Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(37,381 posts)

11. This is true

Sun May 5, 2013, 12:22 PM

May 2013

but it would still be very interesting to know what Fermat's was. And the fact that he was correct probably means it is intriguing at the least.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

16 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

For the DU Mathematicians - Elegant New Approach To 350-Year-Old Math Riddle [View all] malaise May 2013 OP

Well, between McLarty and Friedman ... ananda May 2013 #1

In Fermat's version n is a power, not a multiplier Progressive dog May 2013 #2

... Princess Turandot May 2013 #4

Thanks it was bugging me. nt Progressive dog May 2013 #5

x[sup]n[/sup] + y[sup]n[/sup] = z[sup]n[/sup] eppur_se_muova May 2013 #7

Number theory, where the real nerds romp and play. bemildred May 2013 #6

This is not a new idea adieu May 2013 #9

My guess remains that the "proof" Fermat conjectured jimlup May 2013 #10

This is true edhopper May 2013 #11

The marginal notation edhopper May 2013 #14

I think there is some brain power over at rurallib May 2013 #12

Best laugh of the day malaise May 2013 #16