Fermat's theorem

Anyone ever studied this?


xn + yn = zn

( keep in mind it has no non-zero integer solutions for x, y and z when n > 2)

It isn't solvable, but yes, I think everyone has looked into it at least once

we solved it for n=3 in algebra class

FLT was established for greater and greater integer cases of n by various mathematicians until the overall result was finally established by Andrew Wiles (after much sweating and revision).  That problem solved, the most famous open problem is now RH.

Andrew Wiles was a brit. Take that americans lol. We europeans pwn at maths and physics.

who gives a shite?

>>6

anyone who is anything.

therefore you are nothing

qed

>>5

Europeans certainly are better than Americans at math, in general.  But it takes us Americans to actually *do* anything with all the abstract nonsense you come up with.

And neither of us have a damn thing on the Russians when it comes to music.

>>8

the point of pure math is pure math.  Europeans and Chinese do quite nicely with application as well.

And western Russia is considered part of Europe, depending on who you're asking.

>>9

Pure math has no real value until it's applied in some sense to the physical world.  Currently value-less math may gain value in the future, and is thus worth pursuing (much as discrete math and automata gained value with the advent of computing machines), but intellectual masturbation is just that, and is only highly valued by those with the luxury of not worrying about their next meal.

>>10

Pure math has an aesthetic value in the same sense that poetry does, however slight that may be in your view.  And so much of an undergraduate math education relates in a quite direct way to actuarial work, flying to the moon, and making computers and programs from the ground up (for those who can learn and retain it) that there is not much point in referring to current high math as 'value-less' UNTIL a technology can utilize it.  Some things are indeed their own reward.

>>11

How's the view from that ivory tower?

>>12

the point is not that you must all learn and love higher math, zomg.  The point is that there does exist both a (non-practical) value and a POTENTIAL practical value, and that this precludes calling the pursuit of higher math either nonsense or useless (even devoid of 'formal' or aesthetic use).  What you are left with is unnecessary and contradictory intimations.
You might or might not say that a chemist finding new compounds is not toiling away for nothing (it's hard to guage your opinion).  It's all the same. 

The other point is that Americans can't even claim any special greatness to themselves in applied math, apart from who-did-what, since Europe and Asia also have a number of natively created application-uses.  It does not 'take' an American (as in only-an-american) to employ the abstract 'nonsense' (which isn't even nonsense in the same way that much of philosophy could legimately be dismissed.)  When China puts a man on the moon, we'll talk again.  By the SAME token, there are a group of excellent American mathematicians.  Some generalizations are appropriate, but this one is just nonsense.  P.S. I'm an American.

Academics are so over this kind of bickering (at least in the sciences).

What have you got against intellectual masturbation? 

so what? What if I divide everything by n?
x + y = z

?

this is simple algebra, who cares

the OP meant x^n, etc.  try google.

intellectual masturbation leads to intellectual orgasm

>>16
but you still need intellectual whore to get intellectual fucking.

Actually this equation might find usage in physics, engineering etc.. where you need to find the best way of doing things, rather than spending hours and lots of money using trial and error.