วีดีโอ

great collection

Ha infinite soluzioni

th-cam.com/video/nLGYCdEOblI/w-d-xo.html

@SidneySilvaCarnavaleney há 31 minutos To the Clay Institute of Mathematics, what impact would it have if I refuted the "Riemann Hypothesis"? However, the numbers I will mention are not prime, and twin primes do not exist. I have established a Law that must always be respected. This Law states: To be a prime number, it must be divided or factored only with the prime number itself, being unique; from the smallest to the largest, and from the largest to the smallest with exact results for the calculations of each prime number, the numbers that are not prime follow. With a simple (PA) Arithmetic Progression, I arrived at a pattern for prime numbers: let's see what follows: Dear noble friends, Professors, students, acquaintances of the Clay Institute of Mathematics, what impact would it have on the Universe of Mathematics, if I stated that some of the numbers mentioned are not prime? And that Twin Primes do not exist? 2; 19; 41; 59; 61; 79; 101; 139; 179; 181; 199; 239; 241; 281; 359; 401; 419; 421; 439; 461; 479; 499; 521; 541; 599; 601; 619; 641; 659; 661; 701; 719; 739; 761; 821; 839; 859; 881; 919; 941; 1019; 1021; 1039; 1061; 1181; 1201; 1259; 1279; 1301; 1319; 1321; 1361; 1381; 1399; 1439; 1459; 1481; 1499; 1559; 1579; 1601; 1619; 1621; 1699; 1721; 1741; 1759; 1801; 1861; 1879; 1901; 1979;..........

@SidneySilvaCarnavaleney há 31 minutos To the Clay Institute of Mathematics, what impact would it have if I refuted the "Riemann Hypothesis"? However, the numbers I will mention are not prime, and twin primes do not exist. I have established a Law that must always be respected. This Law states: To be a prime number, it must be divided or factored only with the prime number itself, being unique; from the smallest to the largest, and from the largest to the smallest with exact results for the calculations of each prime number, the numbers that are not prime follow. With a simple (PA) Arithmetic Progression, I arrived at a pattern for prime numbers: let's see what follows: Dear noble friends, Professors, students, acquaintances of the Clay Institute of Mathematics, what impact would it have on the Universe of Mathematics, if I stated that some of the numbers mentioned are not prime? And that Twin Primes do not exist? 2; 19; 41; 59; 61; 79; 101; 139; 179; 181; 199; 239; 241; 281; 359; 401; 419; 421; 439; 461; 479; 499; 521; 541; 599; 601; 619; 641; 659; 661; 701; 719; 739; 761; 821; 839; 859; 881; 919; 941; 1019; 1021; 1039; 1061; 1181; 1201; 1259; 1279; 1301; 1319; 1321; 1361; 1381; 1399; 1439; 1459; 1481; 1499; 1559; 1579; 1601; 1619; 1621; 1699; 1721; 1741; 1759; 1801; 1861; 1879; 1901; 1979;..........

@SidneySilvaCarnavaleney há 31 minutos To the Clay Institute of Mathematics, what impact would it have if I refuted the "Riemann Hypothesis"? However, the numbers I will mention are not prime, and twin primes do not exist. I have established a Law that must always be respected. This Law states: To be a prime number, it must be divided or factored only with the prime number itself, being unique; from the smallest to the largest, and from the largest to the smallest with exact results for the calculations of each prime number, the numbers that are not prime follow. With a simple (PA) Arithmetic Progression, I arrived at a pattern for prime numbers: let's see what follows: Dear noble friends, Professors, students, acquaintances of the Clay Institute of Mathematics, what impact would it have on the Universe of Mathematics, if I stated that some of the numbers mentioned are not prime? And that Twin Primes do not exist? 2; 19; 41; 59; 61; 79; 101; 139; 179; 181; 199; 239; 241; 281; 359; 401; 419; 421; 439; 461; 479; 499; 521; 541; 599; 601; 619; 641; 659; 661; 701; 719; 739; 761; 821; 839; 859; 881; 919; 941; 1019; 1021; 1039; 1061; 1181; 1201; 1259; 1279; 1301; 1319; 1321; 1361; 1381; 1399; 1439; 1459; 1481; 1499; 1559; 1579; 1601; 1619; 1621; 1699; 1721; 1741; 1759; 1801; 1861; 1879; 1901; 1979;..........

@SidneySilvaCarnavaleney há 31 minutos To the Clay Institute of Mathematics, what impact would it have if I refuted the "Riemann Hypothesis"? However, the numbers I will mention are not prime, and twin primes do not exist. I have established a Law that must always be respected. This Law states: To be a prime number, it must be divided or factored only with the prime number itself, being unique; from the smallest to the largest, and from the largest to the smallest with exact results for the calculations of each prime number, the numbers that are not prime follow. With a simple (PA) Arithmetic Progression, I arrived at a pattern for prime numbers: let's see what follows: Dear noble friends, Professors, students, acquaintances of the Clay Institute of Mathematics, what impact would it have on the Universe of Mathematics, if I stated that some of the numbers mentioned are not prime? And that Twin Primes do not exist? 2; 19; 41; 59; 61; 79; 101; 139; 179; 181; 199; 239; 241; 281; 359; 401; 419; 421; 439; 461; 479; 499; 521; 541; 599; 601; 619; 641; 659; 661; 701; 719; 739; 761; 821; 839; 859; 881; 919; 941; 1019; 1021; 1039; 1061; 1181; 1201; 1259; 1279; 1301; 1319; 1321; 1361; 1381; 1399; 1439; 1459; 1481; 1499; 1559; 1579; 1601; 1619; 1621; 1699; 1721; 1741; 1759; 1801; 1861; 1879; 1901; 1979;..........

th-cam.com/video/ImYnstd2K_Y/w-d-xo.htmlsi=UKyUf46uYZYRX_3x

i followed all the way up to minute 22. i will be coming back to this video as my prerequisites fill in. set myself a task to understand (i mean really understand) wiles' proof. didn't realize quite the rabbit hole i will be jumping in to. it's been a fun ride so far. looking forward to the journey. subscribed.

Where was this lecture held? This is so great

does n = 2 work because there are two variables being used in the equation? (x and y). would n = 3 work if there were three variables such as "a^3 + b^3 + c^3 = z^3" and likewise any other value for N where there are N variables being added? and if it's true, does that also mean that in the same way that only n = 2 works for 2 variables, does n = 3 only work for 3 variables and no other number of variables? does n = 7 only work when there are 7 variables?

Im so grateful that the sound quality is adequate.

God, the audio is horrible. Couldn't they have gotten a mike up there by him?

Must have been an exciting summer !

Benedict Gross is a great teacher <3, much respect

Absolutely beautiful lecture! I wish there were more of Tate’s talks available to watch online.

I have a proof that doesn’t fit inside the comment box

Thanks for this fantastic lecture!

Beal conjuncture proof th-cam.com/video/1q_gTJSq1pc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=eQd_85xaFupL-CMN

Fantastic lecture

Look at this link to see simple proof of FERMAT'S Last Theorem

I have fermats last theorem simple proof how to publish or how to verify how much that true.

I was really hoping to get a lecture of Pascal's hexagrammum mysticum; particularly its relation to Pappus

13/8/2023. Ne pouvant sans cesse me répéter, veuillez vous reporter sur d'autres sites traitant du sujet où j'explique l'EQUATION UNIVERSELLE cachée et FACILE de FERMAT, enfin retrouvée, et la réfutation de sa conjecture. En plus, vous découvrirez que FERMAT s'est inspiré de PYTHAGORE puisque Z²= X² + Y² peut s'étendre à Zpuissance(N) = X² + Y² , +2 <= N < + infini .Depuis plus de 2.500 ans, ni Pythagore, ni aucuns mathématiciens n'ont vu cette merveille mathématique, cette pépite. Pour arriver à FERMAT, il faut avoir l'idée de passer par PYTHAGORE et non s'attaquer directement à la conjecture qui est la face NORD périlleuse de la montée vers la solution qui est difficile comme l'attestent les 129 pages de Monsieur WILES. La solution est tellement inattendue, courte et facile que PERSONNE depuis près de 4 siècles n'a pas trouvé l'astuce de départ du raisonnement de FERMAT, tout le monde cherchant une démonstration compliquée..

I like your smell....remember today 10th of August

4/8/2023. Afin de ne pas me répéter sans cesse, veuillez vous reporter sur d'autres sites traitant de ce sujet . Conjecture de FERMAT démontrée avec l'EQUATION UNIVERSELLE et sa jumelle , celle de Pythagore où Z² est égale et étendue à Zpuissance(N) avec 2 <= N < + infini. A noter que depuis plus de 2.500 ans ,ni Pythagore ni aucun mathématicien ne se sont aperçus de cette propriété et merveilleuse étendue de l'exposant à l'infini. Fermat étant un cas similaire. Pour (Z)puissance au cube, l'équation de Pythagore est jumelle de celle de FERMAT.

He kinda sucks at lecturing

thanks for the post

Love this man’s book on elliptic curves but his lectures are even more precise thank you so much for upload !

I don't know why there are not many views of these wonderful lectures?

great lecture, but difficult to hear what he says. And bad video quality as well

Thanks , obviously , holonomies are important to me , I would agree .

she is always alive

This is the kind of mathematician that are unable to teach their own work in simple words. No wonder why people are scare with mathematics with such person teaching.

جانم

💞💞

John Gave me another Full Life

I love math, and I love the way Tate talks about abelian varieties, it's as if it's completely obvious what's going on.

= THE GREAT! - THE GREATEST!!! Theorem of the 21st century! = !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "- an equation of the form X**m + Y**n = Z**k , where m != n != k - any integer(unequal "!=") numbers greater than 2 , - INSOLVable! in integers". !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /- open publication priority of 22/07/2022 / !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /-Proven by me! minimum-less than 7-10 pp.

Ribet is a wonderfully clear and fluent speaker. Even his blackboard writing is clear! Amongst mathematicians talking about Fermat he seems to be quite unique in this respect.

So lovely mathematician!

as a highschooler i can tell you this makes very little sense. I'll be back here when i understand it

Thanks for sharing this !

Pretty cool stuff.

Thanks for this video lecture. Very enlightening.

ı cant read

That feeling when you realize the table of addition is the same as nim-addition... RIP, btw. He was one of the greatest mathematicians of all time and certainly my favourite one.

زیبا ترین زنی که هیچگاه ندیدمش و جهان هم بی بهره ماند

I proved on 09/14/2016 the ONLY POSSIBLE proof of the Great Fermat's Theorem (Fermata!). I can pronounce the formula for the proof of Fermath's great theorem: 1 - Fermath's great theorem NEVER! and nobody! NOT! HAS BEEN PROVEN !!! 2 - proven! THE ONLY POSSIBLE proof of Fermat's theorem 3 - Fermath's great theorem is proved universally-proven for all numbers 4 - Fermath's great theorem is proven in the requirements of himself! Fermata 1637 y. 5 - Fermath's great theorem proved in 2 pages of a notebook 6 - Fermath's great theorem is proved in the apparatus of Diophantus arithmetic 7 - the proof of the great Fermath theorem, as well as the formulation, is easy for a student of the 5th grade of the school to understand !!! 8 - Me! opened the GREAT! A GREAT Mystery! Fermath's theorem! (not "simple" - "mechanical" proof) !!!!- NO ONE! and NEVER! (except ME! .. of course!) and FOR NOTHING! NOT! will find a valid proof

August 1995