### Thursday, June 28, 2001

## My FLT Proof: SIMPLE definitions

So here I am still at trying to explain details about my simple proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.

If you hadn't noticed (I definitely have), posters who have replied to my posts, and talked at least a little bit about math, have centered on definitions.

That has happened before, so it isn't significant of anything but how far we have to go.

Eventually as I keep answering those definition questions they'll die down and people will move to the actual math.

As for some of those definitions, I realize this may sound vague to some, but I'm deliberately working at the level of high school algebra because that's what it takes (or you can think I'm too limited to do more if you wish).

When I say factor I'm talking about number factors like 2 being a "factor" of 4, or 3 being a "factor" of 12.

I also talk about factors that some would consider polynomial factors (which I won't define here), but which I'm using as factors as I just described them.

I gave this example several days ago to illustrate this point:

2^2 + (2+3)2*3 + 3^2 = (2+2*3)(2+3*3)

I'll give one more to emphasize a point many have been stuck on:

2^2 + 2*3^2 = (2-3sqrt(2)i)(2+3sqrt(2)i)

So, somewhat technically, I've always been operating in Complex numbers for FACTORIZATIONS, just like in the example above.

And even there I can speak of 2 as a factor of 4 if I wish, or of sqrt(2) being a factor of 2 (oh Lord, I'm sure that sentence will start some arguments)

How many people wish to argue with those "polynomials"?

People that's the sort of thing people have been arguing about for days, and I'm tired of it because it's a complete waste of time.

Now, if you wish to understand the math needed to understand my FLT proof, substitute NUMBERS x and y for 2 and 3 above. (Not numbers you say, but symbols? Please don't argue with me about that!)

So, you may ask, why don't I just say I'm in Complex numbers?

Because I've been in this area before and every time I'd say something like that, several dweebs would argue with me for days claiming that then I couldn't talk about factors any more because that's a field and not a ring.

So let's see that nonsense start up again. I warn because I'm hoping things will be different this time…always hoping.

If you hadn't noticed (I definitely have), posters who have replied to my posts, and talked at least a little bit about math, have centered on definitions.

That has happened before, so it isn't significant of anything but how far we have to go.

Eventually as I keep answering those definition questions they'll die down and people will move to the actual math.

As for some of those definitions, I realize this may sound vague to some, but I'm deliberately working at the level of high school algebra because that's what it takes (or you can think I'm too limited to do more if you wish).

When I say factor I'm talking about number factors like 2 being a "factor" of 4, or 3 being a "factor" of 12.

I also talk about factors that some would consider polynomial factors (which I won't define here), but which I'm using as factors as I just described them.

I gave this example several days ago to illustrate this point:

2^2 + (2+3)2*3 + 3^2 = (2+2*3)(2+3*3)

I'll give one more to emphasize a point many have been stuck on:

2^2 + 2*3^2 = (2-3sqrt(2)i)(2+3sqrt(2)i)

So, somewhat technically, I've always been operating in Complex numbers for FACTORIZATIONS, just like in the example above.

And even there I can speak of 2 as a factor of 4 if I wish, or of sqrt(2) being a factor of 2 (oh Lord, I'm sure that sentence will start some arguments)

How many people wish to argue with those "polynomials"?

People that's the sort of thing people have been arguing about for days, and I'm tired of it because it's a complete waste of time.

Now, if you wish to understand the math needed to understand my FLT proof, substitute NUMBERS x and y for 2 and 3 above. (Not numbers you say, but symbols? Please don't argue with me about that!)

So, you may ask, why don't I just say I'm in Complex numbers?

Because I've been in this area before and every time I'd say something like that, several dweebs would argue with me for days claiming that then I couldn't talk about factors any more because that's a field and not a ring.

So let's see that nonsense start up again. I warn because I'm hoping things will be different this time…always hoping.