[QUOTE=Don Blazys;260101]


Because I don't need to. Think about it. If [B][I]you[/I][/B] wanted to find a proof
of "Beal's Conjecture", then would you go to some university library and
search for some particular volume of some stuffy journal, or would you
simply [B][COLOR=red][I]Google search[/I][/COLOR][/B] "[COLOR=blue][B]Beal's Conjecture Proof[/B][/COLOR]"?

My proof is ranked number #1, #2 and #3 on Google, so any students
wishing to learn the [B][I][U]truth[/U][/I][/B] about "Beal's Conjecture" [B][I][U]and[/U][/I][/B] "Fermat's Last
Theorem" have easy access to it.


Don.[/QUOTE]

You're so wrong. When you search for advanced matters you search on academic journals not in google. When I want to understand something in my academic background I don't google, I use elsevier sciencedirect.com or Springer...and so on...every database or journal related to engineering.
Until you publish your research in a known academic journal you are just being pretentious.

Quoting "em99010pepe"
[QUOTE]
You're so wrong. When you search for advanced matters
you search on academic journals not in google.
[/QUOTE]
It is you who is wrong.

For one thing, my proof is [B][I]not[/I][/B] an "advanced matter". It is a [B][I]simple matter[/I][/B]!

You just don't understand it.

For another thing, all kinds of very advanced matters can be found "on line"!

Don.

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;260104]For another thing, all kinds of very advanced matters can be found "on line"![/QUOTE]

wow state the obvious, science is what the internet was set up for last I heard from any source.

We are here for science often used "banned"

[COLOR="LemonChiffon"]( 't : 'nterdet )[/COLOR]

!°!

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;260090]Quoting "rogue"

If x,y, [B][I][U]and[/U][/I][/B] z are > 2 and a,b,c are co-prime, then my proof
demonstrates that there can be no integral solutions.
[/QUOTE]

Where in your proof do you derive those conditions? I'm not talking about the "pre-conditions" for the proof. Somewhere in your proof you must derive the fact that a,b,c must be co-prime and x,y,z > 2. You haven't done that. All your proof has is some faulty logic based upon some transformation using c and z. Your proof doesn't do anything with a,b,x, and y. For example, one could extend your logic to say that there are no integral solutions to:

a^w + b^x + c^y = d^z

or:

a^n + b^o + c^p + ... l^y = m^z

for z > 2.

What I'm saying is that if I wrote this proof:
[quote]
Given a,b,c,x,y > 1 and z > 2, then there are no integral solutions to:

a^x + b^y = c^z

Substitute your logic here, ergo, this is proven.
[/quote]

Oops. Wait a second. I know that this isn't true because 7^2 + 24^2 = 5^4. Something is clearly wrong, but where? You would state that it is the conditions. I state that it is your logic.

How does adding conditions for a,b,c,x,y all of a sudden make your proof viable?

I expect you to respond, "but they are conditions of the proof". They are not conditions, these are assumptions. You have to proof that these assumptions are correct. You haven't don't that.

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;260101]Because I don't need to. Think about it. If [B][I]you[/I][/B] wanted to find a proof
of "Beal's Conjecture", then would you go to some university library and
search for some particular volume of some stuffy journal, or would you
simply [B][COLOR=red][I]Google search[/I][/COLOR][/B] "[COLOR=blue][B]Beal's Conjecture Proof[/B][/COLOR]"?[/QUOTE]

Just because it is available via Google doesn't mean that it is factual. The only way to guarantee that your proof is factual is to have it peer reviewed in a math journal. Having various undereducated people say that "it looks right" mean nothing. There are other proofs to Beal's Conjecture that are just are wrong as yours.

[QUOTE=Don Blazys;260101]Most importantly perhaps, I already [B][I]did[/I][/B] publish my proof in the online journal "Unsolved Problems", where it can be refereed by the entire math community![/QUOTE]

Could you provide a link?

According to this [URL="http://www.wolframalpha.com/entities/famous_math_problems/beal's_conjecture/21/b5/ar/"]link[/URL], you are eligible for a $100,000 reward, or are you so rich that the reward is worth nothing to you?

BTW, in case anyone else is interested, Don tried this before over [URL="http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=301139"]here[/URL]. The mod over there shut down the thread.

Finally, the more hits to this thread on Google, the more people will see the incorrectness of his proof.

[QUOTE=rogue;260133]Just because it is available via Google doesn't mean that it is factual. The only way to guarantee that your proof is factual is to have it peer reviewed in a math journal. Having various undereducated people say that "it looks right" mean nothing. There are other proofs to Beal's Conjecture that are just are wrong as yours.



Could you provide a link?

According to this [URL="http://www.wolframalpha.com/entities/famous_math_problems/beal's_conjecture/21/b5/ar/"]link[/URL], you are eligible for a $100,000 reward, or are you so rich that the reward is worth nothing to you?

BTW, in case anyone else is interested, Don tried this before over [URL="http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=301139"]here[/URL]. The mod over there shut down the thread.

Finally, the more hits to this thread on Google, the more people will see the incorrectness of his proof.[/QUOTE]

believe it or not that link made me understand more than his site. the problem is I can only understand from equation 4 to equation 8 equation 9 look like a term is missing to me. oh I found that now just to figure out how he found 4.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;260135]believe it or not that link made me understand more than his site. the problem is I can only understand from equation 4 to equation 8 equation 9 look like a term is missing to me. oh I found that now just to figure out how he found 4.[/QUOTE]

okay so now it's semi down to the logarithm exponent.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;260136]okay so now it's semi down to the logarithm exponent.[/QUOTE]

and yet on further inspection I find a flaw ( looks fatal to me) again.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;260138]and yet on further inspection I find a flaw ( looks fatal to me) again.[/QUOTE]

and another one. so count I've seen is at least 2. okay maybe not 4 and 5 take down different paths 4,6,8, and 5,7,9

can you tell me how you came up with the Blazy' constant(s) ? I'd love to know as it's my one major struggle even using your own logic (which wikipedia agrees with) of 0/0 = n.