Blog powered by Typepad

« Excuse me, Mr. President, but just mind your own damn business! | Main | The good old 'Speccie' does it again »

Wednesday, 16 March 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Duffers - he wrote that he had thought of a very clever proof. However, as I gather that a number of brilliant people have proposed proofs down the centuries which subsequently turned out not to be watertight it is quite possible he was mistaken.

Wiles' proof is horrendous, opening up whole new fields of maths, so it is my theory, unproven (!), that Fermat's proof was probably not as solid as he hoped.

It is also possible and maybe even likely that somebody will find a neater easier proof in future, and it is also entirely possible that I am talking bollocks!

"Now that works alright so long as the multiplier is no bigger than 2."

[pedant mode]That's not a multiplier, it's an exponent[/smart alec]

'Smart Alecs' are always welcome here, Frank, because there is such a dearth of them!

when the subject is 'maff', well I'm lost.

Having solved that conundrum does one then fire three rounds for effect? Or just retire to the nearest Ward Room/Mess/Pub?

Too much interlekchual stuff for this hour of the morning.

Happy St.Padraig's Day. Well it is here anyway.

AussieD,
You do know that Paddy was a Welshman, Don't you?

What Frank said.

I was puzzled for a mo as I couldn't see a multiplier anywhere there.

I knew what you meant tho!

The comments to this entry are closed.