Does the elegant proof to the Fermats last theorem exists?

In summary, the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture is an important mathematical conjecture that bridges two seemingly disconnected fields of mathematics. The proof of the theorem is relatively simple, but it required the development of new fields of mathematics to prove it.
  • #1
robert80
66
0
Just wondering, what do you think? Does it exist in its elegant and marvelous form?

kind regards,

Robert KM
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
robert80 said:
Does it exist in its elegant and marvelous form?
Yes. It's Wiles' proof of the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture. This is incredibly elegant and also incredibly profound.

Fermat's Last Theorem was pretty much a useless little conjecture in mathematics. It wasn't pivotal. (Pivotal: a concept from which many others depend, or a concept bridges multiple areas of science/mathematics.) There weren't any theorems of the sort "If Fermat's Last Theorem is true then ..." Compare to the Riemann hypothesis, which is a pivotal conjecture. The Taniyama-Shimura conjecture is of huge importance because it bridges two apparently disconnected fields of mathematics.

The proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in a sense is trivial. It's Ribet's theorem, which quickly showed that if the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture is true then so is Fermat's Last Theorem. The trick was to prove the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture. Wiles' well-deserved fame arises from his proof of this very pivotal conjecture. His proof is elegant. That Wiles indirectly proved Fermat's Last Theorem is secondary.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
If you mean "did Fermat have a proof slightly larger than could be written in that famous margin", the answer is "No". What happened, I suspect, is what happens to mathematicians all the time- when he wrote that, he had what he thought was an insight into the problem that only require a little "expanding" to give a proof- and the next morning when he tried to work out the "expansion", he found it didn't work!

And the evidence is that, years later, he published proofs of the special cases, n= 3, 4, and 5. He wouldn't have done that if he already had a proof for all n.
 
  • #4
HallsofIvy said:
If you mean "did Fermat have a proof slightly larger than could be written in that famous margin", the answer is "No". What happened, I suspect, is what happens to mathematicians all the time- when he wrote that, he had what he thought was an insight into the problem that only require a little "expanding" to give a proof- and the next morning when he tried to work out the "expansion", he found it didn't work!

And the evidence is that, years later, he published proofs of the special cases, n= 3, 4, and 5. He wouldn't have done that if he already had a proof for all n.


It seems to me Fermat only proved the case n = 4. Cases n = 3,5,7 we re proved way later by Euler, Legendre, Dirichlet, Gauss and others.

DonAntonio
 
  • #5
Thanks for your answers. I just think Fermat wouldn't lie nor to be wrong. So I was thinking that there is a proof in its fully divine form, simply waiting somewhere. But after so many years with no success with elegance, or let's say shortness instead (since Wiles proof seem to be very elegant), there is not much hope... But the proof if supposing it exists, could be based more on logic that on mathematics...All in all I don't intend to spend any more time on that issue. I was just curious what other think and searching for someone on that Forum, who believes that the Fermats proof exists :)
 
Last edited:
  • #6
robert80 said:
Thanks for your answers. I just think Fermat wouldn't lie nor to be wrong.

Er...why? Did you know him? Mathematicians are wrong all the time, they just don't publish anything until it's been thoroughly examined. Wiles had to construct entirely new fields of mathematics to prove the theorem; there is no reason to believe that Fermat had such a wonderfully simple proof, especially given that, as HallsofIvy said, he felt the need to publish proofs of special cases years later (which would have been completely pointless if he did, in fact, have a proof of the general case).
 
  • #7
Perhaps, he was an idealist and didnt want to publish general proof. He anyway did more than a lot. I believe there are some creative Mathematicians, who have wonderful proofs at home in their drawer, I am not applying to anything, but there is a possibility that someone in Russia has proved something important, but being so unsatisfied with the world he lives in, he is not willing to share his proof. I think there are few such in the world. Can you stand this possibility?

But somebody who has proof of something in Math doesn't have to be a mathematician after all. I see creativity as universal fact and there are some very creative let's say Pizza makers. So the creativity occurs in various fields. So creative people in majority follow their interests. I mean its independent of the skills.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
But to be honest, I doubt it too. I have found a pattern what is wrong with most of the proofs attempts with algebra. It is impossible to find general proof. When you find semi proof and you think its ok, there is a counterexample or some special case it does not work for. When you think you proved that, there is a counterexample in this sub group of proof 2. And so on... At the end you get I believe n "proofs" for Fermats last theorem :) And this has no sense, since its proved already :) maybe this is the right way to prove, that the general proof other than Wiles proof does not exist :) Maybe in Wiles solution its hidden the fact, that this is the only way to prove it. This would have some additional added value.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
robert80 said:
Perhaps, he was an idealist and didnt want to publish general proof. He anyway did more than a lot. I believe there are some creative Mathematicians, who have wonderful proofs at home in their drawer, I am not applying to anything, but there is a possibility that someone in Russia has proved something important, but being so unsatisfied with the world he lives in, he is not willing to share his proof. I think there are few such in the world. Can you stand this possibility?
"Possiblility", yes. But you don't seem to see the difference between saying something is possible and saying it is true.

But somebody who has proof of something in Math doesn't have to be a mathematician after all. I see creativity as universal fact and there are some very creative let's say Pizza makers. So the creativity occurs in various fields. So creative people in majority follow their interests. I mean its independent of the skills.
Yes, creative people exist in all fields. But being "creative" is not enough. A creative pizza maker has to have skills in pizza making, a creative artist has to have painting skills, a creative musician has to have music skills. And a creative mathematician has to have mathematics skills.

robert80 said:
But to be honest, I doubt it too. I have found a pattern what is wrong with most of the proofs attempts with algebra. It is impossible to find general proof. When you find semi proof and you think its ok, there is a counterexample or some special case it does not work for. When you think you proved that, there is a counterexample in this sub group of proof 2. And so on... At the end you get I believe n "proofs" for Fermats last theorem :) And this has no sense, since its proved already :) maybe this is the right way to prove, that the general proof other than Wiles proof does not exist :) Maybe in Wiles solution its hidden the fact, that this is the only way to prove it. This would have some additional added value.
I have no idea what you mean by this. It certainly is possible to find a "general proof" of many things. The fact that we have general proofs of many things shows that. No, I don't believe that Wile's proof is the "only way to prove it". There are manys to prove anything in mathematics. But I doubt that anyone will find a proof of "Fermat's last theore" that is much simpler than Wiles' proof.
 
  • #10
HallsofIvy said:
"Possiblility", yes. But you don't seem to see the difference between saying something is possible and saying it is true. Yes, creative people exist in all fields. But being "creative" is not enough. A creative pizza maker has to have skills in pizza making, a creative artist has to have painting skills, a creative musician has to have music skills. And a creative mathematician has to have mathematics skills. I have no idea what you mean by this. It certainly is possible to find a "general proof" of many things. The fact that we have general proofs of many things shows that. No, I don't believe that Wile's proof is the "only way to prove it". There are manys to prove anything in mathematics. But I doubt that anyone will find a proof of "Fermat's last theore" that is much simpler than Wiles' proof.
Thanks for your kind answer.
It seems logical that, when you have 1 proof of some theory or theorem, there are infinite proofs present, the only question which exist is, which is the most simple. So yeah, Perhaps its Wiles, but there will be doubt for a long time still.

Just the explanation of n proofs with algebra. When you try to do it either way. Sooner or later you get product of 2 factors which are not coprime, so making out of them 2 coprime numbers, proving for that, that raises another 2 factors which are not coprime to each other. And so on...This is the main problem with fake Fermats proofs.

But when I first heard for his proof I tried to prove it with geometry, forming the Fermats triangle and putting Pitagora in. But knowing very little of number theory, I couldn't find the contradiction between rational and irrational numbers when I wrote the equations. So yeah, you could try something different, but the lack of skills lead you to absolutely no result.

And there is another problem with Fermats proof with coprime and semi prime solution. If you suppose solution exists, than this solution when exist could be based on billions of primes combined in a equation... So that's another argument, there is no simple solution, not for Fermats and certainly not for Beals conjecture. I hope Wiles will find the proof for it, as far as I understand he is among few who knows his proof in details. So there are not much options as I see it.
 
Last edited:

1. What is the Fermat's Last Theorem?

The Fermat's Last Theorem is a mathematical conjecture proposed by Pierre de Fermat in the 17th century. It states that no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of n greater than 2.

2. Why is the Fermat's Last Theorem important?

The Fermat's Last Theorem is important because it has puzzled mathematicians for centuries and has been considered one of the most difficult mathematical problems to solve. It also has implications in various fields such as number theory, algebra, and cryptography.

3. Has the elegant proof to the Fermat's Last Theorem been found?

Yes, in 1994, Andrew Wiles, a British mathematician, presented a proof to the Fermat's Last Theorem after working on it for over seven years. His proof has been accepted by the mathematical community and is considered to be the most elegant and comprehensive one to date.

4. What makes Wiles' proof elegant?

Wiles' proof is considered elegant because it uses advanced mathematical concepts and techniques such as elliptic curves, modular forms, and Galois representations. It also builds upon the work of other mathematicians, including Frey, Ribet, and Taniyama, to establish a connection between seemingly unrelated areas of mathematics.

5. Are there any alternative proofs to the Fermat's Last Theorem?

Although Wiles' proof is widely accepted, there have been a few alternative proofs proposed by other mathematicians. These include the proof by Taylor and Wiles, Ribet's proof using elliptic curves, and the proof by Faltings using algebraic geometry. However, these proofs are not as comprehensive and elegant as Wiles' proof.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
494
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
706
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
6
Views
495
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
326
Back
Top