An Elementary Proof Of Both The Beal Conjecture And Fermat's Last Theorem.

[Don Blazys]

To: jambaugh,

Thanks for your post.

I'm out of time now, but I will answer it the very next chance I get.

By the way, that's a pretty disturbing "icon" you got there!

Don.

 

[jambaugh]

To: maze,
...
Thus, no lawer like "step by step argument" is required,
...

But that is exactly what a mathematical proof is.

...
I keep looking at it, and I keep asking myself.. "what's there to argue?"
It is what it is!

The moment some high school kid factors $$c^z-b^y=a^x$$,
substitutes a couple of "Blazys terms" and asks:
"How can I get rid of those logarithms so that I can let $$T=c$$?"
he or she solves the worlds most famous math problem!

This is the crux of the matter. You are "getting rid of terms" by selecting one set of values for certain parameters in a particular expression.
But this does not prove that the original expression can't occur with other sets of values. Let me give you an analogy. You can't drive to Hawaii but that doesn't mean Hawaii doesn't exist. Negative proofs are notoriously difficult.

It may take a while for this to "sink in" to the hearts and minds of the "math community"
...
In fact, it's a tragedy that they are so poorly understood.
...
Shouldn't such good news be welcomed rather than "swept under a rug"?

Mathematical truth isn't going anywhere. If your method has merit it will win out. But from your above quotes you have gone beyond questioning whether you are correct to questioning why others don't sing your praises. This is premature. Again you must be wary of a.) being blinded by your own enthusiasm and more importantly
b.) having so much emotionally invested in your belief that you are unable to face the possibility that you are completely mistaken.

Let me tell you a story... Back before the internet was all pervasive I was active on the compuserve physics discusssion group. There was a fellow in there who was sure that he had "discovered" a means of storing practically unlimited energy via capacitors. His mistake was in confusing charge with energy and did not appreciate that his method increased charge by sacrificing voltage (the product of which gives energy). I took him "by the hand" so to speak step by step through the calculations and he momentarily had a grasp of the issue that the energy per volume will be constant and not unbounded. But he suddenly stopped listening and fixated on the idea "I know I'm right!" He had spent years on this idea and was so emotionally invested he couldn't accept the possibility that all that investment was wasted. I occasionally see his posts around the web where he rants about "conspiracies" to keep his "discovery" suppressed.

So beware your own attitude. Remember changing your attitude will not change the truth or falsehood of what you claim only you ability to see this clearly. Take some time to simply conceptualize the possibility that you are grossly and embarrassingly wrong. Don't think about the problem itself just your attitude about the problem. Remind yourself that it is not going anywhere, if it is true it is true if it is wrong it is wrong. Get to the level of humility where you can accept the idea of being grossly wrong and then approach your proof as if you are trying to find and understand your error. When you have this frame of mind you can then look at the argument, as they say "without passion or prejudice".

Remember those "lawyer like" step by step arguments are insisted upon for a reason, and that reason is the same in mathematics as it is in the legal system... to get at facts independent of personal bias and prejudice. You are sure you are "right" or at least "onto something" and that is a bias you must fight when trying to refine and present your proof.

 

[jambaugh]

To: jambaugh,

...
By the way, that's a pretty disturbing "icon" you got there!

Don.

Yea! I was playing with time exposures. This one of me I call "Superposition of States".

 

[Hurkyl]

I've given a lot of lee-way thus far, but I see no reason to allow this thread to continue. You, Don Blazys, seem to be primarily interested in advertising how "revolutionary" your work is, and to be entirely uninterested in the standards mathematical proof -- therefore, this forum is an inappropriate place for your musings. Being obnoxious to your critics ("oops, I proved it again" ) doesn't help your case either.