Fermats Last Theorem short proof based on X^N + Y^N not being unique; Z^N was unique

[RD OMeara]

Announcing a New short Proof of Fermats Last Theorem

Hello to all:

This discovery is based on a new interpretation of integer power series
uniqueness.

See http://mister-computer.net/primesums/FLT-proof.htm for the paper.

[Michael Stemper]

Post by RD OMeara
Announcing a New short Proof of Fermats Last Theorem
This discovery is based on a new interpretation of integer power series
uniqueness.
See http://mister-computer.net/primesums/FLT-proof.htm for the paper.

This web page starts off by saying:

"This Proof of the FLT is based on every Integer having both an infinite
unique Logarithm [...]"

The good news is that each (positive) integer's logarithm is unique.
The bad news is that no integer has an infinite logarithm. Since your
speculation is shown, in its first sentence, to be based on an error,
there's no point in reading any further.

[RD OMeara]

Sorry Mike, I was trying to say:

The Infinite Log was meant in the manner that base 'e' is infinite in
length
and will generate a unique Log for any integer as they go to infinity.

It might not be conventional way to say it.
"This Proof of the FLT is based on every Integer having both an infinite
unique Logarithm [...]"

The good news is that each (positive) integer's logarithm is unique.
The bad news is that no integer has an infinite logarithm. Since your
speculation is shown, in its first sentence, to be based on an error,
there's no point in reading any further.

[Jeffrey Goldberg]

Post by RD OMeara
The Infinite Log was meant in the manner that base 'e' is infinite in
length

Well, 1/3 is "infinite in length" in decimal notation. So perhaps you
want to clarify what you mean by a number being "infinite in length". Do
you mean that it is not a rational number, or it is not an algebraic number?

Post by RD OMeara
and will generate a unique Log for any integer as they go to infinity.

One of the bits of gibberish in your proposed proof is that you use the
expression "as X goes to infinity" to mean "For all X". Those two
expressions mean very different things. For example

e = (1 + 1/x)^x as x goes to infinity

is true, while

e = (1 + 1/x)^x for all x

is false.

You have been using "as x goes to infinity" to mean "for all x", and
that really makes you look silly. It makes it look like you take bits of
phrases you see in proofs and paste them into your own writing whether
you understand what those phrases mean or not.

I don't know exactly when various people gave up reading your page, but
that was a big sign that there was not going to be anything with much
insight on in the page.

Post by RD OMeara
It might not be conventional way to say it.

Unconventional is okay, as long as you make your meaning clear and you
stick to it yourself. But in the particular case it shows that you have
grossly misunderstood other things that you've read.

Meanwhile, I've got this great proof of Goldbach's Conjecture. It relies
on a proof that there are only a finite number of twin primes.
Unfortunately this Usenet post is too small to contain it.

Cheers,

-j

[RD OMeara]

Hey Jeff

Your comments are quite off the subject as 1/x is forbidden in the FLT
context.

Those of you who doubt that Logs are infinite, please share with me just
how finite they are.

If anyone can factor Z^N in any manner other than the one shown, please
enlighten me.

-- RD

Post by Jeffrey Goldberg

Post by RD OMeara
The Infinite Log was meant in the manner that base 'e' is infinite in
length

Well, 1/3 is "infinite in length" in decimal notation. So perhaps you
want to clarify what you mean by a number being "infinite in length". Do
you mean that it is not a rational number, or it is not an algebraic number?

Post by RD OMeara
and will generate a unique Log for any integer as they go to infinity.

One of the bits of gibberish in your proposed proof is that you use the
expression "as X goes to infinity" to mean "For all X". Those two
expressions mean very different things. For example
e = (1 + 1/x)^x as x goes to infinity
is true, while
e = (1 + 1/x)^x for all x
is false.
You have been using "as x goes to infinity" to mean "for all x", and
that really makes you look silly. It makes it look like you take bits of
phrases you see in proofs and paste them into your own writing whether
you understand what those phrases mean or not.
I don't know exactly when various people gave up reading your page, but
that was a big sign that there was not going to be anything with much
insight on in the page.

Post by RD OMeara
It might not be conventional way to say it.

Unconventional is okay, as long as you make your meaning clear and you
stick to it yourself. But in the particular case it shows that you have
grossly misunderstood other things that you've read.
Meanwhile, I've got this great proof of Goldbach's Conjecture. It relies
on a proof that there are only a finite number of twin primes.
Unfortunately this Usenet post is too small to contain it.
Cheers,
-j

[Greg Rose]

Post by RD OMeara
The Infinite Log was meant in the manner that base 'e' is infinite in
length
and will generate a unique Log for any integer as they go to infinity.

1 is an integer. Log(1) = 0, to any base. This isn't very infinite.

Greg.
--