FERMAT LAST THEOREM

1. Introduction
P. Fermat claimed in 1637 to have proved the following result
Theorem 1.1. If n ≥ 3 then, there are no positive integer solutions
of the equation
(1) xn + y n = z n .
In other words, if (x, y, z) is a solution of non-negative integers then
xy = 0, that is, either x = 0 or y = 0.
Below are significant dates of the progress on Last Fermat’s Theo-
rem:
• 1637 Fermat writes a marginal note claiming the above state-
ment
• 1640 Fermat proves the case n = 4
• 1753 Euler proves the case n = 3
• 1825 Germain proves the case n is prime so that 2n + 1 is also
prime (example = 5, 11)
• 1825 Lamé and Dirichlet prove independently the case n = 5
• 1908 Dickson proves the case n ≥ 7000
• 1993-1994 Wiles announces a proof for all n ≥ 3 which turns
out to be incomplete
• 1994 Wiles and Taylor complete Wiles’ 1993 proof by replacing
the defective part of the argument

2. Case n = 2
Before we discuss the case n = 2 let us introduce the following
definition.
Definition 2.1. Given the integers a, b ≥ 1 and n ≥ 2 we write
a ≡ b (mod n)
if a gives the remainder b when divided by n.
For example 5 ≡ 1 (mod 2) and 51 ≡ 2 (mod 7).

Date: October 27, 2021.

1
2 FERMAT LAST THEOREM

Lemma 2.2. If n ≥ 1 is a positive integer, then

n2 ≡ 0 (mod 4) or n2 ≡ 1 (mod 4).
Proof. Assume first that n is even, so n = 2k for some integer k. Then
n2 = 4k 2 is a multiple of 4 which implies n2 ≡ 0 (mod 4).
Assume now that n is odd, so n = 2k + 1. Then
n2 = (2k + 1)2 = 4k 2 + 4k + 1 = 4k(k + 1) + 1.
This shows that n2 gives the remainder 1 by division with 4. Hence
n2 ≡ 1 (mod 4). 
 FERMAT LAST THEOREM 3

3. Case n = 3
We consider the equation
(2) x3 + y 3 = z 3 ,
where x, y, z > 0 are positive integers.
Theorem 3.1. The equation (2) has no solution in the set of positive
integers.
In other words, if (x, y, z) is a solution of non-negative integers then
xy = 0, that is, either x = 0 or y = 0.
Replacing z by −z one can see that (2) is equivalent to
(3) x3 + y 3 = z 3 , x, y, z ∈ Z.
We shall prove a slightly more general result, namely
Theorem 3.2. If (x, y, z) is a solution of equation (3) with x, y, z ∈ Z,
then xyz = 0.
In other words, if (x, y, z) is a solution of equation (3) with x, y, z ∈
Z, then at least one of x, y, z is zero. Obviously Theorem 3.2 im-
plies Theorem 3.1. In solving equation 3 we shall use the infinite
descent method. Precisely, assume that (3) has a solution (x, y, z)
with x, y, z ∈ Z and xyz 6= 0. Then, we may select one solution for
which |xyz| is minimum possible.
Further, along a described process, one shows that there exists an-
other solution x0 , y0 , z0 ) such that
1 ≤ |x0 y0 z0 | < |xyz|
and in this way we contradict the minimality of the solution (x, y, z).
4 FERMAT LAST THEOREM

4. Case n = 4
We want to discuss the equation
(4) x4 + y 4 = z 4 ,
where x, y, z > 0 are positive integers.
Irrational numbers have been studied by the Pythagorean school
(500 BC) although indians were using them through various numerical
approximations with rational numbers.
Theorem 4.1 (Fermat 1640). The equation (4) has no solution in the
set of positive integers.
In other words, if (x, y, z) is a solution of non-negative integers then
xy = 0, that is, either x = 0 or y = 0.
We shall consider a more general equation than (4), namely
(5) x4 + y 4 = z 2
and observe that if (x, y, z) is a solution of (4), then (x, y, z 2 ) is a
solution of (4) since
x4 + y 4 = (z 2 )2 .
Theorem 4.2. The equation (5) has no solution in the set of positive
integers.
The approach in proving Theorem 4.2 uses the so-called minimality
principle. More precisely, assuming that equation 5 has a solution .....