[AmishDude]

Uh, anybody can get a proof wrong. The trail for Fermat's LT is littered with them, including holes by Wiles himself. To my knowledge, Appel and Haken's proof of 4-color was not wrong, just unverifiable. Robertson and Seymour, et al. nailed it down finally.

Tell ya what, submit a paper to a math journal with no proofs. Claim that there is "way more math, pure or otherwise, than there is proof" and try not to be offended by what they send back.

[donh]

Uh, anybody can get a proof wrong.

Uh, anybody can mis-interpret a biology experiment.

Appel and Haken's proof of 4-color was not wrong, just unverifiable.

I see. You know it can't be wrong, but you can't verify it. Very amusing.

Tell ya what, submit a paper to a math journal with no proofs. Claim that there is "way more math, pure or otherwise, than there is proof" and try not to be offended by what they send back.

Tell ya what, here's a simple set of arithmetic identities, all valid in finite math, and an equivalent set could easily be part of a useful program. tell me what c resolves to and provide the proof of your answer.

a = b + 1
b = a - 1
c = b + 1

I see you acknowledge that math exists that hasn't got a proof associated with it. Deal with Godel's theorem before you start chewing that foot in your mouth.

[donh]

Uh, anybody can get a proof wrong.

Uh, anybody can mis-interpret a biology experiment.

Appel and Haken's proof of 4-color was not wrong, just unverifiable.

I see. You know it can't be wrong, but you can't verify it. Very amusing.

Tell ya what, submit a paper to a math journal with no proofs. Claim that there is "way more math, pure or otherwise, than there is proof" and try not to be offended by what they send back.

Tell ya what, here's a simple set of arithmetic identities, all valid in finite math, and an equivalent set could easily be part of a useful program. tell me what c resolves to and provide the proof of your answer.

a = b + 1
b = a - 1
c = b + 1

Since you know FLT existed for many years unproved, you acknowledge that math exists that hasn't got a proof associated with it. Perhaps you should deal with Godel's theorem, which proves that there must be true theorems for which no proof exists, before you start chewing that foot in your mouth.