A Prime Number Powers of Integers and Fermat's Last Theorem

AI Thread Summary
Fermat's Last Theorem can be reduced to proving cases for odd primes and the number 4, as established from the n=4 case. The discussion raises a question about the implications of expressing terms like (c^x)^p, where c is an integer, x is even, and p is an odd prime, suggesting that this could complicate proving the theorem for odd primes. It is proposed that if c, a, and b are integers raised to an even power, they may not satisfy the conditions needed for Fermat's Last Theorem. The argument hinges on the idea that if no counterexamples exist for odd primes, then none can exist for any positive n. Ultimately, the focus remains on demonstrating the absence of counterexamples for odd primes and the number 4.
e2m2a
Messages
354
Reaction score
13
TL;DR Summary
Need understanding of an integer to a perfect power raised to the power of a prime number as it relates to Fermat's Last Theorem.
From my research I have found that since Fermat proved his last theorem for the n=4 case, one only needs to prove his theorem for the case where n=odd prime where c^n = a^n + b^n. But I am not clear on some points relating to this. For example, what if we have the term (c^x)^p, where c is an integer, x = even integer, and p = odd prime. Then we can express this term as c^(xp) and we would have c^(xp)=a^n +b^n. Clearly, xp is no longer an odd prime. So, does this mean to prove Fermat's Last Theorem for the case where n=odd prime, then neither of the bases c,a,b themselves can be an integer that is raised to an even numbered power?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If ##c^{xp}=a^{xp} +b^{xp}## is a counterexample for the exponent n=xp then ##(c^x)^p = (b^x)^p + (a^x)^p## is a counterexample with exponent p. If you can show that there is no counterexample for p then there can't be a counterexample for np for any positive n. It doesn't matter what a,b,c are.

Every integer larger than 2 is a multiple of an odd prime or a multiple of 4, so we only need to show that there are no counterexamples for odd primes and for the number 4.
 
  • Like
Likes pbuk and PeroK
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