See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270706800

Proof for the Beal Conjecture and a New Proof for Fermat's Last Theorem

Article · January 2013

DOI: 10.11648/j.pamj.20130205.11

CITATIONS READS

8 2,456

1 author:

Leandro Torres Di Gregorio

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
17 PUBLICATIONS   70 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MIX Based Costing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leandro Torres Di Gregorio on 13 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Pure and Applied Mathematics Journal
2013; 2(5): 149-155
Published online September 20, 2013 (http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/pamj)
doi: 10.11648/j.pamj.20130205.11

Proof for the Beal conjecture and a new proof for

Fermat's last theorem
Leandro Torres Di Gregorio
Souza Marques Engineering College, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Email address:
leandrogregorio@ig.com.br (L. T. Gregorio), leandro.torresdigregorio@gmail.com (L. T. Gregorio)

To cite this article:

Leandro Torres Di Gregorio. Proof for the Beal Conjecture and a New Proof for Fermat's Last Theorem. Pure and Applied Mathematics
Journal. Vol. 2, No. 5, 2013, pp. 149-155. doi: 10.11648/j.pamj.20130205.11

Abstract: The Beal Conjecture was formulated in 1997 and presented as a generalization of Fermat's Last Theorem,
within the number theory´s field. It states that, for X, Y, Z, n , n and n positive integers with n , n , n > 2, if X +
Y = Z then X, Y, Z must have a common prime factor. This article presents the proof for the Beal Conjecture, obtained
from the correspondences between the real solutions of the equations in the forms A + B = C , δ + γ = α and
X + Y = Z . In addition, a proof for the Fermat's Last Theorem was performed using basic math.
Keywords: Beal Conjecture, Fermat´s Last Theorem, Diophantine Equations, Number Theory, Prime Numbers

statements of Fermat were eventually proved - except one

1. Introduction
The Beal Conjecture is a proposition within the number
theory´s field that was formulated by Andrew Beal,
according to which, for X, Y, Z, n , n and n positive
integers with n , n , n > 2, if X + Y = Z then X, Y,
Z must have a common prime factor. Stated another way,
there is no solution in integers for X + Y = Z in the
case of X, Y, Z, n , n , n positive integers and n , n , n >
2 if X, Y and Z are coprime [1].
Darmon and Granville have also worked in this kind of
problem while investigating integer solutions of the
superelliptic equation = , , where F is a
homogeneous polynomial with integer coefficients of the
generalized Fermat equation + = [2].
The Beal Conjecture is presented by Mauldin [1] as a
generalization of Fermat's Last Theorem. Concerning the
latter, Rubin and Silverberg [3] mention that Pierre de
Fermat (1601-1665) wrote that “it is impossible to separate
a cube into two cubes, or a fourth power into two fourth
powers, or in general, any power higher than the second
into two like powers. I have discovered a truly marvelous
proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain”.
Written in mathematical notation, Fermat's Last Theorem
states that if n > 2 , δ + γ = α has no solutions in
nonzero integers. As Fermat used not to annotate the proofs
of his theorems, this and other statements inspired many
generations of mathematicians, who went on to develop
important math advances while seeking solutions. All
that was refuted, but in this case, Fermat did not actually
say that he knew a proof [4]. The only statement that
remained unproved was the above one, which became
known as "Fermat´s Last Theorem" (not because it was the
last to be written, but the last to be proved).
According to Stewart [4], Fermat's Last Theorem became
notorious and Euler proved that it is valid for cubes, Fermat
himself proved that it applies to the fourth power, Peter
Lejeune Dirichlet dealt with the fifth and fourteenth powers,
Gabriel Lamé and Kummer for all powers to the 100th
except 37, 59 and 67, and Friedrich Gauss tried to correct
Lamé´s attempt to the 7th power, but gave up after not
getting success. The author also points out that in 1980
other mathematicians proved the theorem for all powers to
the 125,000th until the mathematician Andrew Wiles
proved it definitively in 1994, using, however, ideas and
methods that did not exist at the time of Fermat. These
materials have become a permanent and important increase
to the arsenal of mathematics.
The aim of this work is to provide a proof of the Beal
Conjecture and to prove Fermat's Last Theorem with the
use of basic mathematics, providing an alternative to
Wiles´ work, which was obtained from the proof of the
Taniyama-Shimura´s Conjecture [3].
Starting from a bibliographical research on the Beal
Conjecture, prime numbers and Fermat's Last Theorem, the
equations in the general forms A + B = C (here simply
refereed as Pythagoras´ equation), δ + γ = α (here
150 Leandro Torres Di Gregorio:
Gregorio Proof for the Beal Conjecture and a New Proof
roof for Fermat's Last Theorem

simply refereed as Fermat´s equation) and X Y Z equation for real numbers. That is, from the sum of two
(here simply referred as Beal equation) were freely squares it is possible to obtain a third square, which can be
explored, searching for different aspects of their meanings. graphically represented in Figure 3:
The deduction of Beal Conjecture´s proof is divided into
five parts. The first part consists on the presentation of
geometric illustrations that allow a view of the argument to
be adopted. The second part presents the deduction of the
correspondence betweenn the real solutions of
Pythagoras´ equation and Fermat's equation, obtaining the Figure 3: Graphic representation of Pythagoras´ equation for squares
transforms that enable this operation. The third part with sides A, B and C, respectively. Source: author.
contains the deduction of the transforms between the real
solutions of Fermat's equation and the Beal equation, and Assuming that each square has an infinitesimal thickness
the fourth part includes analysis and discussion about the du, the infinitesimal volumes of the elements correspond to:
topic, including some examples. Finally, the fifth part dV% A du , dV' B du and dV, C du . In fact, the
develops the completion of the proof to Beal Conjecture sum of the areas can be converted into volumes by simply
and after that it is presented a new proof for Fermat's Last multiplying the scalar du on the Pythagoras´
Pythagoras equation,
Theorem. resulting in:
The presented language
anguage is simple, sometimes making use
of geometrical illustrations to explore analytical aspects of A du B du C du (1)
the problem, which is believed to be helpful for the Or, equivalently:
solution´s understanding. It is thus intended that the
statements are sufficiently clear and straightforward,
straight dV% dV' dV, (2)
allowing analysis by the scientific community and by non-non
experts enthusiasts on the subject. As illustrated in [5], one can integrate the infinitesimal
volumes along an axis u transverse to plane of the figures
(therefore linearly independent to it, it [6]) until some
2. Proof for the Beal Conjecture arbitrary thickness U, and then have:
2.1. Geometric Illustrations ) ) )
(* dV% (* dV' (* dV, (3)
Using a geometric approach to illustrate this proposition,
) ) )
one can take the figures below, in which are represented (* A du (* B du (* C du (4)
two squares of sides A and B, with areas A and B ,
respectively. The forms are out of scale and possibly out of A U B U C U (5)
proportion what, however, do not imply in loss of the
By making U numerically equal to A, that is, making
mak the
problem´s understanding.
thickness set to all elements be equal to the side of the first
element, there comes that:

A A B A C A (6)

A B A C A (7)
Figure 1: Squares of sides A and B, and areas and , respectively . As one can see, by setting U = A, the cube of side A on
Source: author. the first element
ement was obtained in a direct way. Being C
always greater than A and B, and assuming B different from
By adding the areas of the squares of sides A and B one
A (just for the purpose of visualization, but this is not a
can obtain an area numerically equal to S A B . There
condition at first), the corresponding volumes to the second
are infinite geometric surfaces that may represent the area S,
and third elements will necessarily
necessar be different from their
amongng which some are exemplified in figure 2.
respective cubes, corresponding to tridimensional solids in
the shapes of parallelepipeds.

Figure 2: Examples of figures with the same area S. Source: author.

Figure 4: Graphic representation of the sum of volumes corresponding to

Choosing a square of side C to represent the area S, there
figures with main faces with sides A, B and C, respectively, all of them
comes that S = A B C , resulting in the Pythagorean with thickness (depth) A. Source: author.
 Pure and Applied Mathematics Journal2013; 2(5): 149-155 151

In an analogous manner to the areas (figure 2), a volume 2.3. Correspondence between Real Solutions of Fermat's
V can be represented by various tridimensional solids. It is Equation and Beal Equation
well known that the volume contained in a parallelepiped
can also be represented by a cube of an equivalent volume, Taking the Beal equation in the form X + Y = Z
with side equal to L √V. Relying on this artifice, it can one can realize that it is possible to transform it into the
4 4
be obtained a cubic equivalency to the volumes of the Fermat´s equation by making Y = γ and Z = α ,
second and third solids, resulting in: resulting in:

V' = B A = L' (8) X + γ 4

= α 4 (16)
V, = C A = L, (9) X +γ = α (17)
L' = √B A (10) This is the general form of the Fermat´s equation for
4
δ = A = X and n = n . Having established that Y = γ ,
L, = √C A (11) 3 4 3
γ = √B A , Z = α
0 , α = √C A 0 and making A=X
The equation of volumes can then be rewritten in the e n = n , one can have:
form:
3 4 3
Y= √B X 0 = √B X 0 (18)
A + L' = L, (12)
3 4 3
One can note that the equation now assumes the form of Z= √C X 0 = √C X 0 (19)
a sum of cubes, revealing that from the solutions for As demonstrated, one can obtain real solutions X, Y, Z
A + B = C in reals one can obtain equivalent solutions for the Beal equation from real solutions A, B, C for the
for A + L' = L, in reals and vice versa, using the Pythagoras´ equation, using the transforms X = A , Y =
transforms L' = √B A and L, = √C A. 3 3
√B X 0 and Z = √C X 0 .
2.2. Correspondence between Real Solutions of 2.4. Analysis
Pythagoras´ Equation and Fermat´s Equation
3
From the transforms Y = √B X 0 and Z =
In case the equation of volumes is integrated again and 3
by making U=A, one can obtain: √C X 0 , one can note that, in principle, unless that
n = 2 (situation in which the power of X is zero, resulting
A/ + B A = C A (13) in the unit) or X=0 (trivial solution), the variable X is
always present in the transforms.
From this moment, the tridimensional visualization Assuming X, Y, Z integers and n > 2, B and C must
feature cannot be applied, since it requires a 4-dimensional be rational numbers, because they are necessarily written as
space. If the integrations continue in a n-dimensional quotients of integers:
Euclidean space [7] until it is obtained the n-power of A [8],
53
there will be: B = (20)
63 7
0 0
A +B A = C A (14) 83
C = (21)
63 7
Similarly to the approach performed in tridimensional
space illustrated above, one can obtain in n-space the Once the primes are infinite [9] and W an integer number
equivalent elements that allow rewriting the equation to the by hypothesis, one can necessarily write W in the form of
n-power. By making γ = B A 0 and α = C A 0 , the the product of the infinite primes raised to their respective
equation becomes: powers [10]. As the powers represent the number of times a
given prime appears in the factorization of W, the absent
A +γ = α (15) primes in the factorization will have exponents 0,
corresponding to the unit and thus not altering the product.
This is the general form of Fermat´s equation. It is Adopting the notation of infinite product, the number W
highlighted that the deductions are being made within the can be written as:
framework of real numbers, not addressing in particular the
=>,? =>, =>, =
existence of entire solutions. W = ∏@
<A P< =P P … P@>,C (22)
It was demonstrated, therefore, that it is possible to
obtain real solutions for A + γ = α from the solutions In which k E< represents the number of times the i-th
for A + B = C in reals and vice versa, using the prime appears in the factorization of W. Writing X 0 , Y
3 3
transforms γ = √B A 0 and α = √C A 0 . The term A and Z in infinite product notation, one can have:
remains the same, that is, not transformed. 0 =F,? 0 =F, 0 =F, 0 =F,C
X 0
= ∏@
<A P< =P P … P@ (23)
152 Leandro Torres Di Gregorio: Proof for the Beal Conjecture and a New Proof for Fermat's Last Theorem

Y = ∏@
=G,? =G, =G, =G,C Once PS is present in X (k 6,S ≥ 0) and in Y (k 5,S ≥ 0),
<A P< =P P … P@ (24)
it can be put at evidence, resulting
=H,? =H, =H, =H,C
Z = ∏@
<A P< =P P … P@ (25) =F, =F,U7 =F,V =F,∞
PS [WP … PS … PT … P∞ X+
Therefore, B and C can be written as: =G, =G,U7 =G,V =G,∞
WP … PS … PT … P∞ X] = Z (36)
3 JG, 3 JG, 3 JG,C
I I …IC
B = 3 7 JF, 3 7 JF, 3 7 JF,C (26) As the content of the brackets is integer (here named M),
I I …IC
it comes that Z = PS M, that is, Z also has the prime
I
3 JH,
I
3 JH,
…IC
3 JH,C factor PS in its factorization. As Z is assumed integer by
C = 3 7 JF, 3 7 JF, 3 7 JF,C (27) initial hypothesis, then Z and Z have the same prime
I I …IC
factors, resulting that PS is also present in Z.
Or equivalently: Doing the same for PT , once PT is present in X (k 6,T ≥ 0)
and in Z (k 8,T ≥ 0), it can be put at evidence, resulting
=G, 0 0 =F, =G, 0 0 =F, =G,∞ 0 0 =F,∞
B =P P … P∞ PT \WP
=H,
… PS
=H,U
… PT
=H,V
… P∞
=H,∞
X−
(28)
P1n1kX,1…Pmn1kX,m…Pvn1kX,v−1…P∞n1kX,∞=Yn2
=H, 0 0 =F, =H, 0 0 =F, =H,∞ 0 0 =F,∞
C =P P … P∞
(37)
(29)
As the content of the brackets is integer (here named N),
Since B and C are rational numbers, three situations it comes that Y = PT N, that is, Y also has the prime
may occur: factor PT in its factorization. As Y is assumed integer by
Situation 1: and are integers; initial hypothesis, then Y and Y have the same prime
Situation 2: or is integer and the other is non- factors, resulting that PT is also present in Y.
integer; As already mentioned, the exception occurs when n = 2,
Situation 3: and are non-integers. when Y and Z do not depend on the variable X anymore.
One can note that, in principle, it seems not to be necessary
2.4.1. Situation 1 Analysis (KL and ML Integers) that n , n > 2 for the rule to be considered valid, but only
Assuming that B and C are integers, all the powers of n > 2 . However, there are cases of known integer
the primes factors must be positive or zero. If not, then the solutions of X, Y, Z coprime in which n > 2 and n = 2
prime factor would be raised to a negative power, going to or n = 2, i.e. 7 + 13 = 2c e 2d + 17 = 71 [2]. This
the denominator and leading to a non-integer result. This aspect will be clarified in section 2.5.
condition can be expressed in the general form as
2.4.2. Situation 2 Analysis (KL or ML Non-Integers)
n k 5,< − n − 2 k 6,< = K 5,< ∴ n k 5,< = K 5,< + n − 2 k 6,< (30) Writing B (non-integer) in the notation form I' + ε, in
which I' represents the whole part of B and ε is the
n k 8,< − n − 2 k 6,< = K 8,< ∴ n k 8,< = K 8,< + n − 2 k 6,< (31)
decimal part, and as X + B = C , it follows that:
As one can note, if K 5,< ≥ 0 for all primes and a certain
X + I' + ε = C (38)
prime factor PS exists in X (k 6,S ≥ 0), then necessarily
k 5,S ≥ 0, that is, PS is also present in Y. The same is valid X + I' + ε = C (39)
for X and Z once K 8,< ≥ 0, that is, if a prime factor PT is
present in X (k 6,T ≥ 0), then necessarily it will be present Since X and I' are integers, then X + I' = I, , in
in Z (k 8,T ≥ 0 . which I, is the whole part of C . This results that C = I, +
ε, that is, if B is a non-integer real, then C also is, and the
Writing X , Y , Z with highlights to the PS and PT
prime factors, one can have: decimal part ε is common to both. Therefore, situation 2 is
not possible, leaving only situation 3.
=F, =F,U =F,V =F,C
X =P … PS … PT … P@ (32)
2.4.3. Situation 3 Analysis (KL and ML non-integers)
=G, =G,U =G,V =G,C Assuming that B and C are non-integers, there are one
Y =P … PS … PT … P@ (33) or more prime factors with negative powers in their ratio
=H, =H,U =H,V =H,C form. If not, then the prime factors would be raised only to
Z =P … PS … PT … P@ (34) positive powers, leading to B and C integers.
Naming the prime factors with negative powers in B as
Therefore the equation X +Y =Z becomes:
PS∗ and the prime factors with negative powers in C as PT∗ ,
=F, =F,U =F,V =F,∞ there comes that:
WP … PS … PT … P∞ X+
=G, =G,U =G,V =G,∞ n k 5,S∗ − n − 2 k 6,S∗ = K 5,S∗ (40)
WP … PS … PT … P∞ X=
=H, =H,U =H,V =H,∞ n k 8,T∗ − n − 2 k 6,T∗ = K 8,T∗ (41)
P … PS … PT … P∞ (35)
 Pure and Applied Mathematics Journal2013; 2(5): 149-155 153

One can note that for K 5,S∗ < 0, PS∗ will be present in 2.4.1 for PS = PS∗ and PT = PT∗ . Thus, to avoid redundancy,
X (k 6,S∗ > 0) and Y (k 5,S∗ > 0) simultaneously, because if it will be not replicated in this section.
one is null, the other will be negative, what is false, since X
2.5. Conclusion to the Beal Conjecture Proof
and Y are integers by initial hypothesis k 6,< ≥ 0 and
k 5,< ≥ 0 . That is, if B is non-integer, there is at least one 2.5.1. Extending the approach
prime factor PS∗ that is common to X and Y. The same In fact, the initial approach adopted the first shape as the
mechanism can be applied to C and PT∗ once K 8,T∗ < 0, reference for the development (figure 4), what led to
resulting that, if C is non-integer, there is at least one A + B A 0 = C A 0 , and consequently X = A ,
prime factor PT∗ that is common to X and Z. 3
Y = √B X 0 , Z = √C X 0 .
3

Writing X , Y , Z with highlights to PS∗ and PT∗ One can also adopt the second element as the basis,
prime factors, one can have: 3
resulting in A B 0 + B = C B 0 , and X = √A B 0 ,
3
X =P
=F,
… PS∗
=F,U∗
… PT∗
=F,V∗
… P@
=F,C
(42) Y = B, Z = √C B 0 . The same applies if one chooses
the third element to be the reference, coming to A C 0 +
3 3
Y =P
=G,
… PS∗
=G,U∗
… PT∗
=G,V∗
… P@
=G,C
(43) B C 0 = C and X = √A C 0 , Y = √B C 0 , Z = C.
As one can see, a rational solution of A + B = C (in
=H, =H,U∗ =H,V∗ =H,C which at least A or B or C is integer) may lead to three
Z =P … PS∗ … PT∗ … P@ (44)
different types of solutions for X + Y = Z :
The development that shows that PS∗ and PT∗ are present
in X, Y and Z is analogous to the one performed in section

Table 1: Types of solutions for h i + j i = k i that can be obtained using the first, second and third elements as unaltered basis, respectively. Source:
author.

SOLUTIONS FOR lmn + omL = pmq X Y Z

s s
I A r hi 0 r hi 0
s s
II r i 0 B r i 0
s s
III r i 0 r i 0 C

The development performed for solution type I is depend on Z.

analogous for the solutions II and III and will not be One can note that there are prime factors in common
replicated to avoid redundancy. Now, it is clear that: to X, Y, Z since in solution type I,n > 2; in solution
In solution type I, for t > 2 , Y and Z type II,n > 2 and in solution type III,n > 2. I. e. one
depend on X; can obtain infinite integer solutions for X + Y = Z
In solution type II, for t > 2 , X and Z from the classic Pythagorean solution 3 + 4 = 5 ,
depend on Y; among which some of them are following presented :
In solution type III, for t > 2 , X and Y

Table 2: Solutions for h i + j i = k i obtained from 3 + 4 = 5 . Source: author.

SOLUTIONS FOR lmn + omL = pmq X Y Z mn mL mq

I-a(3 is common) 3 6 45 6 4 2
I-b(3 is common) 3 36 45 6 2 2
II-a(2 is common) 6 4 10 2 3 2
II-b(2 is common) 6144 4 10240 2 13 2
III-a(5 is common) 15 20 5 2 2 4
III-b(5 is common) 75 10 5 2 4 6

The opposite is also true, that is, from one whole presented the solution 3 + 6 = 3x , resulting in:
solution for X + Y = Z , one can obtain three
different rational solutions for A + B = C . I. e. [1]

Table 3: Types of rational solutions for + = obtained from 3 + 6 = 3x . Source: author.

SOLUTIONS FOR yL + KL = ML yL KL ML
I´ 9 (A=X=3) 72 81
II´ 4,50 36 (B=Y=6) 40,5
III´ 1 8 9 (C=Z=3)
154 Leandro Torres Di Gregorio:
Gregorio Proof for the Beal Conjecture and a New Proof
roof for Fermat's Last Theorem

In the example presented, one can note that solution

type I´ led to B and C integers, solution type II´ led to
A and C non-integers
integers and solution type III´ led to A and
B integers.
2.5.2. Final Statement
The Beal Conjecture states that, for n , n , n > 2, the
integer solutions for X Y Z have a common
prime factor, meeting all the conditions presented above.
Therefore, the Beal's Conjecture is correct.

3. Proof for
or Fermat's Last Theorem
From the proof above one can note that the following
equations rule the transforms Y B X 0 and
0
Z C X (demonstrations are presented using
solution type I to illustrate, but the process is analogous
for solutions types II and III):
Figure 6: Graphic representation for • and • . Source: author.
n k 5,< N n N 2 k 6,< K 5,< (45)
As one can note, the angular coefficients of each
n k 8,< N n N 2 k 6,< K 8,< (46) equation correspond to 1, that is, the angle is 45º for the
parallels, resulting that U U δ and T T δ.
A particular case is when n n n n, resulting
This way, one can write that:
in X Y Z (Fermat´s equation). Rewriting the sum
of exponents there comes that: ) €‚
€ ƒ €‚
n 2 2 PU T (53)
) ƒ
•G,?
zG,? 0 =F,?
F
=F,? 0
nk 5,< N n N 2 k 6,< K 5,< P n 2 (47) What brings to:
=G,? 0=F,?
F =F,? 0=G,?

zH,? 0 =F,?
F
=F,? 0
•H,?
k 6,< N k 5,< k 6,< N k 8,< P k 5,< k 8,< (54)
nk 8,< N n N 2 k 6,< K 8,< P n 2 (48)
=H,? 0=F,?
F =F,? 0=H,?
As one can note, if k 5,<< k 8,< for all prime factors P<
Now one can make: then B C , what is impossible since A 0 by initial
zG,?
hypothesis. Therefore, as there can be no integer solution
U {k 6,< | k 6,< N (49) for X Y Z , the Fermat´s Last Theorem is proved.

U {k 6,< | k 6,< N k 5,< (50)

4. Conclusion
zH,?
T {k 6,< | k 6,< N (51) As a first output, the demonstrations revealed the
correspondence between real solutions of equations in
T {k 6,< | k 6,< N k 8,< (52) the forms A B C (Pythagoras), δ γ α
That can be graphically represented in figures 5 and 6, (Fermat) and X Y Z (Beal), what enabled to
respectively: prove that the Beal Conjecture is correct.
As a second output,
ut, starting from the proof of Beal
Conjecture, it was obtained the proof of Fermat's Last
Theorem, by making n n n .
As a third and last but not least result, one can
consider the issues of free-exploitation
free (exploration
without a defined focus), intuition
intuit and alternative vision
(or transversal view) in the process of mathematical
problem solving. The free-exploitation
free has led to an
improvement of the sense of intuition about the problem,
which directed the algebraic development. However, the
performance gain occurred when the author tried to
interpret the meaning of equations in several aspects,
especially the geometric, leading to the solutions
presented throughout the work.
Figure 5: Graphic representation for ~ and ~ . Source: author.
 Pure and Applied Mathematics Journal2013; 2(5): 149-155
EXPLANATORY NOTE ABOUT SECTION 3 –
Proof for Fermat's Last Theorem
(Published online December 10, 2014; updated June
30, 2015)
In order to clarify doubts presented by some readers
regarding section 3 of article "Proof for the Beal
Conjecture and a New Proof for Fermat's Last Theorem",
published in the Pure and Applied Mathematics Journal,
v.2, issue 5, we offer below a detailed explanation about
figures 5 and 6. It is highlighted that this is not an
erratum, but only a clarifying note in relation to the
developed calculation steps. The original paper (above
this Explanatory Note) remains the same, that is, not
altered.
In this stage of the proof for Fermat's Last Theorem
(FLT), various incompatibilities become apparent in the
problem structure, so that more than one path can lead to
the final argument. This is expected, since we started
from the assumption that there are integer solutions to
the equation in the form X + j = Z , for t > 2. As
indeed these solutions do not exist, it is natural that the
proof by contradiction (“reductio ad absurdum”) reveals
itself in the form of one or more incompatibilities.
In a first approach, from the equations 47 and 48 one
can write to any "n":
t − 2 k 6,< = tk 5,< − K 5,< = tk 8,< − K 8,<
Dividing by n, one can have:
KY,i KZ,i
kY,i − = kZ,i − = …i
t t
When plotting the graphs of Figures 5 and 6 it is
noticed that the distance between the roots of ~ and ~
and the distance between the roots of • and • have the
same form of equation 56, so that one can write:
KY,i KZ,i
kY,i − = kZ,i − =…
2 2
Where … is illustrated in Figures 5 and 6 and is valid
for the i-th prime factor in analysis. From then one can
go to the equations 53 and 54, completing the proof with
the argument already presented in the original paper. One
can also note that the incompatibility vanishes when
t = 2 → …i = 0 (equations 55 and 56), causing
~ = ~ and • = • , resulting in
) ƒ
1= = (58)
) ƒ
to any ~2 and •2 without necessarily ~2 = •2 .
Another approach for FLT proof´s final argument can
also be taken from equations 47 and 48 in the form:
View publication stats
155
~1 t •1
= = (59)
~2 2 •2
Is noted that unless t = 2 , one can write ~1 =
k~2 and •1 = k•2 , being Z a rational number greater
than 1. It appears that this structure defines U1 and U2
(so as T1 and T2 ) as concurrent lines, being incompatible
with the equations 49, 50, 51 and 52 (which define them
as parallel lines). The incompatibility is broken when
n = 2 → Z = 1, what implies U1 = U2 and T1 = T2 (in
the limit, when n → 2 , Z → 1 and …i → 0 , concurrent
lines and parallel lines tend to converge to coincident
lines). Again, this implies that
) ƒ
1= = (60)
) ƒ
to any ~2 ‡tˆ •2 without necessarily ~2 = •2 .
References
[1] R. D. Mauldin, “A generalization of Fermat´s last
theorem: the Beal conjecture and prize problem”, in
Notices of the AMS, v. 44, n.11, 1997, pp. 1436-1437.
[2] H. Darmon and A. Granville, “On the equations ZS =
F x, y and Ax • + By Ž = Cz • ”, in Bull. London Math.
Soc., 27, 1995, pp. 513-543.
(55)
[3] K. Rubin and A. Silverberg, “A report on Wiles´
Cambridge lectures”, in Bulletin (New Series) of the
American Mathematical Society, v. 31, n. 1, 1994, pp. 15-
(56) 38.
[4] I. Stewart, Almanaque das curiosidades matemáticas,
1945, translation by Diego Alfaro, technical review by
Samuel Jurkiewicz, Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2009.
[5] Al Shenk, Cálculo e geometria analítica, translation by
Anna Amália Feijó Barroso,Rio de Janeiro: Campus,
1983-1984.
(57)
[6] J. L. Boldrini, S. I. R. Costa, V. L. Figueiredo, H. G.
Wetzler, Álgebra linear, 3 ed., São Paulo: Harper & Row
do Brasil, 1980.
[7] M. L. Crispino, Variedades lineares e hiperplanos, Rio de
Janeiro: Editora Ciência Moderna Ltda, 2008.
[8] K. Michio, Hiperespaço, translation by Maria Luiza X. de
A. Borges, technical review by Walter Maciel, Rio de
Janeiro: Rocco, 2000.
[9] Euclides, Os elementos, translation and introduction by
Irineu Bicudo, São Paulo: Unesp, 2009.
[10] G. H. Edmund Landau, Teoria elementar dos números,
Rio de Janeiro: Editora Ciência Moderna, 2002.