This is part of new way to find an alternative proof for Fermat's Last Theorem, I have stumbled at this part for power n=3.
]]>n=0 is not a trivial because when n=0,
Okay, but besides my misuse of terminology, you can still use what I wrote. Any comment (or "thank you") for the rest of what I wrote?
BTW, I don't know why you put this thread in the "This is Cool" sub-forum. It should have been placed in the "Help Me!" sub-forum.
]]>For divisibility by 3, let n=3x-2, then
Therefore,
Trivial solution is x=1 and alpha=1
There should be no other whole number solution other than the trivial solution.
]]>alpha = 0, n = 0
]]>Otherwise please find the counter-examples.
]]>You cannot really use derivatives like that.
]]>That looks okay, it is obvious the 2^n/3 is not an integer and therefore not a square of an integer.
]]>Okay, I have edited it. This is what happened if you play around with the infinity. I am always skeptic with it, but seeing Ramanujan and Euler played with it and made remarkable things. Maybe I can also using it
too.
I have not been able to work the odd case so I am not being critical but I do not see how your last post proves it.
]]>for odd n
then
Since n=odd,
can never be a perfect square.]]>I know there exist the proof for n=3 but I am working for a simple and short proof and this proof is not the same like the way the proof for n=3 done by Euler etc. I have reduced the fermat's last theorem into polynomials using my sums of power formulation and I am trying to work it out for smaller power and later on the generalize proof for all n.
]]>