The end of FLT
LWG: Dziękuję Ci Panie Boże za zakończenie epizodu pt. WTF i nie Daj mi już żadnego pomysłu
dotyczącego tego zagadnienia. Niestety, powstała praca pt. THE END OF FLT.
A Bóg na to: TO BZDURY, choć poprawne. ZROBISZ JEDEN DOWÓD NIE WPROST I ZADOWOLISZ PIOTRA
FERMATA I ANDIEGO BEALA. JEDEN DOWÓD I CZEŚĆ PIEŚNI.
I to się stało z 01/02 lipca 2017.
Tylko jedno pismo naukowe, które specjalizuje się w teori liczb.
Dotychczas było.
DOWÓD WTF.
I'm do not know English and no other, apart from fragments of Polish language, which I barely
use. I'm not also a mathematician but despite these weaknesses I will be strict.These two
hypothesis are absolutely another, different:
A
4+B
4=C
4 and A
4+B
4=c
2.
A proof on a falsehood of the first hypothesis can not be replaced any other proof of a
theorem, so and the proof of the falsehood these second hypothesis −and vice versa also no.
Obviously we will not compare these two hypothesis through the equality sign.
The excellent proof of the theorem that the equation
A
4 + B
{4} = c
2
has no primitive solutions in {1,2,3, ...} is known worldwide and is based on the Fermat's
method of regression of squares and is the only proof of this theorem. However, this proof is
not the proof of FLT for n=4, inasmuch as a hypothetical solution means the triple [A,B,c] or
(A,B,c), not three number−solutions A,B, and c. Moreover for c=C
2 we get a cotradiction in
an instant.
This means that only I have proved FLT for n = 4 without using the squares regression method!
http://fs23.formsite.com/viXra/files/f-2-2-9450864_qaVCVvnf_FE1.pdf
The proof for prime number n>2.
We have
http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0421v4.pdf
From [(3)
2 and (4)
2] it follows that W
2 must divide by Z
n and X{n}.
Thus Z=z
2 and X=x
2. Therefore Y
n = (z
n+x{n})(z
n−x
n).
This is a special case of FE, not the proof of FLT.
Remark 2. Page 51 in
http://www.ijetae.com/files/Volume6Issue1/IJETAE_0116_09.pdf
Andrew John Wiles allegedly proved FLT.
If in the Fermat equation (FE) Wiles accepted the following assumption
C = c
2 and A = a
2, C,A are odd
Or in consecuence received the above conditions , then Wiles not proved by Fermat's Last
Theorem, but he proved FLT only in a special case. Moreover Wiles proof is incomplete because
did not analyze FE in which the numbers A, B are odd.
Therefore in the world exists only my proper and complete proof of FLT.
http://www.ijetae.com/files/Volume6Issue1/IJETAE_0116_09.pdf
and
http://fs23.formsite.com/viXra/files/f-2-2-9450864_qaVCVvnf_FE1.pdf
To już historia. Aut.
Jest jeden dowód. Pierre de Fermat wstanie z grobu i Andi Beal ozłoci nas obu.
Best wishes,
Leszek W. Guła