Simple proof of Fermat's theorem?

I think what I'm saying is that x^n-y^n can get arbitrarily close to 1 for any x, so this can't be used to prove Fermat's last theorem.In summary, the conversation discusses a possible proof for the equation a^n + b^n =/ c^n, where n>2 and a,b,c>1. The proof involves substituting values for b and c and then expanding and factoring the equation. However, the error in the proof is assuming that x-y must be an integer divisor of 1, which is not necessarily true for all real numbers. This leads to the conclusion that there is no simple proof that x^n-y^n =/ 1 for all n>2, and therefore,
  • #1
barryn56
12
0
Can someone point out the error in the following "proof":

Prove a^n + b^n =/ c^n for n>2, a,b,c>1 (=/ means not equal to)

Let b=xa where x>1 and is from the set of real numbers generated by fractions, such that b is an integer

so:

a^n + (xa)^n =/ c^n

Expanding

a^n + x^n.a^n =/ c^n

then, taking the common factor a^n out

a^n(1+x^n) =/ c^n

then dividing through by a^n

1+x^n =/ c^n/a^n

Substitute y from the set of real numbers given by the fraction c/a, then

1+x^n =/ y^n

or:

y^n - x^n =/ 1

Factorizing:

x^n - y^n = (x - y)*(x^[n-1] + x^[n-2]*y + ... + y^[n-1]).

If the left side equals 1, then x > y, and x - y must be a positive
divisor of 1, namely 1. Then x = y + 1. Substitute that into the
second factor above, and set that second factor also equal to 1. That
should give you a contradiction. The contradiction means that the
assumption that the left side equals 1 must be false, and then you're
done.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
a and b are integers by hypothesis, so b = xa implies that x is an integer, so that b is actually an integer multiple of a. Is it okay to assume this?
 
  • #3
Dr. Seafood said:
a and b are integers by hypothesis, so b = xa implies that x is an integer, so that b is actually an integer multiple of a. Is it okay to assume this?

Huh? If b = 6 and a = 4, then x = 1.5.
 
  • #4
Why must x-y be an integer?
 
  • #5
Isn't that the assumption made in Fermat's Last Theorem?
The statement is that no solutions (x, y, z) exist for the Diophantine equation [itex]x^n + y^n = z^n[/itex] if n > 2.
 
  • #6
To prove the x^n-y^n is not equal to 1, you assume the opposite, so x^n-y^n=1, then you show this won't work... x (any y) are not integers, and there's no reason to suppose they are simply because a and b are, as JG89 shows by example. x is from the group of real numbers formed by fractions of two integers. y is from the same group (formed by c/a).

There must be an error somewhere - this is too easy a proof that took mathematicians many years to arrive at. The main difference I see is that we move from an integer problem to a real number problem (with an integer result - 1).
 
  • #7
barryn56 said:
x^n - y^n = (x - y)*(x^[n-1] + x^[n-2]*y + ... + y^[n-1]).

If the left side equals 1, then x > y, and x - y must be a positive
divisor of 1, namely 1.

x = b/a
y = c/a
x-y = (b-c)/a

That is not an integer, so you can't talk about divisibility.
 
  • #8
Yes, thinking some more about this, I realize the issue is that the re-arranged formula may actually have solutions for ANY real number x, y (i.e. there are an infinite number of solutions that can satisfy x^n-y^n=1), but Fermat's problem only allows a certain subset of the real numbers - those that can be produced by the ratio of two integers. So, IF you could prove that there were no solutions for all the real numbers, x and y, then you would also prove Fermats theorem, but this is probably not the case...
 
  • #9
barryn56 said:
Can someone point out the error in the following "proof":

Prove a^n + b^n =/ c^n for n>2, a,b,c>1 (=/ means not equal to)

Let b=xa where x>1 and is from the set of real numbers generated by fractions, such that b is an integer

so:

a^n + (xa)^n =/ c^n

Expanding

a^n + x^n.a^n =/ c^n

then, taking the common factor a^n out

a^n(1+x^n) =/ c^n

then dividing through by a^n

1+x^n =/ c^n/a^n

Substitute y from the set of real numbers given by the fraction c/a, then

1+x^n =/ y^n

or:

y^n - x^n =/ 1

Factorizing:

x^n - y^n = (x - y)*(x^[n-1] + x^[n-2]*y + ... + y^[n-1]).

If the left side equals 1, then x > y, and x - y must be a positive
divisor of 1, namely 1.
This is your error. Throughout, you have only required x and y to be rational numbers, not integers. So it does NOT follow that x- y is an integer divisor of 1.

Then x = y + 1. Substitute that into the
second factor above, and set that second factor also equal to 1. That
should give you a contradiction. The contradiction means that the
assumption that the left side equals 1 must be false, and then you're
done.

Added: that's pretty much what pwsnafu and barryn56 said before.
 
  • #10
OK, so it comes down to - given real numbers x and y, is there a (simple) proof that x^n-y^n =/ 1 for all n>2 or not?
 
  • #11
barryn56 said:
OK, so it comes down to - given real numbers x and y, is there a (simple) proof that x^n-y^n =/ 1 for all n>2 or not?
Well... assuming x,y are positive anyway x must be at least 1 and for any x>=1 , let y be the (positive, real) nth root of x^n-1. Then x^n-y^n=1.
 

Related to Simple proof of Fermat's theorem?

What is Fermat's theorem?

Fermat's theorem, also known as Fermat's Last Theorem, is a famous mathematical theorem first proposed by French mathematician Pierre de Fermat in the 17th century. It states that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than 2.

Why is Fermat's theorem important?

Fermat's theorem is important because it has a wide range of applications in mathematics and other fields such as cryptography. It also sparked centuries of attempts to prove the theorem, leading to the development of new mathematical techniques and theories.

What is a simple proof of Fermat's theorem?

A simple proof of Fermat's theorem refers to a proof that does not require advanced mathematical concepts or techniques. It is often sought after because Fermat's theorem is notoriously difficult to prove and simpler proofs are more easily understood by a wider audience.

Has Fermat's theorem been proven?

Yes, in 1995, British mathematician Andrew Wiles published a proof of Fermat's theorem using advanced mathematical concepts such as elliptic curves, modular forms, and Galois representations. His proof was later verified by other mathematicians, making it the first complete proof of Fermat's theorem.

Are there any other simpler proofs of Fermat's theorem?

There have been several attempts to prove Fermat's theorem using simpler methods, but none have been widely accepted and verified by the mathematical community. However, some variations of the theorem, such as the case where n = 4, have simpler proofs that are widely accepted.

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
988
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
668
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
761
Replies
4
Views
966
Back
Top