Is there a general equation for finding pth powers when p is greater than 2?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PFanalog57
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the exploration of a general equation for finding pth powers when p is greater than 2. Participants examine specific cases, propose equations, and challenge the validity of the claims made regarding the relationship between different powers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a general equation: X^p + p*M + [Y-X] = Y^p, providing specific examples for various values of X, Y, and p.
  • Another participant suggests that to prove the equation, one must show that p is a factor of the expression y^p - y - x^p + x, although they express uncertainty about how to do this.
  • A different participant questions the validity of the initial claims, implying that the examples provided may not hold universally and that the approach lacks rigorous proof.
  • One participant mentions Fermat's little theorem, suggesting it may support the claim but acknowledges confusion regarding the original author's intent.
  • Another participant reiterates that the expression p*M + [Y-X] is not a "pth" power for p > 2, challenging the validity of the proposed equation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity of the proposed equation and its applicability for p > 2. There is no consensus on whether the examples provided are sufficient to support the claims made.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for rigorous proof and raise concerns about the generalization of the proposed equation. There are unresolved questions about the mathematical steps required to validate the claims.

PFanalog57
Messages
384
Reaction score
0
A general equation for Y > X :

X^p + p*M + [Y-X] = Y^p

3^3 + 3*12 + 1 = 4^3


3^3 + 3*32 + 2 = 5^3


3^3 + 3*62 + 3 = 6^3


3^3 + 3*104 + 4 = 7^3


3^3 + 3*160 + 5 = 8^3


3^3 + 3*232 + 6 = 9^3



[...]
4^3 + 3*20 + 1 = 5^3


4^3 + 3*50 + 2 = 6^3


4^3 + 3*92 + 3 = 7^3


4^3 + 3*148 + 4 = 8^3


4^3 + 3*220 + 5 = 9^3



[...]

X^p + p*M + N = Y^p


It also works for p = 2,5,7, etc...?


3^2 + 2*3 + 1 = 4^2


3^2 + 2*7 + 2 = 5^2


3^2 + 2*12 + 3 = 6^2


3^2 + 2*18 + 4 = 7^2


[...]


4^5 + 5*420 + 1 = 5^5

4^5 + 5*1350 + 2 = 6^5

4^5 + 5*3156 + 3 = 7^5

[...]


X^p + p*M + [Y - X] = Y^p
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Correct me if I am wrong, but to prove that you need to show that for y > x that p is a factor of [itex]y^p - y - x^p + x[/itex]. I don't know how to do that, but perhaps you do.
 
Don't you? You just pick examples where it's true and don't bother about the obvious fact it's false.
 
matt grime said:
Don't you? You just pick examples where it's true and don't bother about the obvious fact it's false.
Really? I've not got something on me where I can easily write a program to find a counter example but running a few million values through Excel I can't find one.
 
actually, I'm doing a slight disservice there, since fermat's little theorem gives you that it is always true. i got carried away with the fact it was something russell wrote and was probably either trivial or false. had i looked more closely i'd have realized it was the first of those. if he ever actually explained using words what he meant he might be clearer
 
Last edited:
matt grime said:
actually, I'm doing a slight disservice there, since fermat's little theorem gives you that it is always true. i got carried away with the fact it was something russell wrote and was probably either trivial or false. had i looked more closely i'd have realized it was the first of those. if he ever actually explained using words what he meant he might be clearer


X^p + p*M + [Y-X] = Y^p

Y^p - X^p = p*M + [Y-X]

p*M + [Y-X]

is not a "pth" power for p > 2
 
Russell E. Rierson said:
X^p + p*M + [Y-X] = Y^p

Y^p - X^p = p*M + [Y-X]

p*M + [Y-X]

is not a "pth" power for p > 2
Eh? Matt said Fermat's little theorem not Fermat's last theorem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K