tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12535639.post113747965637654641..comments2024-02-26T06:55:41.876-08:00Comments on Fermat's Last Theorem: Fermat's Last Theorem: Proof for n=5: 2 is a prime in Z[(1 + √5)/2]Larry Freemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906614246430481533noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12535639.post-62646118180506668672010-08-24T07:56:55.508-07:002010-08-24T07:56:55.508-07:00In Lemma 9 step (9a)
Assume that u,v are both eve...In <b>Lemma 9</b> step (9a)<br /><br /><i>Assume that <b>u,v</b> are both even</i><br /><br />should be:<br /><br /><i>Assume that <b>a,b</b> are both even</i><br /><br />RobScouse Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00144454830208958210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12535639.post-75488620682951432862010-08-24T07:55:36.331-07:002010-08-24T07:55:36.331-07:00I found the Esmonde proof, thanks.
In Lemma 9 ste...I found the Esmonde proof, thanks.<br /><br />In <b>Lemma 9</b> step (9a):<br /><br /><i>Assume that <b>u,v</b> are both even</i><br /><br />should be <br /><br /><i>Assume that <b>a,b</b> are both even</i><br /><br />RobScouse Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00144454830208958210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12535639.post-50362358455828081462010-06-30T23:18:59.876-07:002010-06-30T23:18:59.876-07:00Hi Scouse Rob,
This looks like a bad link. I'...Hi Scouse Rob,<br /><br />This looks like a bad link. I'm also having trouble finding the previous result.<br /><br />I'll add the correct result over the next few days.<br /><br />It comes from page 265-266 (Ex. 8.2.8) of Jody Esmonde and M. Ram Murty's Problems in Algebraic Theory.<br /><br />-LarryLarry Freemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06906614246430481533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12535639.post-37735603434758871152010-06-30T05:50:56.623-07:002010-06-30T05:50:56.623-07:00Larry
Please help, I am stuck.
In step (3) of Le...Larry<br /><br />Please help, I am stuck.<br /><br />In step (3) of <b>Lemma 8</b>:<br /><br /><i>From a previous result, this means that for all convergents:</i><br />pk^2-dqk^2=(-1)^k<br /><br />I cannot find the previous result that shows this fact.<br /><br />RobScouse Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00144454830208958210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12535639.post-53205733576350781622010-06-11T13:58:38.182-07:002010-06-11T13:58:38.182-07:00Hi Scouse Rob,
Thanks very much for the correctio...Hi Scouse Rob,<br /><br />Thanks very much for the corrections! I've fixed all the typos that you mentioned on this page. :-)<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />-LarryLarry Freemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06906614246430481533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12535639.post-77932808453421688102010-06-11T04:50:03.998-07:002010-06-11T04:50:03.998-07:00In step (3) of Lemma 8:
Should
pk^2+dq^2=(-1)^k
...In step (3) of <b>Lemma 8</b>:<br /><br />Should<br /><br />pk^2+dq^2=(-1)^k<br /><br />be<br /><br />pk^2-dqk^2=(-1)^k<br /><br />RobScouse Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00144454830208958210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12535639.post-36433623492454942242010-06-10T07:32:44.027-07:002010-06-10T07:32:44.027-07:00In step (10) of Lemma 5:
Should
1/sqk is less tha...In step (10) of <b>Lemma 5</b>:<br /><br />Should<br />1/sqk is less than 1/(2qk)+1/(2s^2)<br /><br />be<br />1/sqk is less than 1/(2<b>s</b>qk)+1/(2s^2)<br /><br /><br />And in step (11) of <b>Lemma 5</b>:<br /><br />Should<br />Subtracting 1/2qk from both sides gives us:<br />1/(sqk) is less than 1/(2s^2).<br /><br />be<br />Subtracting 1/2<b>s</b>qk from both sides gives us:<br />1/(<b>2</b>sqk) is less than 1/(2s^2).Scouse Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00144454830208958210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12535639.post-11958893034342307682010-06-10T07:11:47.823-07:002010-06-10T07:11:47.823-07:00In step (10a) of Lemma there is an incorrect link....In step (10a) of <b>Lemma</b> there is an incorrect link.<br /><br />RobScouse Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00144454830208958210noreply@blogger.com