"Mathematicians prove theorems rigorously, while physicists prove theorems vigorously"
-
-
-
Physicists don't need
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
OK but if we are giving credit for believing it is true in advance of the proof, we should start earlier...with Fermat.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nice. But says Germain ruled out solutions below n=100. Is this correct? I thought she classified solutions as Type I and Type II and (with Legendre) ruled out Type I up to n=100.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
H'mm. I expect Feynman would be quite embarrassed by any publicity being given to this.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Only if the proof was correct.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is great. Do you have a link for the unpublished manuscript?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
A true master scientist at work...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A more intriguing aspect is the generalised FERMAT EQUATION = P.x^n + Q.y^n = R.z^n where all species can be integer or fractional - is there solutions and any exceptions !
End of conversation
New conversation
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.