Originally posted by: toekramp
Pretty Elegant
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?
Originally posted by: DBL
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.
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.
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?
Wait…so now we’re doing Russian homework?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