My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum


Thanks Tree2Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
May 13th, 2017, 04:24 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2017
From: .

Posts: 210
Thanks: 2

Math Focus: Number theory
Simple(st) Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.

\begin{align*}
a^2+b^2&=c^2\\
c^2-a^2&=b^2\\
c^2-a^2&=(c-a)(c+a)\\
b^2&=(c-a)(c+a)
\end{align*}
This is possible iff there exists integers $k$, $x_1$, and $x_2$ such that $c-a=kx_1^2$ and $c-a=kx_2^2$ to give}
$$b^2=k^2x_1^2x_2^2$$
For $n>2$,
\begin{align*}
a^n+b^n&=c^n\\
c^n-a^n&=b^n\\
c^n-a^n&=(c-a)(c^{n-1}+c^{n-2}a+c^{n-3}a^2+\cdots +ca^{n-2}+a^{n-1})\\
b^n&=(c-a)(c^{n-1}+c^{n-2}a+c^{n-3}a^2+\cdots +ca^{n-2}+a^{n-1})
\end{align*}
This would hold iff
$$b^n=(kx_1^n)(kx_2^n)(kx_3^n)\cdots (kx_n^n)$$
So that
$$b^n=k^nx_1^nx_2^nx_3^n\cdots x_n^n$$
However,$(c^{n-1}+c^{n-2}a+c^{n-3}a^2+\cdots +ca^{n-2}+a^{n-1})$ doesn't have common like terms and hence cannot be factored into a product of $n-1$ terms. Hence,
$$b^n\neq(kx_1^n)(kx_2^n)(kx_3^n)\cdots (kx_n^n)$$
thus
$$a^n+b^n\neq c^n$$

Last edited by Mariga; May 13th, 2017 at 04:45 AM.
Mariga is online now  
 
May 13th, 2017, 05:18 AM   #2
Math Team
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada

Posts: 9,437
Thanks: 640

Here we go again...
Denis is online now  
May 13th, 2017, 05:52 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 632
Thanks: 257

I may be wrong, but does not the fundamental theory of algebra say that the polynomial of degree n - 1 CAN BE FACTORED
JeffM1 is offline  
May 13th, 2017, 06:18 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2017
From: .

Posts: 210
Thanks: 2

Math Focus: Number theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffM1 View Post
I may be wrong, but does not the fundamental theory of algebra say that the polynomial of degree n - 1 CAN BE FACTORED
Let's try this.

$$c^3-a^3=(c-a) (c^2+ca+a^2)$$

I'd like you to factor $(c^2+ca+a^2)$ into a product of two terms.
Mariga is online now  
May 13th, 2017, 07:06 AM   #5
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 6,779
Thanks: 2197

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Where's that cartoon/blog about solving Fermat in the morning and Goldbach in the afternoon.
v8archie is offline  
May 13th, 2017, 07:27 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2017
From: .

Posts: 210
Thanks: 2

Math Focus: Number theory
Is there anything wrong with the proof?
Mariga is online now  
May 13th, 2017, 08:29 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 632
Thanks: 257

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariga View Post
Let's try this.

$$c^3-a^3=(c-a) (c^2+ca+a^2)$

I'd like you to factor $(c^2+ca+a^2)$ into a product of two terms.
The polynomials of degree n - 1 can all be factored. It is easy to give that factoring if n = 3.

$\left ( c - \dfrac{-\ a + ai\sqrt{3})}{2} \right ) \left ( c - \dfrac{-\ a - ai\sqrt{3})}{2} \right) =$

$c^2 - \dfrac{-\ ac + aci\sqrt{3}}{2} - \dfrac{-\ ac - aci\sqrt{3}}{2} + \dfrac{(-\ a)^2 - (ai\sqrt{3})^2}{4}=$

$c^2 - \dfrac{-\ 2ac }{2} + \dfrac{a^2 - a^2(-\ 1)(3)}{ 4} = c^2 + ac + \dfrac{a^2 + 3a^2}{4} = c^2 + ac + a^2.$

The polynomial CAN be factored, just not in the integers. So you have proved FLT for n = 3, but the objective is to prove it for any n over 2. You have not proved that the resulting polynomial in n - 1 cannot be factored over the integers for all n over 2. You have asserted it cannot be factored, which is just wrong. You are not even close.

Last edited by JeffM1; May 13th, 2017 at 08:35 AM.
JeffM1 is offline  
May 13th, 2017, 10:18 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2017
From: .

Posts: 210
Thanks: 2

Math Focus: Number theory
I get your point. Though I don't think it is far from the solution. I already have a way around that. It can't be longer than two A4 pages. Unless I will have skipped some points just as I have.

Is there any proof based on this method?

Also I'd like to take a break from maths for a while. But still, I am open to collaborations.

Last edited by Mariga; May 13th, 2017 at 10:34 AM.
Mariga is online now  
May 13th, 2017, 12:56 PM   #9
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 6,779
Thanks: 2197

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
No, but there are loads of failed ones.
v8archie is offline  
May 13th, 2017, 01:13 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 1,376
Thanks: 327

The very nature of Wiles's proof provides empirical evidence that Fermat never had a proof nor does anyone not trained in research level algebraic geometry have a proof.

Wiles's work lies in the domain of Grothendieck's revolution in algebraic geometry. People have often heard of Grothendieck, and Wiles's work lives within the world of that revolution. It didn't exist before the second half of the 20th century and it's simply so abstract that nobody in the 17th century could have anticipated it. Ditto for today's amateurs dabbling in high school algebraic proofs.

Of course my argument does not make any logical case. There's no reason that Fermat didn't conceive of some special case of something very deep, and would have written it down but for the narrowness of the margin. I wasn't there inside Fermat's head. Nobody was.

But as circumstantial evidence, you have really got to understand that Wiles's proof could not have existed before the categorical revolution in algebra of the post 1950s. It's very different than prior mathematics. And nobody's found a bridge that gets you from high school math to what the professionals are doing in the modern era.

If OP has a proof for n = 3 (I'm no expert) that is very cool. I'd suggest reading a book on abstract algebra. That's how you get at FLT.

Last edited by Maschke; May 13th, 2017 at 01:31 PM.
Maschke is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Tags
fermat, proof, simplest, theorem



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fermat was correct... he had a truly marvelous simple proof of his last theorem. RanberSingh Number Theory 2 April 27th, 2017 08:06 AM
Simple Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and Beal's Conjecture MrAwojobi Number Theory 1 September 29th, 2015 07:22 AM
Simple Fermat Proof a^n+b^n=c^n M_B_S Number Theory 15 July 29th, 2015 05:14 AM
Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ???? RanberSingh New Users 3 August 10th, 2014 01:44 PM
Simple Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and Beal's Conjecture MrAwojobi Number Theory 21 January 8th, 2011 10:11 AM





Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.