Prove me wrong

prove me wrong

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QvvkJT8myeI
youtube.com/watch?v=ReOQ300AcSU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

You can't just write Fermat's Last Theorem and be smart. If you are smart enough to explain the proof then get off this site. Otherwise fuck off with your pseudo intellectual bullshit.

ok then, it woiuld give rise to an elliptic curve that was non-modular, contravening the Taniyama-shimura theorem

If you did that without Google then quit wasting your time by baiting 1 person.

1029391, 671002, 8811352

n=5

And why is that?
Don't just say Ribet's theorem.

this was on numberphile!
the shortest papers ever episode

youtube.com/watch?v=QvvkJT8myeI

there's a really short paper that proves OP wrong

This is true, although most people call it the modularity theorem now. And please, credit Weil when citing the Taniyama-Shimura-Weil CONJECTURE.

If you know, why would you say "prove me wrong" other than to bait, faggot.

Your comment really made me think about why I'm here, because I am quite familiar with the proof (not OP).

Different conjecture
Fermat's recently was proven

OP is now irrelevant. This is now a math humor thread.

Pythagoreans hate him!
Watch how one triangle landed this Greek a free diving lesson.

...

>recently

...

>21 years ago
>not recent
Just a different philosophy on time framing user

> In 1993, after six years working secretly on the problem, Wiles succeeded in proving enough of the modularity theorem to prove Fermat's Last Theorem for odd prime exponents.
> for odd prime exponents.
from Wikipedia

I'd say 1995 is recent, in terms of mathematical research.

Yes, this was enough to prove Fermat's Last Theorem as a corollary, as solutions to the equation depended solely on the Frey curve.

The full modularity theorem was proven in 2001.

...

...

not a math guy here
does that mean fermat's last theorem only works for odd prime integers?

*exponents

...

If you assume n=3 which is greater than 2 1^3+2^3=3^3

yes, because 9=27, faggot.

>1+8=27

PROVE HIM WRONG

...

You can fourier transform all you want between the time domain and the frequency domain. But you'll never travel between the 3D domain and the 2D domain.

Actually 9=27 (mod 3)

No, this was enough to prove that it works for all n>2. Essentially, Frey figured out an equation (specifically an elliptic curve) that, if there was an integer solution in it, then it wouldn't be modular (a pattern wouldn't exist when the elliptic curve is taken mod a prime).

Wiles was able to prove that for that class of elliptic curves, they were all modular. In this case, this showed that Fermat's last theorem was correct and no integer solutions exist to that equation for n>2.

The theorem for all elliptic curves was proven in 2001, but it had no effect on the proof of Fermat's last theorem.

Just sat here with my BSc in Chemistry taking none of this in, just thought Sup Forums was full of tards.

some of us use our autism for useful things.

I know this is bait, but please refer to pic related.

Hence, 9 ≠ 27. QED.

it doesn't make sense to me that euler's conjecture was disproven but fermat's theorem is right

ie
a1^k+a2^k...an^k=\=c^k; k>n
was disproven

but OP's pic is right

isn't euler's conjecture just a generalization of fermat's last theorem?

Yes it was disproven, and yes it was a generalisation. This makes sense, as if B is a generalisation of A and A is true, B isn't necessarily true.

However, if B is a generalisation of A and B is true, then A must be true.

That is, Fermat's Last Theorem is true but the generalisation of it was not true.

IF euler's sum of powers conjecture had been true, then we could conclude that Fermat's last theorem is also true. However, we can't conclude euler was right because Fermat was right.

That was a great episode.

The Euler conjecture is like an attempt to scale Fermat'a last theorem.

It says that the number of terms in an equation to a constant power will exceed the power, which is false
Fermat: two terms, more than two power
Euler: n terms, more than n power

which one was it? I'd like to see it.

Actually, I wonder what the actual educational composition of Sup Forums is. I suspect it is mostly pretty educated college students that like to behave like tards. Or are tards. But they're in college, cause that happens now.

hm ok thx guys

~30% retards
~30% edgy teens
~40% educated people trying to combat their boredom caused by hyper consumption of media

Is anybody looking at these? Cause I can stop but I have many many more.

lol, I enjoy them

I'm 18 and I get super excited when a math thread comes up on Sup Forums that I don't stop posting on it. Am I a tard, an edgy teen, or an educated person?

hmm, thats a tough one
lets define + : Z x Z -> Z by the function +(x, y) = x. now x^n + y^n = z^n for all x,y,z,n in Z with the only restriction that z = x. this is a valid solution given the limited information: the + operator is not defined and it does not say that x,y,z are supposed to be unique integers

You do know that an even number to the power of x is always equal to an even number and the same for odd numbers.

and basically there is standing an even and an odd number together are an even number, wich is absolutely false.

youtube.com/watch?v=ReOQ300AcSU

Edgy teen because math is currently countercultural.

Nerd

...

Fair enough. I'm okay with that as long as I'm not a retard.

Call me a nerd but at least I have the useful kind of autism.

What a legend

Why couldn't a distinguished intellectual visit Sup Forums, or any other site?

I have a proof but it is too long to fit in this margin

They can, but I'm implying he's wasting a higher quality of time if he's insightful enough to understand. They extinguish more potential than others by being here.