## FERMAT’S LAST THEOREM PROVED THROUGH CAUCHY SUCCESSIONS AND

**Moderators:** mvs_staff, forum_admin, Marilyn

4 posts
• Page

**1**of**1**### FERMAT’S LAST THEOREM PROVED THROUGH CAUCHY SUCCESSIONS AND

FERMAT’S LAST THEOREM PROVED THROUGH CAUCHY SUCCESSIONS AND QUANTUM MECHANICS. WHY WILES PROOF IS WRONG.

It is difficult to persuade those of the “mathematical establishment” that Wiles’ alleged “proof” ( of 1995) of Fermat’s Last Theorem (FLT) is wrong.

It is the same as persuading 100 “critics” who awarded an Oscar a Hollywood junk-movie (such as “Death Becomes Her”, in 1992, a movie even more stupid and embarrassing than the “marvelous” scene of Meryl Streep “admiring” her ass after her head had been twisted backward) to change their minds and vote movies such as “The Passion of Joan of Arc”. Impossible! One who likes “Death Becomes Her” cannot admire a masterpiece such as “The Passion of Joan of Arc”.

Anyway, I read here that Marilyn tried to show why Wiles was in error, although in a sort of “informal” (without equations or mathematical formulas) way. I published these days a new proof against Wiles’ work,

https://www.academia.edu/34326285/

where I showed that FLT can be proved through Cauchy successions (basic mathematical analysis) and the main postulates of QM (Quantum Mechanics).

What I published can be written also in 1 page, because it takes only six passages (and surely could be the “solution” that Fermat was envisaging, without disclosing it, although it is difficult to understand now what Fermat had in his mind)

1) You take the sum of 3 positive integers (Z) of FLT

an + bn = cn

2) Then turn the 3 numbers into an equivalent sum of two rational Q numbers yielding 1, by dividing all the 3 integers by cn ,

(a/c) n + (b/c) n = 1

3) then convert this new sum into another equivalent sum of two R numbers, (such as 3/5 = 0.6)

qn + q’n = 1

4)

and finally into an equivalent sum of 1 divided by their own reciprocals, (q =1/p , q’ = 1/p’)

(1/p) n + (1/p’) n = 1

5) This is the sum of 2 Cauchy-converging successions, tending to 0, when p is tending to infinity, and this is equivalent to the sum of 2 elementary trigonometric functions

( sin α) n + (cos α) n = 1

whose sum is simply a well-known Cauchy succession tending to 0 (in the domain [ 0,1]), where we can easily find the two elementary trigonometric functions ( sinα )n and (cosα )n as the only ones whose sum – only when raised to 2 – is yielding 1, thereby fully satisfying the assumptions of FLT.

6) I proved also that this equivalence between

( sin α) n + (cos α) n = 1

and

an + bn = cn

is confirmed also by physics and QM; and by the famous equation of square integration of modules of observable quantities

||Ψ1||2 + ||Ψ2||2 = 1

And finally, do you want to know in a few words (if you read my paper it is proved in 9-10 pages) why Wiles’ “proof” is wrong?

First of all because he tried to prove the FLT (which is entirely based on a quadric assumption analogous to that of Pythagorean theorem) through the elliptical functions such as y² = x ( x – A) ( x + B), that are cubic functions. From a topological standpoint there is a total incompatibility between quadric functions (which can parametrize just spheres) and elliptical functions, (which can parametrize just tori )

The point is that FLT can be proved in different ways, but unfortunately Wiles proof is a non-proof , totally wrong in several respects. They supported Wiles for the same reason by which they supported the false “proof” of “gravitational waves” last year, and for the same reason why Hollywood awarded junk-movies such as “Death Becomes Her” = because they wanted to make money by giving prizes only to someone of their own establishment.

Alberto Miatello

It is difficult to persuade those of the “mathematical establishment” that Wiles’ alleged “proof” ( of 1995) of Fermat’s Last Theorem (FLT) is wrong.

It is the same as persuading 100 “critics” who awarded an Oscar a Hollywood junk-movie (such as “Death Becomes Her”, in 1992, a movie even more stupid and embarrassing than the “marvelous” scene of Meryl Streep “admiring” her ass after her head had been twisted backward) to change their minds and vote movies such as “The Passion of Joan of Arc”. Impossible! One who likes “Death Becomes Her” cannot admire a masterpiece such as “The Passion of Joan of Arc”.

Anyway, I read here that Marilyn tried to show why Wiles was in error, although in a sort of “informal” (without equations or mathematical formulas) way. I published these days a new proof against Wiles’ work,

https://www.academia.edu/34326285/

where I showed that FLT can be proved through Cauchy successions (basic mathematical analysis) and the main postulates of QM (Quantum Mechanics).

What I published can be written also in 1 page, because it takes only six passages (and surely could be the “solution” that Fermat was envisaging, without disclosing it, although it is difficult to understand now what Fermat had in his mind)

1) You take the sum of 3 positive integers (Z) of FLT

an + bn = cn

2) Then turn the 3 numbers into an equivalent sum of two rational Q numbers yielding 1, by dividing all the 3 integers by cn ,

(a/c) n + (b/c) n = 1

3) then convert this new sum into another equivalent sum of two R numbers, (such as 3/5 = 0.6)

qn + q’n = 1

4)

and finally into an equivalent sum of 1 divided by their own reciprocals, (q =1/p , q’ = 1/p’)

(1/p) n + (1/p’) n = 1

5) This is the sum of 2 Cauchy-converging successions, tending to 0, when p is tending to infinity, and this is equivalent to the sum of 2 elementary trigonometric functions

( sin α) n + (cos α) n = 1

whose sum is simply a well-known Cauchy succession tending to 0 (in the domain [ 0,1]), where we can easily find the two elementary trigonometric functions ( sinα )n and (cosα )n as the only ones whose sum – only when raised to 2 – is yielding 1, thereby fully satisfying the assumptions of FLT.

6) I proved also that this equivalence between

( sin α) n + (cos α) n = 1

and

an + bn = cn

is confirmed also by physics and QM; and by the famous equation of square integration of modules of observable quantities

||Ψ1||2 + ||Ψ2||2 = 1

And finally, do you want to know in a few words (if you read my paper it is proved in 9-10 pages) why Wiles’ “proof” is wrong?

First of all because he tried to prove the FLT (which is entirely based on a quadric assumption analogous to that of Pythagorean theorem) through the elliptical functions such as y² = x ( x – A) ( x + B), that are cubic functions. From a topological standpoint there is a total incompatibility between quadric functions (which can parametrize just spheres) and elliptical functions, (which can parametrize just tori )

The point is that FLT can be proved in different ways, but unfortunately Wiles proof is a non-proof , totally wrong in several respects. They supported Wiles for the same reason by which they supported the false “proof” of “gravitational waves” last year, and for the same reason why Hollywood awarded junk-movies such as “Death Becomes Her” = because they wanted to make money by giving prizes only to someone of their own establishment.

Alberto Miatello

- Albert 2016
- Thinker
**Posts:**15**Joined:**Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:54 am

### Re: FERMAT’S LAST THEOREM PROVED THROUGH CAUCHY SUCCESSIONS

Marilyn, where are you?

Is there anyone who dares to deny that:

an + bn = cn (Fermat's last theorem)

is equivalent to:

(1/p) n + (1/p’) n = 1 (sum of 2 Cauchy convergent sequences)

and that is equivalent to:

( sin α) n + (cos α) n = 1

which is JUST satisfied by n = 2, and this confirms also the Fermat's Last Theorem?

Final remark: please, don't be afraid to say what you think, just because there are those saying that "only "cranks" purport to challenge Wiles' proof".

That's the same kind of IDIOT answer always used by those who did not know how to reply to NEW IDEAS that were challenging old SCIENTIFIC FALSE DOGMAS.

Please, Andrew Wiles is not God, although they're trying to persuade he is.

At the end of XIX century THE GREAT physicist Lord Kelvin (the "God" of physicists) said that human Flight would have been IMPOSSIBLE, because no mechanic engine heavier than year could fly.

8 years after 2 unknown American engineers ( Wright brothers) proved that Kelvin was an idiot, and human flight was definitely possible.

So, don't be impressed by "great names", they make mistakes as any of us.

If you can prove that what I wrote is incorrect, please tell me, I never killed anyone disagreeing with me.

Alberto Miatello

Is there anyone who dares to deny that:

an + bn = cn (Fermat's last theorem)

is equivalent to:

(1/p) n + (1/p’) n = 1 (sum of 2 Cauchy convergent sequences)

and that is equivalent to:

( sin α) n + (cos α) n = 1

which is JUST satisfied by n = 2, and this confirms also the Fermat's Last Theorem?

Final remark: please, don't be afraid to say what you think, just because there are those saying that "only "cranks" purport to challenge Wiles' proof".

That's the same kind of IDIOT answer always used by those who did not know how to reply to NEW IDEAS that were challenging old SCIENTIFIC FALSE DOGMAS.

Please, Andrew Wiles is not God, although they're trying to persuade he is.

At the end of XIX century THE GREAT physicist Lord Kelvin (the "God" of physicists) said that human Flight would have been IMPOSSIBLE, because no mechanic engine heavier than year could fly.

8 years after 2 unknown American engineers ( Wright brothers) proved that Kelvin was an idiot, and human flight was definitely possible.

So, don't be impressed by "great names", they make mistakes as any of us.

If you can prove that what I wrote is incorrect, please tell me, I never killed anyone disagreeing with me.

Alberto Miatello

- Albert 2016
- Thinker
**Posts:**15**Joined:**Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:54 am

### Re: FERMAT’S LAST THEOREM PROVED THROUGH CAUCHY SUCCESSIONS

Albert 2016 wrote:Marilyn, where are you?

Is there anyone who dares to deny that:

> > > an + bn = cn < < < (Fermat's last theorem)

You're wrong from the start.

That's not the statement of Fermat's Last Theorem.

an, bn, and cn are simple products. If you're going to express exponentiation, use the "^" for that

in this forum.

Fermat's Last Theorem:

"No three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than 2."

- phobos rising
- Intellectual
**Posts:**120**Joined:**Sun May 24, 2009 11:29 am

### Re: FERMAT’S LAST THEOREM PROVED THROUGH CAUCHY SUCCESSIONS

It seems you just want to waste yr. time.

YOU are wrong from the start, guy, not me. It is not my fault if this page (contrary to many other forums) does not catch word symbols and pages, change it, we are in 2017.

Moreover, I know Fermat's Last Theorem's statement 300 times better than you, I can quote it also in Latin:

" Cubem autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum potestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas dividere”. P.de Fermat

You did not read a single line of what I wrote, and now you come here with your useless remarks.

Please, don't make me waste my time.

Anyway, I'm not anymore interested in this forum I cannot waste my time with this kind of "comments"!

YOU are wrong from the start, guy, not me. It is not my fault if this page (contrary to many other forums) does not catch word symbols and pages, change it, we are in 2017.

Moreover, I know Fermat's Last Theorem's statement 300 times better than you, I can quote it also in Latin:

" Cubem autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum potestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas dividere”. P.de Fermat

You did not read a single line of what I wrote, and now you come here with your useless remarks.

Please, don't make me waste my time.

Anyway, I'm not anymore interested in this forum I cannot waste my time with this kind of "comments"!

- Albert 2016
- Thinker
**Posts:**15**Joined:**Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:54 am

4 posts
• Page

**1**of**1**### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests