Solve Fermat's Equation: Leopold Kronecker UFD

  • Thread starter Kummer
  • Start date
In summary, Kummer's ideal complex numbers was a way to represent solutions to the equation y^3-27 = x^2-25 that had been explored before, but without unique factorization. Leopold Kronecker extended Kummer's ideas to solve this equation.
  • #1
Kummer
297
0
Consider the Diophantine equation:
[tex]y^3 = x^2 + 2[/tex]

Without using rational elliptic curves and unique factorization in [tex]\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-2}][/tex] how many different ways can you show that this equation has only a single solution.


Historical question: Who was the mathematician who created the concept of UFD? I think it was Leopold Kroneckor, am I correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Perhaps look at the sequence of cubes and squares mod 4.
 
  • #3
Gib Z said:
Perhaps look at the sequence of cubes and squares mod 4.
No hope for that line of attact since (4n+3)^3 = 3 mod 4 which is 2 more than an odd square mod 4.
I narrowed it down to proving that the equation

[tex]y^3-27 = x^2 -25[/tex] has only two solutions in integers which is y = 3 and x = +/-5. Both sides can be factored but I don't know how to proceed after that. Perhaps mod 25
 
Last edited:
  • #4
I don't understand, if you narrowed it down to proving the equation you posted has only 2 solutions in integers, and you found 2 solutions, aren't you done?

How did you narrow it down By the Way?
 
  • #5
Gib Z said:
I don't understand, if you narrowed it down to proving the equation you posted has only 2 solutions in integers, and you found 2 solutions, aren't you done?

How did you narrow it down By the Way?
I was already aware that 3^3 was 2 more than 5^2. But I am not sure that I have proven that there are only two solution sets to the equation, since each side is not necessarily equal to zero.
 
  • #6
ramsey2879 said:
I was already aware that 3^3 was 2 more than 5^2. But I am not sure that I have proven that there are only two solution sets to the equation, since each side is not necessarily equal to zero.
Further work
[tex](3+m)^{3} = (5+n)^{2} + 2[/tex] expands to
[tex] 27+27m + 9m^{2} + m^{3} = 25 + 10n + n^{2} + 2[/tex]
[tex]27m + 9m^{2} + {m}^3 = 10n + n^{2}[/tex]
[tex]m(27+9m + m^{2}) = n(10+n)[/tex]
So we have to prove that m=0 and n=0 or -10 are the only solution in integers to the equation immediately above
lets consider it mod 4 with m = 0,1,2,3 mod 4 respectively to see if the left side is either 0 or 3 which are the only right side choices. If m = 0 mod 4 is the only fit then I think we made progress.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
The approaches that you are using are called Elementary solutions to diophantine equations. They are the best ones but often the most difficult methods. According to E.T. Bell, Euler has spend 7 years solving this equation with elementary techinques. This shows how difficult it is without advanced methods in number theory.

But I was not asking for an elementary approach, for I believe it is too long. I was asking for other approaches I have never seen before.
 
  • #8
Kummer: Historical question: Who was the mathematician who created the concept of UFD? I think it was Leopold Kroneckor, am I correct?

I am surprised you would ask that! Wasn't it Kummer who thought he had solved Fermat's Last Theorem, until he discoverd the bit about unique factorization?


However, Wikipedia adds: "The extension of Kummer's ideas to the general case was accomplished independently by Kronecker and Dedekind during the next forty years." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_number

And here is another tidbit from the same source:

"It is widely believed that Kummer was led to his "ideal complex numbers" by his interest in Fermat's Last Theorem; there is even a story often told that Kummer, like Lamé, believed he had proven Fermat's Last Theorem until Dirichlet told him his argument relied on unique factorization; but the story was first told by Kurt Hensel in 1910 and the evidence indicates it likely derives from a confusion by one of Hensel's sources. Harold Edwards says the belief that Kummer was mainly interested in Fermat's Last Theorem "is surely mistaken"
 
Last edited:
  • #9
robert Ihnot said:
I am surprised you would ask that! Wasn't it Kummer who thought he had solved Fermat's Last Theorem, until he discoverd the bit about unique factorization?

I assumed it was him but mostly his student, Leopold Kronecker that extended some ideas of Kummer ideals and Unique Factorization.
 
  • #10
I think I have a short proof:

http://rayb07.blogspot.com/2007/08/fermat-equation.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
rayb07 said:
I think I have a short proof:
I do not understand it.
 
  • #12
Sorry, I don't have a proof, there's a simple error in it. My bad.
 
  • #13
rayb07 said:
Sorry, I don't have a proof, there's a simple error in it. My bad.
Not bad! It could be the new idea which Kummer asked for. Maybe, you just didn't follow it through properly.
You showed that if [tex] y^3[/tex] is an new candidate for Fermat's equation where [tex]y > 3[/tex] then there is an integer [tex]n> 0[/tex]solving
[tex]n^{2} + 10n +27 -y^{3} = 0[/tex] [3]




You futher said [3] is a quadratic equation, and its coefficients can be labelled a, b, and c. Further, you noted that "In order for n to be an integer, b2 - 4ac must be a perfect square, k"



which reduces to [tex]k^{2} = 4(y^{3}-2)[/tex]

Now [tex]y^{3}-2[/tex] is a square, call that square [tex]c^{2} | c>5[/tex]

Then [tex] n = -5 + c | n>0[/tex] by the quadratic formula.

Pluging that back into your equation we get

[tex]25-10c +c^{2} -50+10c +27 -y^{3}[/tex] = 0
[tex]c^{2} = y^{3}-2[/tex]

So your equation does check out but where to go after that I don't know
 
Last edited:
  • #14
The matter of unique factorization in [tex]\sqrt-2[/tex] can be side stepped to a certain extent. But it involves some difficulity.

X==-2 Mod p is true for p =8k+1, and p=8k+3. The next matter is to show that those primes can be expressed in the form p=a^2+2b^2, and, hopefully, uniquely so. (Maybe that can be assumed to be written up somewhere.)

Then it is no trouble to show that numbers in the form of s^2+2t^2 are closed under multiplication.

Thus we arrive at the fact that Y^3 is in the form of (a^2+2b^2)^3. The next problem to discover is just how many different ways can this be resolved. For example even though 5 in the form a^2+b^2 can only be expresssed as 2^2 +1^2, 5^3 = 11^2+2^2, and 10^2+5^2.

Now if we find (a^2+2b^2)^3 = (a^3+2ab^2)^2 + 2[(a^2)b+2b^3]^2, this will NOT give the answer, but its fine if a=1, b=1 to find 3^3=3^2+2(3^2)--should that be of some use now and then.

BUT, if we can get (a^3-6ab^2)^2 + 2[3(a^2)b-2b^3]^2. THIS WILL WORK for a=b=1.
And...less I forget to say, it is an easy matter to see that the form: 2b^2[3a^2-2b^2] =2. can only be resolved for the case a, b = [tex]\pm1[/tex]. (b doesn't matter and the answer for x is either [tex]\pm5[/tex].
 
Last edited:
  • #15
robert Ihnot said:
The matter of unique factorization in [tex]\sqrt-2[/tex] can be side stepped to a certain extent. But it involves some difficulity.

X==-2 Mod p is true for p =8k+1, and p=8k+3. The next matter is to show that those primes can be expressed in the form p=a^2+2b^2, and, hopefully, uniquely so. (Maybe that can be assumed to be written up somewhere.)

Then it is no trouble to show that numbers in the form of s^2+2t^2 are closed under multiplication.

Thus we arrive at the fact that Y^3 is in the form of (a^2+2b^2)^3. The next problem to discover is just how many different ways can this be resolved. For example even though 5 in the form a^2+b^2 can only be expresssed as 2^2 +1^2, 5^3 = 11^2+2^2, and 10^2+5^2.

Now if we find (a^2+2b^2)^3 = (a^3+2ab^2)^2 = 2[(a^2)b+2b^3]^2, this will NOT give the answer, but its fine if a=1, b=1 to find 3^3=3^2+2(3^2)--should that be of some use now and then.

BUT, if we can get (a^3-6ab^2)^2 + 2[3(a^2)b-2b^3]^2. THIS WILL WORK for a=b=1.
And...less I forget to say, it is an easy matter to see that the form: 2b^2[3a^2-2b^2] =2. can only be resolved for the case a, b = [tex]\pm1[/tex]. (b doesn't matter and the answer for x is either [tex]\pm5[/tex].
I am just beginning to study fields and your insight is very much appreciated. I have something else I want to take a look at also:
ramsey2879 said:
Still another variable "w" to add to the mix.
Let A(0) = 0, A(1) = 1, A(n) = 2*A(n-1)-A(n-2) + w
If w = 1 then you have the triangular series
If w = 2 then you have the series of squares
In general [tex]A_n = w*(n^2 -n)/2 + n[/tex] is a direct formula for [tex]A_n[/tex]

redefine [tex]D_{(b,n,m)[/tex] as:

[tex](A_{(n-b)}-m)*(A_{(n+2b)}-m) - (A_{(n+b)}-m)*(A_{(n-2b)}-m)[/tex]

Then
[tex]D_{(b,n,m)} = b(w*(2n-1)+2)*(A_{n} -wb^{2} -m)[/tex]
Now if [tex]w=-b[/tex] and [tex]m = A_{n}+2[/tex] we get
[tex]\frac{D_{(b,n,m)}}{2b-b^2(2n-1)} = b^3-2[/tex]
so the left hand side should be a square (25) only for b = 3 for all integer n.
 
Last edited:

1. What is Fermat's Equation?

Fermat's Equation, also known as Fermat's Last Theorem, is a mathematical problem first posed by Pierre de Fermat in the 17th century. It states that there are no positive integer solutions to the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than 2. This equation has been proven to be true by Andrew Wiles in 1994.

2. Who is Leopold Kronecker?

Leopold Kronecker was a German mathematician who worked in the 19th century. He is known for his contributions to number theory and algebra, and is credited with the development of the theory of algebraic number fields. He also made significant contributions to the development of the theory of UFDs (unique factorization domains).

3. What does UFD stand for?

UFD stands for Unique Factorization Domain. It is a type of algebraic structure in which every non-zero element can be uniquely expressed as a product of prime elements. In other words, every element can be factored into a unique combination of smaller elements.

4. How does Leopold Kronecker's work relate to Fermat's Equation?

Kronecker's work in developing the theory of UFDs is relevant to Fermat's Equation because the equation itself can be expressed as a UFD. This means that any solution to the equation must follow the rules of UFDs, providing a framework for solving the equation.

5. Why is solving Fermat's Equation important?

Solving Fermat's Equation has been a longstanding and famous problem in mathematics, and its solution has implications for other areas of mathematics such as number theory and algebraic geometry. It also serves as a challenging problem for mathematicians to work on and continue advancing the field of mathematics.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
128
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
847
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
2
Replies
61
Views
7K
Back
Top