Understanding Fermat's Last Theorem: A General Overview

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ahrkron
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT), its proof, and the connections to right triangles and the Tamiyama-Shimura conjecture. Participants express varying levels of understanding and approaches to the theorem, exploring its implications and related concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks a general overview of how FLT was proven, indicating that detailed proofs may not be suitable for the forum.
  • Another participant suggests that proving the non-existence of right triangles for n > 2 is a viable approach, although they express uncertainty about its validity.
  • A link to an external resource is provided, which discusses the proof and its connections.
  • There is mention of Wiles reducing the length of his proof, though specifics are not recalled by participants.
  • Questions arise about the connection between the equation xn + yn = zn for n > 2 and right triangles, with some participants clarifying that the resultant does not yield a right triangle in this case.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the conditions under which a triangle with sides a, b, c would not be a right triangle, with some participants noting that this does not directly relate to FLT.
  • One participant introduces a tangential topic about the study of religion, which is noted as off-topic by others.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between right triangles and FLT, with some clarifying points while others challenge the relevance of certain statements. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the connections and implications of the theorem.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the definitions and implications of terms used in the discussion, particularly regarding the nature of the "resultant" and the conditions for triangles related to FLT.

ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
755
Reaction score
2
Does anyone have a general idea about how the theorem was proven?

The details, of course, are not suitable for posting in the forum. What I'd like to find is the general overview of the theorem from which FLT was obtained as a corollary.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Respectfully, as one who tried (succeeded?) at this one, all you really need to do is prove is that, for all values of n > 2 the resultant is no longer a right angle triangle.

At least that was how I went about it, some success, but I suspect it isn't a viable as I would have liked it to be as I ended up needing to sort of take a shortcut to arrive at conclusive proof.
 
The story of the proof, and its connection to the Tamiyama-Shimura conjecture, is told here .
 
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
The story of the proof, and its connection to the Tamiyama-Shimura conjecture, is told
Had heard that Mr. Wiles had reduced (the length) his proof using some (easier) algebra...down from the original at 'X' (sorry don't recall right now) hundred pages.
 
What possible connection could xn+yn= zn for n> 2 have with a right triangle?

And when you say "the resultant is no longer a right angle triangle", what "resultant" are you talking about??
 
Originally posted by HallsofIvy
What possible connection could xn+yn= zn for n> 2 have with a right triangle?
And when you say "the resultant is no longer a right angle triangle", what "resultant" are you talking about??
Because at the value of 2 it produces a right angle triangle, Pythagoran (sp?) theorem, and all values greater then 2 (n > 2) will NOT result in a right angle triangle. OK?
 
I think you MEAN that "if you have a triangle with sides of length a, b, c and such that an+ bn= cn with n and integer greater than 2, then the triangle is not a right triangle." That's surely true but I don't see what it has to do with Fermat's Last Theorem. For one thing, it says nothing about a, b, c being integers.
 
Originally posted by HallsofIvy
I think you MEAN that "if you have a triangle with sides of length a, b, c and such that an+ bn= cn with n and integer greater than 2, then the triangle is not a right triangle." That's surely true but I don't see what it has to do with Fermat's Last Theorem. For one thing, it says nothing about a, b, c being integers.
No it doesn't, but it is an approach to the problem, none the less.
 
  • #10
By the way, to recognize a "church" as a separate entity says nothing about recognizing what it says as true of false- only accepting that it DOES say something. I have a friend who is a professor of religion. She was quick to correct someone who referred to her as a professor of "theology"- her point is that to study something you must believe it exists. To study theology (the study of God) you must believe God exists. To study religion, you only need to believe that religions exist.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by HallsofIvy
By the way, to recognize a "church" as a separate entity says nothing about recognizing what it says as true of false- only accepting that it DOES say something. I have a friend who is a professor of religion. She was quick to correct someone who referred to her as a professor of "theology"- her point is that to study something you must believe it exists. To study theology (the study of God) you must believe God exists. To study religion, you only need to believe that religions exist.
Kinda off topic are we, please, either PM, or start a new thread.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
12K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
10K
  • · Replies 456 ·
16
Replies
456
Views
32K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K