162 reputation
5
bio website fermatslastspreadsheet.com
location London
age 41
visits member for 2 years, 2 months
seen Mar 10 at 10:59

Working in quantitative finance: started in fixed-income exotics trading, became a quant, ventured into structuring, back as a quant.

Have a look at my blog!


Feb
8
comment Where is the problem in this proposed elementary proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
@Steven Hmmm. Just had a re-read of your comment and am wondering whether my previous comment was based on a misunderstanding of your comment. Is that confusing or what? Oh dear I am losing credibility with this question ;-)
Feb
8
comment Where is the problem in this proposed elementary proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
@Steven Agree that he gives a parameterization. But the extension to higher powers is not based on a parameterization. Rather, he chops up a wedge of depth $z^{n-2}$ in a certain way and then proposes we look at slices of the wedge. The chopping has been done so that when we look at the slices we recognize shapes from his earlier analysis for Pythagorean triples. All in all, he is projecting the case for a general $n$ onto the case for $n=2$.
Feb
8
comment Where is the problem in this proposed elementary proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
Did my edit of the question (I was responding to the comment from Rasmus) cause this confusion?
Feb
8
comment Where is the problem in this proposed elementary proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
Fair enough. Happy for this to be closed. I'll work at the proof a bit more and if necessary post a specific question.
Feb
8
comment Where is the problem in this proposed elementary proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
Let's be clear, I do understand that the writing style of the author is very bad (I have a PhD and understand how to write good mathematics). But I have put in some effort to struggle through his reasoning and have not so far found any major problem in his approach.
Feb
8
comment Where is the problem in this proposed elementary proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
But the author does state that eq (4) follows from the assumption that (x,y,z) is a pythagorean triple. Since the proof is a bit contorted I am hesitant to say so but I think that focusing your criticism on eq (4) is wrong.