/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15657638
>he actually proves his claims
ngmi

Seems like he just wrote down the first few cases of whatever he was studying, then drew a conjecture or a general formula without any proof, which honestly seems easy enough in a lot of cases.

Question: Proof that √2 is irrational.

Answer: Assume that √2 can be written as a/b where a and b are positive a and b ≠ 0

√2 = a/b
2 = a2/b2
2b2= a2
2b2 - a2 = 0
[(√2)b - a][(√2)b + a] = 0
(√2)b = a and -a
∴ reductio ad absurdum since:
(1) A number can't equal two different integers (2) A number can't be positive and negative (3) We know that √2 is +ve and we assume that b is +ve and multiplying two positive numbers gives a positive result.

Just looking to learn and see where I'm being retarded. Thanks in advance

>>11614130
Many, many years ago I had a mind-numbing lecture on Fermat's Last Theorem. Lecturer claimed that there is a proof that Fermat coudn't make a correct proof of his theorem. (17th century mathematics wasn't advanced enough.) Any info on that?

Why'd he do it?

BRB... will drop this dope proof soon.

Was he bluffing? Did he not have his conjecture's proof all along and made up some bullshit excuse?

>tfw too intelligent to write my marvelous proof

What the fuck was his problem?

Fermat thread.