User talk:Wim Coenen

This is Wim Coenen's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 25)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rusalkii was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Proofs of Fermat's little theorem instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Wim Coenen/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Wim Coenen/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rusalkii (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wim Coenen! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Rusalkii (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi Wim Coenen! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, A proof of Fermat's little theorem., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of Fermat's little theorem.[edit]

Dear member, it's been a while since I visited this site.

I have written a proof of Fermat's theorem.

I am quit insecure.

I would be pleased if a mathematician would review my proof and tell me if my proof is valid and correct.

I'm grateful for any help I get.

Yours censirely Wim Coenen

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Wim_Coenen/Kladblok#Proof_of_Fermat's_little_theorem

Wim Coenen (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say you "have written a proof of Fermat's theorem" we would need to wait until independent sources report this, other wise it is just original research which we cannot accept. Theroadislong (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wim Coenen, I'm willing to check the proof, if you extend it to meet text-book style. In particular, it should clearly state the theorem, introduce all variables before use, and, in case of induction, clearly state the formula to be proved and the variable on which induction is done. It should not refer to Non-English texts (I don't understand Dutch). Inferences should be clearly marked (using e.g. "hence", "therefore", ...).

After a first glance at nl:Gebruiker:Wim_Coenen/Kladblok#Proof_of_Fermat's_little_theorem, I suggest to distinguish between the theorem ("∀p∈ℙ. ∀a∈ℕ. a^p ≡ a (mod p)", where ℙ denotes the set of prime numbers and ℕ that of natural numbers) and the induction hypothesis (I guess, "∀a∈ℕ. a^p ≡ a (mod p)", where p is a given prime); assuming the latter in step 2 is sound, assuming the former is not. For step 3 I'd recommend to use an equation chain (of the form e₁ = e₂ = ... = e_n) rather than an implication chain (e₁ = e₂, hence e₁ = e₃, hence e₁ = e₄, ..., hence e₁ = e_n). Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Talk:Fermat's little theorem[edit]

Your edits were inserted in the middle of a previous post, mangling the formatting. You also misused your section headings. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and make sure you understand what you are doing before you edit.—Anita5192 (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]