dvdrdiscs]

Originally posted by: AgentEL
was it a proof for x^n + y^n = z^n?

I thought it was a proof that there does not exist a set of constants, x, y, z, (for n > 1), where the above equation is true?

It's a generalized equation for the pythagoran theorem. Basically for n > 2, the pythagorean theorem is no longer true.

 

[Aves]

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.gotmath.com/flt/modular-h.pdf">The Annals of Mathematics, 2nd Ser., Vol. 141, No. 3, May, 1995

Modular Elliptic Curves and Fermat's Last Theorem

Andrew Wiles </a>

 

[dvdrdiscs]

Originally posted by: DBL
PDF

Yeah I saw that when I googled. Not even written by the original founder. I don't know how legit it is that he squeezed a 150page proof into 4 pages.

 

[toekramp]

Originally posted by: aves2k
http://www.gotmath.com/flt/modular-h.pdf

nice find 🙂

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: dvdrdiscs

Originally posted by: AgentEL
was it a proof for x^n + y^n = z^n?

I thought it was a proof that there does not exist a set of constants, x, y, z, (for n > 1), where the above equation is true?

It's a generalized equation for the quadratic equation. Basically for n > 2, the quadratic is no longer true.

Did you mean Pythagoras' Theorem?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: dvdrdiscs

Originally posted by: AgentEL
was it a proof for x^n + y^n = z^n?

I thought it was a proof that there does not exist a set of constants, x, y, z, (for n > 1), where the above equation is true?

It's a generalized equation for the quadratic equation. Basically for n > 2, the quadratic is no longer true.

I'm not sure what you mean by the quadratic is no longer true... ?

btw, since it's a common myth, Fermat did *NOT* know of a proof ("that wouldn't fit in the margin"). There was a great deal of work later in his life to find a proof for specific cases; those proofs would have been unnecessary if he had a general proof.

 

[dvdrdiscs]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw

Originally posted by: dvdrdiscs

Originally posted by: AgentEL
was it a proof for x^n + y^n = z^n?

I thought it was a proof that there does not exist a set of constants, x, y, z, (for n > 1), where the above equation is true?

It's a generalized equation for the quadratic equation. Basically for n > 2, the quadratic is no longer true.

Did you mean Pythagoras' Theorem?

err yes 🙂

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I had a nice solution written in the margins, but can't find it now.


(You have to be a Fermat Fiend to get this 😀 )

 

[Greg71]

Dear Colleagues,

Please evaluate my work, which I have been working on for 34 years.
This is the final, completed version No. 25.
Fermat's Theorem - A Proof by Fermat Himself
Sincerely,
Ph.D, Grigoriy Dedenko

 

[Paratus]

Well that’s a hell of a necro.

 

[BoomerD]

Dear Colleagues,

Please evaluate my work, which I have been working on for 34 years.
This is the final, completed version No. 25.
Fermat's Theorem - A Proof by Fermat Himself
Sincerely,
Ph.D, Grigoriy Dedenko

Wait…so now we’re doing Russian homework?