Elementary published (but possibly flawed) proof of FLT

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlephZero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elementary Proof
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
6,983
Reaction score
299
I stumbled across this in an obituary article for its author: Prof Chike Obi (1921-2008), reputed to be the first Sub-Saharan African to hold a doctorate in Maths (Cambridge, 1947), later at MIT, returned to Nigeria (Univ of Ibadan) in 1959.

He claimed to have discovered an elementary proof that could have been created by Fermat. It was published in about 1997 in the US journal "Algebra, Groups and Geometries", Vol 15, special issue #3, pp 289-298.

The obit article simply says "However it has been questioned whether this elementary proof stands up".

Is this, and/or any discussion of it and/or attempts to fix it, in the public domain (i.e. accessible free by non-academics)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Following the references on his wikipedia page, I found a short review of the proof said to have been published in Mathematical Reviews:

This is a naive attempt to prove Fermat's last theorem using techniques known only in Fermat's days. This time the error is on the bottom of page 292. The author states
that some numbers, having nothing to do with the equation, satisfy a_{0}^2+b_{0}^2=c_{0}^2. The conclusion is that a certain case of Fermat's last theorem is
solved. Using this technique one could prove any conjecture made in mathematics.

Reviewed by F. Beukers
http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/PEEPS/obi-chike-fermat-review.html

but I searched the website of Mathematical Reviews and could not find it. It seems there is no electronic version of the original article by Obi and to see it you would need to spend money to have it mailed to you even if you have institutional access to most journals. I also found a reference to the proof and review in a Nigerian newspaper:
So, like others, I was elated beyond measure when, in his golden years, Professor Chike Obi decided to tackle the problem of “Fermat's Last Theorem” (using only methods known at the time of Fermat) instead of joining the latter-day pack of politicians to loot and ruin Nigeria. After all, he was a politician of note in the early days of the Republic, and he could well have joined the present band to enrich himself at the expense of our country. Yet, he pursued intellectual rigor rather than filthy lucre. Sadly, an error was reported in Chike Obi's paper by Dr. Frits Beukers of the Netherlands. He simply pointed out where the error was in the paper and that was the end of the story.
http://tribunengrworld.com/give-gabriel-oyibo-a-break-2592230.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Back
Top