August 6th, 2015, 07:54 AM  #1 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 158 Thanks: 4  Simpler proof of fermat's last theorem
Please can I have comments on my proof.

August 6th, 2015, 08:21 AM  #2 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 158 Thanks: 4 
Fermat’s Last Theorem This theorem basically states that Aⁿ + Bⁿ ≠ Cⁿ i.e. Cⁿ  Bⁿ ≠ Aⁿ if n > 2, A, B, C and n are all positive integers. Andrew Wiles, a British mathematician, produced a lengthy proof of over 100 pages in the mid 1990s. Let it be initially assumed that Fermat’s inequation is not true i.e. Cⁿ  Bⁿ = Aⁿ. If A, B and C have a highest common factor > 1, f say, fⁿ can be cancelled out to give a new Fermat equation with new values for A, B and C. Therefore in order to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem it is sufficient to consider only cases where A, B and C do not have any common prime factors i.e. ‘primitive’ equations. If n is an odd nonprime, Aⁿ + Bⁿ = Cⁿ can always be rewritten such that the new value of n can always be made prime e.g. 6⁹ = 216³. It is therefore also sufficient to consider only odd prime values of n and even values of n >2 in order to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem. Fermat’s Last Theorem can therefore be restated as 2 corollaries. Corollary 1 Cⁿ  Bⁿ ≠ Aⁿ if n > 2 is a prime number. A, B and C are positive integers that don’t have any common prime factors. Corollary 2 Cⁿ  Bⁿ ≠ Aⁿ if n >2 is an even number i.e. Z²  Y² ≠ X² where X = A^t, Y = B^t, Z = C^t, 2t = n. A, B and C are positive integers that don’t have any common prime factors. Proof of Corollary 1 The first step of the proof is to show that C  B < A if Cⁿ  Bⁿ = Aⁿ. Assume C  B < A. This means that (C  B)^n < Aⁿ i.e. (C  B)^n < Cⁿ  Bⁿ. Let C  B = D i.e. C = B + D then (C  B)^n < Cⁿ  Bⁿ can be rewritten as Dⁿ < (B + D)^n  Bⁿ which after expanding the brackets gives Dⁿ < Dⁿ + nBⁿ⁻ᶦD + …….. + nDⁿ⁻ᶦB and so the initial assumption is true i.e. C  B < A. Let pᵐ be part of the prime factor decomposition of A where p is one of its prime factors. Let pᵐ = [CB]/K. The value of K is dependent on the value of C  B and the prime factor p of A that is under consideration. K is clearly some fraction that has the prime factor decomposition of its numerator and denominator to be made up of some or all of the prime factors of A only or its numerator and/or denominator could equal 1. Cⁿ  Bⁿ = [CB][Cⁿ⁻ᶦ + Cⁿ⁻²B+ Cⁿ⁻³B² + ....+ CBⁿ⁻² + Bⁿ⁻ᶦ] = Aⁿ can therefore be rewritten as Cⁿ  Bⁿ = {[CB]/K}[Cⁿ⁻ᶦ + Cⁿ⁻²B+ Cⁿ⁻³B² + ....+ CBⁿ⁻² + Bⁿ⁻ᶦ]K = Aⁿ i.e. Cⁿ  Bⁿ = pᵐ [Cⁿ⁻ᶦ + Cⁿ⁻²B+ Cⁿ⁻³B² + ....+ CBⁿ⁻² + Bⁿ⁻ᶦ]K = Aⁿ It should be clear that pᵐ = [CB]/K should be a factor of the positive integer [Cⁿ⁻ᶦ + Cⁿ⁻²B+ Cⁿ⁻³B² + ....CBⁿ⁻² + Bⁿ⁻ᶦ]K if pᵐ [Cⁿ⁻ᶦ + Cⁿ⁻²B+ Cⁿ⁻³B² + ....+ CBⁿ⁻² + Bⁿ⁻ᶦ]K = Aⁿ. Algebraic long division of [Cⁿ⁻ᶦ + Cⁿ⁻²B+ Cⁿ⁻³B² + .... + CBⁿ⁻² + Bⁿ⁻ᶦ]K by pᵐ = [CB]/K which equals algebraic long division of [Cⁿ⁻ᶦ + Cⁿ⁻²B+ Cⁿ⁻³B² + ....+ CBⁿ⁻² + Bⁿ⁻ᶦ]K² by (CB) always gives a remainder of nBⁿ⁻ᶦK². For pᵐ = [CB]/K to be a factor of [Cⁿ⁻ᶦ + Cⁿ⁻²B+ Cⁿ⁻³B² + ....CBⁿ⁻² + Bⁿ⁻ᶦ]K then (nBⁿ⁻ᶦK²)/(CB)=nBⁿ⁻ᶦK/pᵐ needs to be a positive integer for each and every prime factor, p, of A. Since A and B don’t have any common prime factors it is therefore sufficient to consider only nK/p^m i.e. it needs to be a positive integer for each and every prime factor, p, of A. A little thought will show that since C  B < A there must exist at least one prime factor, p, of A that will not make nK/pᵐ a positive integer since the denominator of K will be p^j where j ≤ m and the numerator of K will not have p as a prime factor. Proof of Corollary 2 The first step of the proof is to show that Z  Y < X if Z²  Y² = X² . Assume Z  Y < X. This means that (Z  Y)^2 < X^2 i.e. (Z  Y)^2 < Z²  Y². Let Z  Y = D i.e. Z = Y + D then (Z  Y)^2 < Z²  Y² can be rewritten as D^2 < (Y + D)^2  Y^2 which after expanding the brackets gives D^2 < D^2+ 2DY and so the initial assumption is true i.e. Z  Y < X. Let p^(mt) be part of the prime factor decomposition of X where p is one of its prime factors. Let p^(mt) = [ZY]/K. The value of K is dependent on the value of Z  Y and the prime factor p of X that is under consideration. K is clearly some fraction that has the prime factor decomposition of its numerator and denominator to be made up of some or all of the prime factors of X only or its numerator and/or denominator could equal 1. Z²  Y² = (Z  Y)(Z + Y) = X² can therefore be rewritten as Z²  Y² = [(Z  Y)/K][Z + Y]K = X² i.e. Z²  Y² = p^(mt)[Z + Y]K = X² It should be clear that p^(mt) = [ZY]/K should be a factor of the positive integer [Z + Y]K if p^(mt)[Z + Y]K = X². Algebraic long division of [Z + Y]K by p^(mt) = [ZY]/K which equals algebraic long division of [Z + Y]K^2 by [ZY] always gives a remainder of 2YK². For p^(mt) = [ZY]/K to be a factor of [Z + Y]K then 2YK²/[ZY] = 2YK/p^(mt) needs to be a positive integer for each and every prime factor, p, of X. Since X and Y don’t have any common prime factors it is therefore sufficient to consider only 2K/p^(mt) i.e. it needs to be a positive integer for each and every prime factor, p, of X. A little thought will show that since Z  Y < X there must exist at least one prime factor, p, of X that will not make 2K/p^(mt) a positive integer since the denominator of K will be p^j where j ≤ mt and the numerator of K will not have p as a prime factor. 
August 6th, 2015, 08:39 AM  #3 
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms 
Corollary 2 has been known for hundreds of years, so I'll limit myself to your proof of Corollary 1 which is essentially FLT itself. Your first mistake is the second sentence, in which you assume the thing you're trying to prove. I'm sure there are many further mistakes in your supposed proof, but I don't think it's worth my time to find others pro bono.

August 6th, 2015, 10:26 AM  #4  
Senior Member Joined: Sep 2010 Posts: 221 Thanks: 20  Quote:
It seems you repeat your old scheme somehow transformed.  
August 6th, 2015, 12:17 PM  #5 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 158 Thanks: 4 
I have simply used proof by contradiction i.e. the initial assumption that FLT is false which ends up with a contradiction at the end of my proof. So read the whole of my proof CRGreathouse before you dismiss it willy nilly.

August 6th, 2015, 12:32 PM  #6 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 158 Thanks: 4 
McPogor, if you spend more time to reason out what is unclear to you then maybe it will become clear. How you cannot see that if p^m is a factor of A then it should also be a factor of A^n/p^m which is essentially the polynomial term multiplied by K you refer to is beyond me.

August 6th, 2015, 02:09 PM  #7 
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  
August 6th, 2015, 03:04 PM  #8 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 158 Thanks: 4 
You are wrong about what you claim I have done CRGreathouse. What I have done is to assume that FLT is an equation, treated it as an equation and I show that it ends up being an inequation. What I have done is a proof by contradiction because my initial assumption was eventually shown by me to be impossible.

August 6th, 2015, 03:10 PM  #9 
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2015 From: Barto PA Posts: 170 Thanks: 18 
Someone recently posted an alleged proof of FLT along the same 'lines' as your argument. The problem is that, in both arguments, it was not shown how the case n = 2 is not contradict ed (considering C  B can be factored if n is ANY positive integer). So your first problem is to avoid that contradiction. 
August 6th, 2015, 11:04 PM  #10 
Math Team Joined: Nov 2014 From: Australia Posts: 689 Thanks: 244  

Tags 
fermat, proof, simpler, theorem 
Search tags for this page 
verify eulers theorem x y/x y sollution,flawed proofs of fermat's last theorem,x y z=40 then z y z is equals to,verify euler theorem for v=x³ y³,Willeys proof of FLT
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Simpler proof of fermat's last theorem  MrAwojobi  Number Theory  9  April 15th, 2015 12:59 AM 
Fermat's Last Theorem 1 Page Proof  MrAwojobi  Number Theory  39  August 5th, 2014 11:34 AM 
Fermat's last theorem proof  MrAwojobi  Number Theory  20  June 16th, 2014 09:32 PM 
6 Step Fermat's Last Theorem Proof  jhon13  Algebra  4  May 24th, 2012 09:26 AM 
6 Step Fermat's Last Theorem Proof  gyro  Number Theory  7  May 9th, 2012 08:05 AM 