Jon Murphy wrote: > Rainer, > > >>>PS: If anyone asks you "why temperament ?", the shortest answer is "2 to > > the N th power = 3 to M th power has no >>non-trivial solutions for integer > N and M" If nothing else that should leave the questioner in stunned silence > while >>you make your escape. :-) > >>Even a mathematical idiot will know that 2 is even and 3 is odd... > > > I'm sure that Bob won't take the time to answer this, but you appear to have > no knowledge of mathematical terminology.
You seem to be a mathematical genius - I am so dumb, I only have a master degree in mathematics. > "2 to the Nth = 3 to the Mth" when > both M and N are zero. Any number to the power of zero is, by definition, > one. So when Bob says "there are no non-trivial solutions" he means exactly > that. The use of zero as the power factor would be a solution, but a trivial > one. In mathematics there are "elegant" solutions, or proofs - and "trivial" > ones - and a lot in between. Apparently you have no idea what you are talking about. > There was a lot of press a few years ago about > the final solving of Fermat's last theorum. But so far as I'm concerned his > proof has not been found, although the theorum has been proven. His marginal > notes mentioned an elegant solution, too long for the margin. The proof of > today uses math Fermat never conceived of. So either Fermat was wrong, or > there is yet an elegant proof awaiting discovery. I am sure you will find the proof. Good luck! Rainer adS PS For those who are not so smart: There is no doubt that Fermat had NOT found his infamous proof. He even later provided a proof for the special case n=4.
