A Generalized Diophantine equation and the method of infinite descent

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the generalized Diophantine equation x^2p + y^2p = z^2 for p ≥ 2, with an assertion that there are no integer solutions for this equation. Participants question the validity of this assertion and seek proof, noting that the Beal conjecture, which relates to the topic, remains unproven. A cited paper is mentioned as a potential source for proof, and the importance of quoting sources instead of linking is emphasized for clarity. The conversation also touches on the relationship between the conjecture and Fermat’s Last Theorem, suggesting that some aspects may have been resolved. Overall, the thread highlights the complexity and ongoing inquiries surrounding these mathematical concepts.
e2m2a
Messages
354
Reaction score
13
TL;DR Summary
Cannot find proof asserted by Wikipedia article on a generalized Diophantine equation
There is an entry in Wikipedia at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_triple
Under elementary properties of primitive Pythagorean triples, general properties,sixth bullet from the bottom of this section, there is this generalized Diophantine equation:
x^2p + y^2p = z^2
Where: p ≥ 2.
The article asserts there is no integer solution to this Diophantine equation for all values of p ≥ 2:
I have a number of questions about this. First, is this assertion true? Second, where can I find the proof for this? There was no citation for a proof. And third, If there is a proof, would it use the method of infinite descent for this generalized expression?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
e2m2a said:
sixth bullet from the bottom
  • Only two sides of a primitive Pythagorean triple can be simultaneously prime because by Euclid's formula for generating a primitive Pythagorean triple, one of the legs must be composite and even.[20] However, only one side can be an integer of perfect power ##{\displaystyle p\geq 2}## because if two sides were integers of perfect powers with equal exponent ##{\displaystyle p}## it would contradict the fact that there are no integer solutions to the Diophantine equation ##{\displaystyle x^{2p}\pm y^{2p}=z^{2}}##, with ##{\displaystyle x}, {\displaystyle y}, ## and ##{\displaystyle z}## being pairwise coprime.[21]
Make life easier for all by quoting in stead of referring ... I't not a long entry entry in the list
(and some understand first from bottom is one but last :smile: )

e2m2a said:
First, is this assertion true?
I don't understand what assertion you are referring to. The Beal conjecture lemma clearly states that it hasn't been proved or disproved so far. So no wonder there is no citation. And the 'can be simultaneously prime' is on top of that conjecture.

The link says you can earn a million bucks if you can prove or disprove the Beal conjecture

e2m2a said:
Second, where can I find the proof for this? There was no citation for a proof

##\ ##
 
e2m2a said:
There was no citation for a proof.
Yes there is: click on the blue number 21. The cited paper is available online (search for the title).
 
Ok. I will look into it. Thanks. Beal conjecture sounds intriguing.
 
BvU said:
Make life easier for all by quoting in stead of referring ... I't not a long entry entry in the list
(and some understand first from bottom is one but last :smile: )
Thanks for this @BvU - as well as being easier, quoting also avoids the problem of the referenced website changing. @e2m2a please quote instead of linking in future. Also please use ## \LaTeX ## in your posts: write ## x^{2p} + y^{2p} = z^2 ## instead of x^2p + y^2p = z^2 (if you don't know how, reply to this message and you will see how it works in my quoted message).

BvU said:
I don't understand what assertion you are referring to. The Beal conjecture lemma clearly states that it hasn't been proved or disproved so far. So no wonder there is no citation. And the 'can be simultaneously prime' is on top of that conjecture.

The link says you can earn a million bucks if you can prove or disprove the Beal conjecture
I think the OP is referring to the special case of the Beal conjecture quoted above which has been solved (H. Darmon and L. Merel (2007) Winding quotients and some variants of Fermat’s Last Theorem).
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top