Wednesday, May 12, 1999

 

Mathematicians can't find error, but deny reality

Having a physics degree I thought I'd post a link to my proof of FLT here as well as on sci.math because it doesn't take a mathematician to evaluate it. It turns out that the problem only requires a little bit of complex analysis and some modular aritmetic (like 17 = 2(mod 5) i.e. 17 - 5*3 = 2)

The link to this proof has been presented on sci.math for almost a month. The website has had 399 visitors to date. Primarily from sci.math. However, the sci.math' ers haven't been able to find a significant error (they found a grammar mistake which I corrected and a sign error which I corrected).

Yet, I get email that I couldn't have a proof because it's not possible as 360 years of mathematicians couldn't have missed that. On the newsgroup the person who accepted a challenge from me to find an error to the proof now writes limericks about me (he failed the challenge). In fact, if you go to sci.math you'll see several posts (including lots of limericks) about "JSH" all disdainful, and none with a comment on the math of the proof.

Now I have to present it to a math journal and wait six months to a year for a reply. Always with the likelihood that the journal would refuse to consider what I present, and I'm supposed to present to one journal at a time. It took four years to find the proof. It's looking like it could take as long to get it reviewed.

So, as I get started on this process, I thought it wouldn't hurt to put the link here. The website will be at this link for about a week before I pull the site as I'm changing providers and email address soon.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jharris2/FLTb.htm





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?