Billionaire Offers $1 Million to Solve Math Problem

reply to post by elouina


Here are two links to the rules and neither of them works:

www.ams.org...

http://(link tracking not allowed)/14eTRCC

reply to post by leeb768


This link just worked for me:

ns3.ams.org...

reply to post by leeb768


You need to start here A^x + B^y = C^z. The article I used in the OP was incorrect. Happy hunting!

The professor in my algorithms class has mentioned the Clay Mathematics Institute several times when he talks about NP-completeness. They offer a million dollar prize for solving "P vs NP" and several more. The thing is, as my prof tells it, if you really solve this, it would be worth a lot more than a million dollars because it would solve so many computing problems -- basically, all of them. So he says, instead of teaching you all these algorithms, next year I would just teach yours. He advised us if we figure it out, don't tell anybody ... except him.

NP means nondeterministic polynomial time. We try and run programs in polynomial time or less. Say if you have a list N and you're doing a search, you can loop through it once and find your answer, so it's called O(N) or order N time. There are quicker ways to search if it's sorted, but O(N) is polynomial time, which is good.

However, there are other algorithms that are exponential (e.g., 2^N) or maybe factorial time (N!), and those get out of hand very quickly. There are hundreds of these types of problems. If someone can find a way to solve an NP problem in polynomial time, the theory says they can all be solved that way.

www.claymath.org...

(I just noticed my professor is cited twice in the document that describes the challenge!)

reply to post by TeflonBear


Thanks, I thought it was too easy. Oh, well I guess I'll have to wait for the next chance or just keep working!

reply to post by leeb768

x,y, and z must be greater than two, and none of the numbers can share prime factors as i understand it.

i am convinced now that there is no numerical exception to the rule, but proving that no numbers fit the stipulations will likely require a complicated mathematical proof.

Hand me zee Ax by...c z tree over dare?
I R going to chop eet down.


There its a simple re-arangement of punctuation problem

Originally posted by straddlebug

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Variables, by definition, aren't defined so how is it possible to solve something with six unrelated variables?
Seems this belongs in quantum philosophy rather than math...

You maybe right. This may be unsolvable, but I think it is possible.

I do have a couple of questions for people who have put some thought into this matter.

Often I have heard that the 4th dimension is time. Is this an accepted definition, and/or does the 4th dimension ALWAYS have to be defined as time? (assuming there are additional dimensions)

Another concern: Is time an absolute where there are both positive and negative values? Plus, is there infinite time, zero time, and NULL time?

Time is the "4th dimension" in Special and General Relativity,
but it's not a 4th spatial dimension (that's why space-time is denoted properly as having a 3+1 metrical signature (- + + +) or (+ - - -).
As far as time being an absolute…no.
If your point in spacetime right "now" is P(x,y,z,t) with t=0 being time (measured in seconds), then t-1 is a second ago and t+3 is the time coordinate of your future self as you read this word, 3-seconds further down your worldline from your original point P.
Time ranges from its beginning 14+ billion years ago, and extends infinitely far into the future (unless there is a "Big Crunch"). There are multiple caveats of course, not least of which are hidden regions (hidden behind both observer horizons and black-hole horizons).
NULL time just means t=0 like right "now", now being the horizon of the unrelivable past relentlessly transitioning into the unknowable future.

The Beal Conjecture is basically this:
aᵝ +bᵞ =cᵟ (the ᵟ indicate exponents, so if the first box was 2 it would read a², etc...)
where:
(a,b,c) are coprime integers (i.e. their greatest common denominator is 1)
and where:
1/ᵟ + 1/ᵟ + 1/ᵟ < 1 (the sum of the reciprocals of the powers from the first equation is less than 1)

if [Q] is the set of solutions, then [Q] must include a², b², or c².

that's as simple as it gets (to describe in layman's terms).

I do not think that this conjecture will be proved anytime soon.

You would think with all the technological advances in processors, some VERY smart computer would have figured it out by now…

Maybe I'm lazy but I'd just take Fermat's word for it.

What's the largest number (there'll always be one larger) and, as for primes, what's the largest one? IE: is there a last one and could you be sure there's none after that?

Let's see... A=1 B=2 C=3 X=24 y=25 and Z=26

1x24= 24
2x25=50
3x26=78

24+50=74 ...... damn four numbers off. Oh well i tried.

reply to post by TeflonBear


those not qualified need not apply

With the increase in prize money, there is also a new stipulation that the solution needs to be published in a mathematics journal.

I know I'm not going to lose sleep over this

Y'all are seriously over thinking this, It a simple Pattern what come next pattern---

Ax+By=Cz

A..B..C.. x...y...z!

Patterns its a trick question and he will not pay the million dollard because it is a trick question, kinda like the ones you find in IQ tests. That is all it is. If the reward is real all I want is 100K I just want to pay my house off..

It is a conjecture meaning it is a hypothesis. A Hypothesis needs to be proven. The best way to prove something that has an infinite amount of answers is to group several findings into an equation that can be tested at any level. This will have to be done somewhat like Wile's evidence that proved the Iwasawa theory. This would be enormously complex and would likely delve into modular forms, a repeating algorithm that replicates a pattern that is difficult for the brain to understand since it has no spacial relativity.

Ah, mathematics... man's attempt at understanding infinity...

cmon you lot

is this not right.. it works

Ax + By = Cz

is

A2 + B4/2 = C8/4

x = 2 (squared)
y = anyother way of repesenting squared
z = any other way of representing squared


as i said..pythagoras did the work (stealing it from egypt)...

A2 + B2 = C2 (Ax+Bx=Cx)