MHB Is Fermat's Last Theorem Solvable for n=4 Using Pythagorean Triples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mente oscura
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a proposed demonstration of Fermat's Last Theorem for n=4, focusing on the impossibility of finding integer solutions for the equation x^4 + y^4 = z^4 using Pythagorean triples. The author presents a method involving the breakdown of variables into coprime factors and explores the implications of common elements in Pythagorean triples. A key point raised is the challenge of proving that two Pythagorean triples cannot share two common elements, which is central to the argument. Participants engage in clarifying the assumptions made about the factors and the coprimality conditions necessary for the proof. The discussion concludes with a consensus on the correctness of the approach while addressing specific mathematical nuances.
mente oscura
Messages
167
Reaction score
0
Hello.

I share with you , a demonstration, which authorship is mine.

I do not know, if it exists, similar other one.Section A) demonstration Fermat’s Last Theorem, for n = 4.

Let \ A, \ B, \ C \ \in{\mathbb{N}} / A, \ C \ = \ odd; \ B \ = \ even \ / A^2+B^2=C^2

(*)We consider, as possible:

A=x^2

B=y^2

C=z^2

So:

x^4+y^4=z^4

According to the "traditional" formulas, to obtain "Pythagorean Triplet":

A=M^2-N^2

B=2MN

C=M^2+N^2

Properties:

1ª)

C+B=M^2+N^2+2MN=(M+N)^2

C+B=z^2+y^2=(M+N)^2. Por (*)

2ª)

C-B=M^2+N^2-2MN=(M-N)^2

C-B=z^2-y^2=(M-N)^2. Por (*)

Conclusion: we get two "Pythagorean triplet", in which two of its elements are equal.

z^2+y^2=(M+N)^2

z^2-y^2=(M-N)^2

Consideration: If we show that it is not possible that two "Pythagorean triplet", have two common elements, we will have shown the Fermat Last Theorem, for n = 4.

Section B) demonstration of the impossibility of that, two "Pythagorean triplet", have two common elements:

Let \ a, \ b, \ c \ \in{\mathbb{N}} / a, \ c \ = \ odd; \ b \ = \ even \ / a^2+b^2=c^2.(1)

Sean \ d, \ b, \ c \ \in{\mathbb{N}} / d, \ c \ = \ odd; \ b \ = \ even \ / c^2+b^2=d^2.(2)

Considerations:

1º) a, b, c, d, co-prime, so are primitive Pythagorean Triplets.

2º) “c” It is the odd small, which meets (1) y (2)Option 1º)

a^2+b^2=c^2

a=m^2-n^2

b=2mn

c=m^2+n^2Option 2º)

c^2+b^2=d^2

c=u^2-v^2

b=2uv

d=u^2+v^2

Course: "m" and "n" co-prime, same as "u" and "v".

By Option 1º) y Option 2º):

b=2mn=2uv

I'm going to break down "b" in four co-prime factors: "e", "f", "g" and "h", such that:

b=2efgh

And, we assign, for example:

m=ef

n=gh

u=eg

v=fh

Being: e=mcd(m,u), f=mcd(m,v), g=mcd(n,u), h=mcd(n,v)

Note: “mcd”= greatest common divisor.

Now, using the other element common to the Pythagorean Triplets: "c"

c=m^2+n^2=e^2f^2+g^2h^2

c=u^2-v^2=e^2g^2-f^2h^2

Therefore:

e^2f^2+g^2h^2= e^2g^2-f^2h^2

g^2h^2+f^2h^2= e^2g^2-e^2f^2

h^2(g^2+f^2)=e^2(g^2-f^2)

To be "h" and "e" co-prime, and, also, g^2+f^2 y g^2-f^2, (note that "g" or "f" should be "evenr"), it follows that:

h^2=g^2-f^2

e^2=g^2+f^2

Thus, we have other two Pythagorean Triplets with two common elements, but:

c \ > \ g

Since:

c=m^2+n^2>n^2=g^2h^2>g^2>g

It is not possible, since we had considered "c", as the odd minor who met the conditions (1) and (2).

Whereupon, demonstrated the Section B)" and, therefore, also the "Section A)", concluding the impossibility of:

x^4+y^4=z^4


Regards.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I haven't checked through all of your proof, but yes, your approach is absolutely correct : the main step towards FLT4 is to prove that there can't be any 4-tuple $(a, b, c, d)$ satisfying $a^2 + b^2 = c^2$ and $b^2 + c^2 = d^2$. The standard step actually is to rearrange and multiply both sides to get $(ad)^2 = c^4 - b^4$ and it can be shown by infinite descent that $x^4 - y^4 - z^2$ over $\Bbb C^3$ has no integer points over it.

EDIT : Hold it. I don't understand your step when you break up $b$ in 4 coprime factors $e, f, g$ and $h$. $b = 2mn = 2uv$ is absolutely correct and upto that I agree, and as a conclusion $mn = uv$, but I am not sure why you are assuming that $(m, n, u, v) = (ef, gh, eg, fh)$. How about $(m, n, u, v) = (pqr, xyz, pxy, qrz)$? In that case $m$ and $n$ are coprime, so are $u$ and $v$ and $m \cdot n = u \cdot v = xyzpqr$ also.

So my point is why break $b$ in $\boxed{4}$ parts? Why not $6$ or $8$ parts, like I did above?
 
Last edited:
mathbalarka said:
I haven't checked through all of your proof, but yes, your approach is absolutely correct : the main step towards FLT4 is to prove that there can't be any 4-tuple $(a, b, c, d)$ satisfying $a^2 + b^2 = c^2$ and $b^2 + c^2 = d^2$. The standard step actually is to rearrange and multiply both sides to get $(ad)^2 = c^4 - b^4$ and it can be shown by infinite descent that $x^4 - y^4 - z^2$ over $\Bbb C^3$ has no integer points over it.

EDIT : Hold it. I don't understand your step when you break up $b$ in 4 coprime factors $e, f, g$ and $h$. $b = 2mn = 2uv$ is absolutely correct and upto that I agree, and as a conclusion $mn = uv$, but I am not sure why you are assuming that $(m, n, u, v) = (ef, gh, eg, fh)$. How about $(m, n, u, v) = (pqr, xyz, pxy, qrz)$? In that case $m$ and $n$ are coprime, so are $u$ and $v$ and $m \cdot n = u \cdot v = xyzpqr$ also.

So my point is why break $b$ in $\boxed{4}$ parts? Why not $6$ or $8$ parts, like I did above?

Hello.

where is the problem?

b=2mn=2uv=2xyzpqr

According to your example:

m=pqr

n=xyz

u=pxy

v=qrz

We operate:

c=m^2+n^2=p^2q^2r^2+x^2y^2z^2

c=u^2-v^2=p^2x^2y^2-q^2r^2z^2

p^2q^2r^2+x^2y^2z^2=p^2x^2y^2-q^2r^2z^2

q^2r^2(p^2+z^2)=x^2y^2(p^2-z^2)

q^2r^2=p^2-z^2

x^2y^2=p^2+z^2

Two Pythagorean Triplets with two common elements, but:

c \ > \ p

c=m^2+n^2=p^2q^2r^2+x^2y^2z^2

Therefore:

c \ > \ p^2 \ > \ p

Regards.
 
Excellent, you have made it clear that even $4$ or $8$ or higher factors would result the same. I'll move on to the next point :

mente oscura said:
e^2f^2+g^2h^2= e^2g^2-f^2h^2

g^2h^2+f^2h^2= e^2g^2-e^2f^2

h^2(g^2+f^2)=e^2(g^2-f^2)

To be "h" and "e" co-prime, and, also, g^2+f^2 y g^2-f^2, (note that "g" or "f" should be "evenr"), it follows that:

h^2=g^2-f^2

e^2=g^2+f^2

I don't understand this bit. $h$ and $e$ are coprime, yes, as $(m, n) = 1$, but why are $g^2 + f^2$ and $g^2 - f^2$ relatively coprime too? Please clarify.

[Note : If $ab = xy$, it is necessary condition to have $(a, x) = (b, y) = 1$ to conclude $a = y$ and $b = x$. Take for example, $5 \cdot 4 = 2 \cdot 10$, where $4$ and $10$ have nontrivial gcd]
 
mathbalarka said:
Excellent, you have made it clear that even $4$ or $8$ or higher factors would result the same. I'll move on to the next point :
I don't understand this bit. $h$ and $e$ are coprime, yes, as $(m, n) = 1$, but why are $g^2 + f^2$ and $g^2 - f^2$ relatively coprime too? Please clarify.

[Note : If $ab = xy$, it is necessary condition to have $(a, x) = (b, y) = 1$ to conclude $a = y$ and $b = x$. Take for example, $5 \cdot 4 = 2 \cdot 10$, where $4$ and $10$ have nontrivial gcd]

Hello.

I have considered that "g" or "f" is an even number. Only one.

You can choose, what is the pair, and see how the result is similar.

In this case, the show is trivial:

Let \ i \ , \ j \in{\mathbb{N}} \ / one \ is \ even \ and \ the \ other \ odd

If \ k |(i+j) \ and \ k |(i-j) \rightarrow{} k | (i+j+i-j) \rightarrow{}k|i

If \ k |(i+j) \ and \ k |(i-j) \rightarrow{} k | (i+j-i+j) \rightarrow{}k|j

Conclusion:

"i" and "j" they are not coprime.

Regards.
 
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