Reply to: Hello - A post by Denny

[oracleslave]

I thought you and Captain Jack had a thing going.

Don't start flaunting yourself in front of me!

Have no fear, you are quite safe.

[Churchill]

I thought you and Captain Jack had a thing going.

Don't start flaunting yourself in front of me!

[oracleslave]

Thanks.

I take it back. Uncalled for upon reflection.

[Churchill]

You forgot the Churchill in "I am being a tosser as usual" mode on the end.

HTH.

Thanks.

[daviejones]

Oh FFS, how can you be so dense?

You have a personality disorder, go chew a bone....

[Churchill]

No, I agree but it has been a while since I found his Theorem's useful...and you almost never see it on the best seller list in Waterstones...

Oh FFS, how can you be so dense?

[sasguru]

Actually, I indulged in a bit of light reading - I was reading about Fermat's Last Theorem. Fascinating stuff. Not that I'd expect a birdbrain like you to know anything about it.

--------

In 1847 Lamé announced that he had a solution of Fermat's Last Theorem and sketched out a proof. Liouville suggested that the proof depended on a unique decomposition into primes which was unlikely to be true. However, Cauchy supported Lamé. The argument which followed indicates the totally different atmosphere surrounding mathematical research of this period from that which we know today. Perhaps we could illustrate the point causing this argument. Complex numbers of the form a + b√-3, where a, b are integers, form a ring. A prime number in this ring is defined in an analogous way to a prime integer, namely a number whose only divisors of the form a + b√-3 other than itself are those numbers with multiplicative inverses. In this ring 4 can be written as a product of prime numbers in two different ways

4 = 22 and 4 = (1 + √-3)(1 -√-3).

Gauss had proved around 1801 that numbers of the form a + b√-1, where a, b are integers, could be written uniquely as a product of prime numbers of the form a + b√-1 in an analogous manner to the unique decomposition of an integer as a product of prime integers. In fact, numbers of the form a + b +c2 where a, b, c are integers and is a complex cube root of 1, also have unique factorisation, and this can be used to prove the n = 3 case of Fermat's last Theorem.

Gotcha! But this is the correct thread:
http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...thread-11.html

[daviejones]

Pursuit of knowledge is not missing out on life.

No, I agree but it has been a while since I found his Theorem's useful...and you almost never see it on the best seller list in Waterstones...

[d000hg]

Pursuit of knowledge is not missing out on life.

[daviejones]

Actually, I indulged in a bit of light reading - I was reading about Fermat's Last Theorem. Fascinating stuff. Not that I'd expect a birdbrain like you to know anything about it.

--------

In 1847 Lamé announced that he had a solution of Fermat's Last Theorem and sketched out a proof. Liouville suggested that the proof depended on a unique decomposition into primes which was unlikely to be true. However, Cauchy supported Lamé. The argument which followed indicates the totally different atmosphere surrounding mathematical research of this period from that which we know today. Perhaps we could illustrate the point causing this argument. Complex numbers of the form a + b√-3, where a, b are integers, form a ring. A prime number in this ring is defined in an analogous way to a prime integer, namely a number whose only divisors of the form a + b√-3 other than itself are those numbers with multiplicative inverses. In this ring 4 can be written as a product of prime numbers in two different ways

4 = 22 and 4 = (1 + √-3)(1 -√-3).

Gauss had proved around 1801 that numbers of the form a + b√-1, where a, b are integers, could be written uniquely as a product of prime numbers of the form a + b√-1 in an analogous manner to the unique decomposition of an integer as a product of prime integers. In fact, numbers of the form a + b +c2 where a, b, c are integers and is a complex cube root of 1, also have unique factorisation, and this can be used to prove the n = 3 case of Fermat's last Theorem.

Then I suggest that you get out more as there is something called "life" going on around you and you appear to be missing it...


All maths and no play makes Denny a dull boy\girl. (delete as appropriate).

[BrilloPad]

Today I woke up and brushed my teeth. It was raining. I had my toast and tea. Then I went to the bus stop. I was feeling good. There was a man at the bus stop. He was reading the Financial Times. How boring! It has no pictures and lots of words. In the bus was a Metro newspaper. That is much more interesting. It had pictures of Amy and Whitney and Kylie. They are all so pretty and talented. I wish I was them.

Anyway I'll tell you more later.

Hugs and kisses,
Denny.

Didn't Spike Milligan do something like this?

SG - you really should return to tpd - you could take us to new drivel levels...

[Diver]

Just googled this:

Fermat almost certainly wrote the marginal note around 1630, when he first studied Diophantus's Arithmetica. It may well be that Fermat realised that his remarkable proof was wrong, however, since all his other theorems were stated and restated in challenge problems that Fermat sent to other mathematicians. Although the special cases of n = 3 and n = 4 were issued as challenges (and Fermat did know how to prove these) the general theorem was never mentioned again by Fermat.

[Diver]

Fermat!

Isn't he the guy that said the area of a right triangle can't be a square.

Now there's insight for you

Besides, he didn't publish his theorem, his Friends did, years after he died, He was too embarrassed to publish them himself.

[AtW]

No that's not plagiarism, that's being a grass.

Grass as in rat? If so then I am a fluffy tree rat

[Denny]

Fermat

The rest of "your" text is from here.

That's plagiarism!

No that's not plagiarism, that's being a grass.