My Math Forum > Math Is trying to prove Fermat's last theorem by an elementary technique pointless?

 Math General Math Forum - For general math related discussion and news

 December 22nd, 2015, 03:32 AM #1 Newbie   Joined: Sep 2015 From: Perth Posts: 18 Thanks: 3 Is trying to prove Fermat's last theorem by an elementary technique pointless? Is it? Would it be more fulfilling for me to try to understand the proof by Wiles? I realise this would take a lot of study.
 December 22nd, 2015, 05:44 AM #2 Senior Member   Joined: Apr 2015 From: Barto PA Posts: 170 Thanks: 18 "Is trying to prove Fermat's last theorem by an elementary technique pointless? Is it?" Only if one fails to make a point.
 December 22nd, 2015, 05:57 AM #3 Math Team   Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,355 Thanks: 2469 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra My point of view is that:We already have a proof, so at the very least you should gain an understanding of that before you attempt to create your own - how better to properly understand the problem? Many great minds over the centuries have looked into this problem and failed. If you really want to spend time on this, you owe it to yourself to research the reasons why they failed. Again, this is part of properly understanding the problem and will help to avoid repeating errors of the past. Personally, I don't believe that there is one. If there were, one of the geniuses of the last centuries would have found it. It almost certainly won't be found by some self-taught amateur playing at home without reference to the literature. Thanks from jonah
December 22nd, 2015, 09:44 AM   #4
Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 1,999
Thanks: 572

Quote:
 Originally Posted by v8archie It almost certainly won't be found by some self-taught amateur playing at home ...
Is that an argument against Fermat having found a proof? He was, after all, an amateur playing at home. He was a lawyer by trade.

December 22nd, 2015, 10:12 AM   #5
Math Team

Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,355
Thanks: 2469

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Maschke Is that an argument against Fermat having found a proof?
No. But he won't find a proof, and probably never did.

December 22nd, 2015, 10:34 AM   #6
Global Moderator

Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 19,508
Thanks: 1741

Quote:
 Originally Posted by v8archie . . . one of the geniuses of the last centuries would have found it.
That's a reasonable point, but we can't know what the initially self-taught Srinivasa Ramanujan would have achieved had he been born later and lived longer.

December 22nd, 2015, 01:46 PM   #7
Math Team

Joined: Jan 2015
From: Alabama

Posts: 3,261
Thanks: 894

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Maschke Is that an argument against Fermat having found a proof? He was, after all, an amateur playing at home. He was a lawyer by trade.
And there is no reason to think Fermat did find a proof. The only evidence is an off hand reference written in a margin of a book. But it does appear that he published proofs of the theorem for n= 3 and n= 4 after he wrote that reference. If he had a proof for all n, he would not have done that.

December 22nd, 2015, 03:01 PM   #8
Global Moderator

Joined: Oct 2008
From: London, Ontario, Canada - The Forest City

Posts: 7,852
Thanks: 1077

Math Focus: Elementary mathematics and beyond
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Country Boy And there is no reason to think Fermat did find a proof. The only evidence is an off hand reference written in a margin of a book. But it does appear that he published proofs of the theorem for n= 3 and n= 4 after he wrote that reference. If he had a proof for all n, he would not have done that.
That's probably the best argument against Fermat having a proof. It would be interesting if someone came up with a proof that no elementary proof exists.

 December 22nd, 2015, 06:23 PM #9 Senior Member   Joined: Apr 2015 From: Barto PA Posts: 170 Thanks: 18 Amateur hour is almost over.
January 4th, 2016, 07:17 AM   #10
Senior Member

Joined: Sep 2010

Posts: 221
Thanks: 20

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mathsman1 Is it? Would it be more fulfilling for me to try to understand the proof by Wiles? I realise this would take a lot of study.
If you feel a push inside to do it you may try as a challenge for yourself. But do not hope to end up with generally accepted proof. Nobody would even read it to the point of fatal error unless it will appear at the very beginning.

 Tags elementary, fermat, pointless, prove, technique, theorem

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post victorsorokin Number Theory 142 July 25th, 2017 10:31 AM rnck Number Theory 1 January 12th, 2015 06:02 AM mathbalarka Number Theory 2 April 3rd, 2012 11:03 AM rnck Number Theory 9 August 24th, 2011 04:58 AM alpah Number Theory 5 December 14th, 2006 06:08 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top