User talk:Unblindloveunions

August 2007
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Raka'ah. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you. You don't need to worry about correcting it - I have moved your comment to the article's talk page •  nancy  • 08:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Fermat's Last Theorem
Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's Policy on Original Research. Your contribution was reverted as it ran afoul of that policy. In any case, your assertions are trivially seen to be false; your first "equality" adds a number that is divisible by $$10^{60}$$ and a number that is divisible by $$10^{50}$$, and you claim the answer is not divisible by $$10^6$$. Do not add Original Research content to wikipedia, and do not add false or incorrect material either. Magidin 20:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Respond from unblindloveunions: Hi: Thank you for your respond. did i mention anything about number 10 to any power? i stated a very easy to varify fact i.e that if you add [(31000)^6]^5 + [(3100)^5]5 and take a fifth root from the result we will see a whole number on your P.C calculator, on scientific mode. Does this fact needs an export opinion? obviously the rounding error has caused this and i know it better than any body. Do you any other sets of numbers that would do the same and generate a 20 digit whole number or less on a P.C calculator. Please respond and educate me, thx.

I wish some one would respond to my comments that i added. would it not be appropriate to add the numerical examples, very simple verifiable facts, titled " Refuting Fermat's Last Theory on a regular P.C calculator"(where are they by the way? how the concept of consent is applied in my case?)Please aducate me, thx

Response as requested
It would most certainly be appropriate to add numerical examples to the article in question if only they were accurate.

If you're talking about the Windows calculator (I can speak of Calculator Plus, though this makes little difference), it displays large numbers in floating-point notation. Say, an "e+85" appended to the end of the result indicates that the number in question is 10^85 times greater than the displayed number. Therefore, you can't really see the whole number.

As Magidin wisely pointed out above, the expression, 3100^30+3100^25, can be rewritten as 31^30 * 10^60 + 31^25 * 10^50, or 10^50 * (31^30 * 10^10 + 31^25). The value of the bracketed portion will invariably be followed by 50 zeros because of the 10^50. However, what you believe is the fifth root of this, 887,503,681,000,000,000,620, is the same as 88,750,368,100,000,000,062 * 10^1. When taken to the fifth power, the former will not contain a power of 10 because it is not divisible by 5 (its last digit will be 2, actually), and the latter will become 10^5. This means that, while the first of our numbers has 50 zeros, the second one has only 5. No rounding has been involved, and so they cannot be equal.

These numbers contain over 100 digits, and while their starting digits are identical, the difference eventually kicks in.

Another way of proving the fallacy of your assertion is to subtract the value of 887.....^5 from 3100^30 + 3100^25. If they were equal, the result would naturally be 0. However, as proven by the link - http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=3100%5E30%2B3100%5E25-887503681000000000620%5E5 - the result is terribly far from zero. Once again, the calculation involves taking powers of integers and subtracting integers - so there is no rounding, and I'm not taking any roots, which could, indeed, be error-prone.

My recommendation is not to trust common calculators when dealing with such orders of magnitude. WolframAlpha's calculator is a perfect tool as it may also reveal as many of the number's digits as you need to know.94.179.112.179 (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)