Fermat's Last Theorem
Is this the
marvelous
proof?
Daniele De Pedis - INFN-Roma1-Italydaniele.depedis@roma1.infn.itPaulo Ribenboin in the preface of his book “Fermat’s Last Theorem for Amateurs”wrote[1]:
“You may feel tempted to write your own (simpler) proof of Fermat’s last theorem.I have strong views about such a project. It should be written in the Constitution of Statesand Nations, in the Chapter of Human Rights:It is an inalienable right of each individual to produce his or her own proof of Fermat’s lasttheorem. However, such a solemn statement about Fermat’s last theorem (henceforthreferred to as THE theorem) should be tempered by the following articles:Art. 1.
No attempted proof of THE theorem should ever duplicate a previous one.
Art. 2.
It is a criminal offense to submit false proofs of THE theorem to professors who arduously earn their living by teaching how not to conceive false proofs of THE theorem.
Infringement of the latter, leads directly to Hell. Return to Paradise only after the saidcriminal has understood and is able to reproduce Wiles’ proof. (Harsh punishment)”.
I would add the following article:
Art. 3 The punishment is idle for the first attempt.
Then:a) The present paper is my first attempt, then I ask the application of Art. 3. b) At my present known this is an original procedure, then according Art.1c) Is my hope not violating the Art. 21
Introduction
In 1637 Pierre de Fermat wrote in the margins of a copy of Diophantus’s Arithmetical, the book wherehe used to write many of his famous theories [3]:"
It is impossible to separate a cube into two cubes or a fourth power into two fourth powers or, in general, all the major powers of two as the sum of thesame power. I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this theorem, whichcan’t be contained in the too narrow page margin
"In other words, the previous expression can be condensed into:
the equation:
(1)
has
no solution for any value of A, B, C, and n integers with n>2.
n n n
C B A
The equation (1) is known as Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT). Last, not because it was the last work of Fermat in chronological sense, but because it has remained for over 350 years the Fermat's theoremnever solved. In fact, also the same Fermat, although stating the non-solvability of (1) he never provided a complete proof but limited his claim only to the case n = 4.In reality, therefore, it would be more correct to talk about Fermat’s conjecture.Today, many mathematicians have the opinion that Fermat was wrong and did not have a real fulldemonstration. Others think that Fermat possessed such proof, or at least that he had guessed the way, but, as was his custom, he was so much apathetic that it became lost.In any case, as you wish take a position, the fact remains that for over 350 years all the greatest mathe-maticians have tried to find such proof without success.Only in 1994, after seven years of complete dedication to the problem, Andrew Wiles, who wasfascinated by the theorem that as a child dreamed to solve, finally managed to give a demonstration.Since then, we might refer to (1) as
Fermat's theorem.
However, Wiles used elements of mathematic and modern algebra that Fermat could not know: thedemonstration that Fermat claimed to have, if it were correct, then must be so different [4].In this paper I’ll try to give my contribution proposing a demonstration of Fermat's Last Theorem usinga technique certainly within the reach of Fermat himself, and then infer that this is the
marvelous proof
that Fermat claimed to have.
First considerations [1][2]
The Fermat's last theorem is a generalization, to be restricted to the field of integers, the Pythagoras’stheorem, that is nothing else than the (1) when n = 2, that is
.
222
C B A
2
Even the ancient Greeks and the Babylonians knew about its integer solutions eg.
.
222
543
There are an infinite number of such solutions and are known as Pythagorean triples.In the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem that we’ll give, will emerge spontaneously even an original procedure to find all the infinite Pythagorean triples, this makes us confident in the goodness of the proposed method of proof (see Appendix B).Before to go in deep in the proof we make some considerations relating to (1).a)
To say that Fermat's theorem is
true
is equivalent to saying that (1) has never occurred
.
b)
It is sufficient to prove (1) be
true
for the exponent
n
= 4 and for every
n
=
p
=
odd prime
. Infact if the theorem is true for
p
then it is automatically true for every
n
=
mp
beingAs mentioned the case of
n
= 4 was proved directly by Fermat.
p m p m p m n n
C B A B A
c)
A, B, C
must be such that their Greater Common Divider (
GCD
) is the unit when taken in pairsie:
GCD
(
A, B
) =
GCD
(
A, C
) =
GCD
(
B, C
) = 1 and also
GCD
(
A, B, C
) = 1.In fact if, for example, there was a integer
q
such that
GCD
(
A, B
) =
q
then, for (1), it should also be a factor of
C
(we denote this property by
)(mod0
qC
), and then we can simplify (1)introducing new variables,
q A A
1
,
q B B
1
and
qC C
1
and then return to the case of (1) with .
n n n
C B A
111
d)
Important corollary to the previous property is that the three variables
A, B, C,
can not all havethe same parity and, moreover, only one can be even following this scheme:
A B C D E
odd odd even odd oddeven odd odd odd evenodd even odd even oddWe'll see that, in reality, other considerations will restrict this possibility only at the first case.e)
Another important corollary of c) is:given
D=C-A
(2)
E=C-B
then must be
GCD
(
A+B, C-A)
=1
(2a)
GCD
(
A+B, C-B)
=1
(2b)
GCD
(
C-A, C-B)
=1
(2c)and in particular by the last relation is
GCD
(D,E)=
1
(2d)
3
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
