Fermat’s Last Theorem: A one-operation proof

In summary: Fermat's little theorem says that if a number n is prime then: a^n - a is divisible by n (a can be any integer I think). So we have a^n-a divisible by n... b^n-b divisible by n... c^n-c divisible by n... so their sum is divisible by n...(a^n + b^n + c^n) - (a + b + c) is divisible by n...0 - (a+b+c) is divisible by n...so (a + b + c) is divisible by n... and (a+b+c)_1 = 0.I have made a mistake in the previous message (with minuses instead of pluses)!Thanks,vsIn
  • #1
Victor Sorokine
70
0
Eight months have passed since the first time when an elementary proof of FLT was found, laid down and proposed to the attention of 70 mathematicians (they have asked for it; most of them are specialized in numbers theory). About 1,000 individuals visited internet sites with the text of the proof. However, no positive nor negative opinions have been expressed so far.

The idea of the elementary proof of the Fermat’s Last Theorem (FLT) proposed to the reader, is extremely simple:
After splitting the numbers a, b, c into pairs of sums, then grouping them in two sums U' and U'' and multiplying the equation a^n + b^n – c^n = 0 by 11^n (i.e. 11 power n, and the numbers a, b, c by 11), the (k+3)-th digit from the right in the number a^n + b^n – c^n (where k is the number of zeroes at the end of the number a + b – c) is not equal to 0 (the numbers U' and U'' are “multiplied” in a different way!). In order to understand the proof, you only need to know the Newton Binomial, the simplest formulation of the Fermat’s Little Theorem (included here), the definition of the prime number, how to add numbers and multiplication of a two-digit number by 11. That’s ALL! The main (and the toughest) task is not to mess up with a dozen of numbers symbolized by letters.
The redaction of the text dates of June 1, 2005 (after a discussion on the Faculty of Mathematics of Moscow University site).

The texts of the proof can be found on following sites:
English version of the demonstration (4kb): Revista Foaie Matematică: www.fmatem.moldnet.md/1_(v_sor_05).htm

Russin version in pdf : http://fox.ivlim.ru/docs/sorokine/vtf.pdf

FORUMS (Russian-language):
http://lib.mexmat.ru/forum/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=3fefd56c6fe2fa0e361464672ea92292 ;
http://forum.dubinushka.ru/index.php?showforum=40 [Broken] ; http://www.scientific.ru/dforum/altern - page 7.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
www.fmatem.moldnet.md/1_(v_sor_05).htm

This link does not work for me.
 
  • #4
I can not follow the notation. What is the meaning of: Everywhere in the text
[tex]a1^10.[/tex] (Which is written in red.)?
 
  • #5
robert Ihnot said:
I can not follow the notation. What is the meaning of: Everywhere in the text
[tex]a1^10.[/tex] (Which is written in red.)?

In the all publications:
"Everywhere in the text a1 ≠ 0."
or: a_1 =/ 0 (the last digit of the number "a" =/ 0).
Thank,
vs
 
  • #6
I agree, it is difficult to read, and not all statements are justified.

Statement 9, in particular: you've asserted that [itex]u''_{k+2} = [v + (a_{k+1} + b_{k+1} - c_{k+1})_2]_1[/itex], and the only assumption that's been invoked on a, b, and c is that the last digit of a + b - c is zero, and that the last nonzero digit is 5. You've given no proof of that assertion, and I can provide a counterexample:

In this example, n = 13. All numbers are written in base 13.

a = 400
b = 206
c = 286

so that

u = a + b - c = 350
u' = 0
u'' = 350
v = 4
[itex]u''_3 = 3[/itex]
[itex]a_2 + b_2 - c_2 = -8[/itex]
[itex](a_2 + b_2 - c_2) = 0[/itex]
[itex]v + (a_2 + b_2 - c_2)_2 = 4[/itex]
[itex][v + (a_2 + b_2 - c_2)_2]_1 = 4[/itex]
So that [itex]u''_3 \neq [v + (a_2 + b_2 - c_2)_2]_1[/itex]
 
  • Like
Likes chwala
  • #7
wow I have no clue what hurkyl just said =(
 
  • #8
What is meant by this in section 0.2:

[Digits in negative numbers are <<negative>>]
 
  • #9
Hurkyl said:
I agree, it is difficult to read, and not all statements are justified.

...you've asserted that ... the only assumption that's been invoked on a, b, and c is that the last digit of a + b - c is zero. ... You've given no proof of that assertion, and I can provide a counterexample:

In this example, n = 13. All numbers are written in base 13.

a = 400
b = 206
c = 286
...
[/itex]

Dear Hurkyl,

1. From a^n + b^n – c^n = 0 and from Fermat’s Little Theorem for (a_1, b_1, c_1) =/ 0 we have: (a_1 + b_1 – c_1)_1 = 0 (= u_1).

2. Your example:
a = 400, b = 206, c = 286 and (abc)_1 = 0
is not Case 1, where (abc)_1 =/ 0.

Your example:
a = 400, b = 206, c = 286, k =2, u = c-b and c-b = 286 – 206 = 80 has 1 zero in the end
is not Case 2, where u = c-b, c-b has (cf. §1) kn-1 = 2x13 – 1 = 25 zeros in the end.

Respectfully yours,
vs.
 
  • #10
learningphysics said:
What is meant by this in section 0.2:

[Digits in negative numbers are <<negative>>]

Digits in negative numbers are <<negative>> =
= all digits (=/ 0) in negative numbers are negative.
vs
 
  • #11
None of this makes any sense to me: Victor Sorokine: From a^n + b^n – c^n = 0 and from Fermat’s Little Theorem for (a_1, b_1, c_1) =/ 0 we have: (a_1 + b_1 – c_1)_1 = 0 (= u_1).

What is (a_1, b_1, c_1) ? or the next statement: (a_1 + b_1 – c_1)_1 = 0 (= u_1)?
 
  • #12
robert Ihnot said:
None of this makes any sense to me: Victor Sorokine: From a^n + b^n – c^n = 0 and from Fermat’s Little Theorem for (a_1, b_1, c_1) =/ 0 we have: (a_1 + b_1 – c_1)_1 = 0 (= u_1).

What is (a_1, b_1, c_1) ? or the next statement: (a_1 + b_1 – c_1)_1 = 0 (= u_1)?

robert,
a_1 refers to the last digit of a (in base n)

Fermat's little theorem says that if a number n is prime then: a^n - a is divisible by n (a can be any integer I think). So we have a^n-a divisible by n... b^n-b divisible by n... c^n-c divisible by n... so their sum is divisible by n...

(a^n - a) + (b^n-b) - (c^n-c) is divisible by n so...
(a^n + b^n - c^n) - (a + b - c) is divisible by n...
0 - (a+b-c) is divisible by n...
so
(a + b - c) is divisible by n...
(a + b - c)_1 (last digit of a+b-c) = 0... since the number is in base n and divisible by n the last digit must be zero...

Then it's possible to show that:
a_1 + b_1 + c_1=0
 
  • #13
learningphysics said:
...Then it's possible to show that:
a_1 + b_1 + c_1=0

Thanks,
vs
 
  • #14
Victor Sorokine: Then it's possible to show that:
a_1 + b_1 + c_1=0

WEll, I am not sure if base 11 has something to do with this, and, very possibly, Hurkyl is arguing about: You've given no proof of that assertion, and I can provide a counterexamplle: In this example, n = 13. All numbers are written in base 13.

I am reminded of Able's submission to the French Academy, and after two years Able wondered why he had not heard. http://www.shu.edu/projects/reals/history/abel.html [Broken] Unfortunately, the Academy picked Legendre and Cauchy as referees to judge it. The former, who was in his seventies, claimed that he could not read the handwriting and left all the work to the latter. The latter, who was much more interested in his own work and possibly just a bit jealous, brought the work home and promptly "misplaced" it.

learning physics: (a + b - c)_1 (last digit of a+b-c) = 0... since the number is in base n and divisible by n the last digit must be zero... Who said anything about writing it in base n, how can that change the fundamental properties? Anyway that does not effect a+b+c, since if a+b-c==a+b+c ==0 Mod n, then for n not 2, c is divisible by n, is that what you are saying? If so no one for centuries thought that obvious, let alone in only a few short steps; if, I have this right, what you mean is to assert that n, the power of the exponent, a prime, must divide one of the terms, particularly c to boot!


You mention 70 mathematicians and 1000 internet hits, possibly if the paper was rewritten and the notation easier to understand, you might get a better response.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Your PDF says that case 1 is that [itex](bc)_1 \neq 0[/itex].

Anyways, it doesn't matter: how about this one:

a = 507
b = 105
c = 58C (C in base 13 = 12 in base 10)

My calculations again show statement 9 to be in error.
 
  • #16
robert Ihnot said:
learning physics: (a + b - c)_1 (last digit of a+b-c) = 0... since the number is in base n and divisible by n the last digit must be zero... Who said anything about writing it in base n

That's part of his paper... writing it in base n... Anyway this is what I meant:

(a+b-c)_1 =0

where (a+b-c)_1 is the last digit of a+b-c... I didn't mean multiplication by the last digit of a+b-c. Sorry about that.
 
  • #17
learningphysics: That's part of his paper... writing it in base n... Anyway this is what I meant: (a+b-c)_1 =0

Well if you look at definition 1, 1* let us assume that [tex]a_n+b_n-c_n [/tex]= 0.

From what is above it in the paper, it would mean that we are talking about the nth digit of an expression related by the equation (never even defined as) [tex]a^n+b^n=c^n[/tex], where n is a prime conventionally expressed as p. (This assumes we have n digits to speak of, or maybe n is just a dummy variable that runs from n=1, n=?)

HOWEVER, he might be talking about modulo n, which has never, as usual, been defined as the meaning. I somehow think it is the second meaning, possibly.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
robert Ihnot said:
Victor Sorokine: Then it's possible to show that:
a_1 + b_1 + c_1=0
WEll, I am not sure if base 11 has something to do with this, and, very possibly, Hurkyl is arguing about: You've given no proof of that assertion, and I can provide a counterexamplle: In this example, n = 13. All numbers are written in base 13.

Where is a mstake:
1. (a^(n-1))_1 = 1 (Little FT).
2. [(a^(n-1))_1 x a_1]_1 = a_1 = a^n_1.
3. (a^n_1 + b^n_1 – c^n_1)_1 = (a_1 + b_1 – c-1)_1 = u_1.
vs
 
  • #19
Hurkyl said:
Your PDF says that case 1 is that [itex](bc)_1 \neq 0[/itex].

Anyways, it doesn't matter: how about this one:

a = 507
b = 105
c = 58C (C in base 13 = 12 in base 10)

My calculations again show statement 9 to be in error.

Let the digits in base 13: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9+1 = X [=10 in base 10], X+1 = Y [=11], Y+1 = Z [=12];
Z+1 = 10 [=13], 10+1 = 11 [=14]…
Let a = 507, b = 105, c = 58Z. Then:
u = 507 + 105 – 58Z = 60Z – 58Z = 20.
k = 1.
u' = 7 + 5 – Z = 0.
u'' = u – u' = 500 + 100 – 580 = 20.
v = 5 + 1 – 5 = 1.(a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_2 = (0 + 0 – 8)_2 = 0.
u''_(k+2)= [v + (a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_2]_1 = 1 + 0 = 1 = (–1, 0 or 1).
OK?
vs
 
  • #20
Victor Sorokine said:
Let the digits in base 13: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9+1 = X [=10 in base 10], X+1 = Y [=11], Y+1 = Z [=12];
Z+1 = 10 [=13], 10+1 = 11 [=14]…
Let a = 507, b = 105, c = 58Z. Then:
u = 507 + 105 – 58Z = 60Z – 58Z = 20.

In the above 60Z-58Z = 50.

k = 1.
u' = 7 + 5 – Z = 0.
u'' = u – u' = 500 + 100 – 580 = 20.

So if k=1, then u''_(k+2) = 0.

u''_(k+2)= [v + (a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_2]_1 = 1 + 0 = 1 = (–1, 0 or 1).

u''_(k+2) = 0, but [v + (a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_2]_1 = 1, so the equation is false it seems.
 
  • #21
Victor Sorokine: 3. (a^n_1 + b^n_1 – c^n_1)_1 = (a_1 + b_1 – c-1)_1 = u_1.

What are you saying by a^n_1, a raised to the last digit in n? I don't think so. Everyone assumes that a^n+b^n-c^n = 0, though you have never bothered to even state as much. What I think you mean by a^n_1 is the last digit in a^n; do you ever read any mathematical literature? Why can't you just follow convention?:

[tex]a^n+b^n-c^n=0 \equiv a+b-c\equiv0 Mod (n)[/tex]

As for the final u_1, what on Earth is that? Is it defined? I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
I don't know of any particular convention for denoting the k-th digit of a number, so :tongue2:.

u was defined to be a + b - c, so I thought it was pretty clear u_1 meant the last digit of u, anyways.
 
  • #23
learningphysics said:
In the above 60Z-58Z = 50.

So if k=1, then u''_(k+2) = 0.

u''_(k+2) = 0, but [v + (a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_2]_1 = 1, so the equation is false it seems.
Yes:
(9°) u''_{k+2} = [v + (a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_k+2]1, where (a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_ {k+2} = (–1, 0 or 1);

Let a = 507, b = 105, c = 58Z. Then:
u = 507 + 105 – 58Z = 60Z – 58Z = 50.
k = 1.
u' = a_1 + b_1 – c_1 = 7 + 5 – Z = 0.
u'' = u – u' = 500 + 100 – 580 = 50.
v = 5 + 1 – 5 = 1.
(a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_3 = (07 + 05 – 8Z)_ 3 = (0Z – 8Z)_ 3 = 0.
u''_(k+2)= [v + (a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_ 3]_1 = 1 + 0 = 1 = (–1, 0 or 1).
OK?
vs
 
  • #24
robert Ihnot said:
Victor Sorokine: 3. (a^n_1 + b^n_1 – c^n_1)_1 = (a_1 + b_1 – c-1)_1 = u_1.

Certainly: 3. (a^n_1 + b^n_1 – c^n_1)_1 = (a_1 + b_1 – c-1)_1 = 0.

vs
 
  • #25
Hurkyl said:
I don't know of any particular convention for denoting the k-th digit of a number, so :tongue2:.

u was defined to be a + b - c, so I thought it was pretty clear u_1 meant the last digit of u, anyways.

Yes. u_1 = 0.
vs
 
  • #26
Hurkly: u was defined to be a + b - c, so I thought it was pretty clear u_1 meant the last digit of u, anyways.

Well, if you want to guess about it, but more conventionally the writer could begin by introducing u as: Let u represent... A person might have thought it was defined somewhere else.
 
  • #27
Victor Sorokine said:
Yes:
(9°) u''_{k+2} = [v + (a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_k+2]1, where (a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_ {k+2} = (–1, 0 or 1);

Let a = 507, b = 105, c = 58Z. Then:
u = 507 + 105 – 58Z = 60Z – 58Z = 50.
k = 1.
u' = a_1 + b_1 – c_1 = 7 + 5 – Z = 0.
u'' = u – u' = 500 + 100 – 580 = 50.

So u''_{k+2} = 0, where k=1.

v = 5 + 1 – 5 = 1.
(a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_3 = (07 + 05 – 8Z)_ 3 = (0Z – 8Z)_ 3 = 0.
u''_(k+2)= [v + (a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_ 3]_1 = 1 + 0 = 1 = (–1, 0 or 1).

u''_(k+2) = 0... but [v + (a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_ 3]_1 = 1 so the equation still seems false.

Is u''_(k+2) = 0 when k=1 and u''=50? I'm just looking at the third digit from the right of u'', which is 0.
 
  • #28
Well, if you want to guess about it, but more conventionally the writer could begin by introducing u as: Let u represent... A person might have thought it was defined somewhere else.

Statement 2° in his PDF:

Let u = a + b - c ...
 
  • #29
Hurkyl: Statement 2° in his PDF:
Let u = a + b - c ...


I see that is correct.
 
  • #30
Victor Sorokine said:
Yes:
(9°) u''_{k+2} = [v + (a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_k+2]1, where (a_(k+1)
+ b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_ {k+2} = (–1, 0 or 1);
But the pdf version reads
(9°) u''_{k+2} = [v + (a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_2]_1, where (a_(k+1)
+ b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_ 2 = (–1, 0 or 1);
Victor Sorokine said:
Yes:
Let a = 507, b = 105, c = 58Z. Then:
u = 507 + 105 – 58Z = 60Z – 58Z = 50.
k = 1.
u' = a_1 + b_1 – c_1 = 7 + 5 – Z = 0.
u'' = u – u' = 500 + 100 – 580 = 50.
v = 5 + 1 – 5 = 1.
(a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_3 = (07 + 05 – 8Z)_ 3 = (0Z – 8Z)_ 3 = 0.
But (a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) + c_(k+1))_2 = (a_2 + b_2 - c_2)_2 = (0+0-8)_2
= -8_2 = 0?

Thus
u''_{k+2} = 50_3 = 0 <> (1+0)_1 = 1?

This seems to be a contradiction at first, but -8 is equivalent to -10 + 5 thus this must be that occasion where (a_2 + b_2 - c_2)_2 = -1. I can think of no other logical reason that -1 could result.

Thus -8_2 in my mind should equal -1 which then gives u''_3 = 0 which is correct!
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Hurkyl said:
Your PDF says that case 1 is that [itex](bc)_1 \neq 0[/itex].
In introductory notes, Victor also rules out a_1 as equaling 0. This does not cause a problem as at least one of a_1 and b_1 <> 0.
Hurkyl said:
Anyways, it doesn't matter: how about this one:

a = 507
b = 105
c = 58C (C in base 13 = 12 in base 10)

My calculations again show statement 9 to be in error.

But look at my analysis of this in my last post which I edited just previously. I think there is no contradiction of statement 9 here!
 
  • #32
There is by the way Victor defines his terms... the second digit of -8 is not -1, it's 0.

I think I'd prefer some n's complement type thing, where -80 would actually be the left-infinite triskadecimal1 number ...CCCC50. (Adding 80 to this would yield 0)

In any case, if you would rather the second digit of -8 to be -1, then that should require that the first digit be a 5... does that mess anything up?

In any case, we'll have to wait and see if Victor likes one of these alterations, and sees if it works out the kinks in his logic. (And I still maintain it would be nice to see proofs of all steps)


1: I don't know if this is the standard term, or if there is even a standard.
 
  • #33
Hurkyl said:
In any case, we'll have to wait and see if Victor likes one of these alterations, and sees if it works out the kinks in his logic. (And I still maintain it would be nice to see proofs of all steps)

I also would like Victor to explain this more as his last post is a contradiction. It seems that his statements are so brief, that it is difficult for even the author to fully understand what is exactly meant upon reading them. I think the failure to fully set out the logical steps that lead to each statement adds to the confusion here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes chwala
  • #34
For Hurkyl, robert Ihnot, learningphysics and ramsey2879

learningphysics said:
So u''_{k+2} = 0, where k=1.

u''_(k+2) = 0... but [v + (a_(k+1) + b_(k+1) – c_(k+1))_ 3]_1 = 1 so the equation still seems false.

Is u''_(k+2) = 0 when k=1 and u''=50? I'm just looking at the third digit from the right of u'', which is 0.

Dear Hurkyl, robert Ihnot, learningphysics and ramsey2879,
thank you very much for your help! Your criticism is polite and constructive.
The example of Hurkyl is exellent!

About u''_(k+2), or u''_(3).
Accurate difinition (for a = 507, b = 105, c = 58Z, Z = 7+5, k =1):
u' = 7 + 5 – Z = 0, u'' = u – u' = 500 + 100 – 580 = 50; u''_{3} = 0;
v = (a_{3} + b_{3} – c_{3})_1 = 1 (cf 4°);
(a_(2) + b_(2) – c_(2))_{3} = (–1, 0 or 1) = (00 + 00 – 80)_{3} = (–100 + 2)_{3} = –1;

From (9°):
u''_{3} = [v + (a_(2) + b_(2) – c_(2))_3]_1 = (1 – 1) = 0.
 
  • #35
Victor Sorokine said:
Dear Hurkyl, robert Ihnot, learningphysics and ramsey2879,
thank you very much for your help! Your criticism is polite and constructive.
The example of Hurkyl is exellent!

About u''_(k+2), or u''_(3).
Accurate difinition (for a = 507, b = 105, c = 58Z, Z = 7+5, k =1):
u' = 7 + 5 – Z = 0, u'' = u – u' = 500 + 100 – 580 = 50; u''_{3} = 0;
v = (a_{3} + b_{3} – c_{3})_1 = 1 (cf 4°);
(a_(2) + b_(2) – c_(2))_{3} = (–1, 0 or 1) = (00 + 00 – 80)_{3} = (–100 + 2)_{3} = –1;

From (9°):
u''_{3} = [v + (a_(2) + b_(2) – c_(2))_3]_1 = (1 – 1) = 0.
First how do you obtain -100 + 2, should not it be -100 + 50? And isn't this a contradiction that negative numbers are negative at every digit?
I think you need to amend your statement or definitions to explain how exactly the sum in u'' (other than v) can equal either -1, 0 or 1, particularly when does it occur that 1 is substracted from v. Is not -8_{2} or -80_{3}in fact = 0 using your initial definitions?
I also think an explanation needs to be made how you got from [v + (a_{k+1} + b_{k+1} - c_{k+1})]_{2}, which is how your pdf version reads, to [v + (a(k+1) + b(k+1) - c(k+1))]_{3}. The former just uses the digits in the (k+1)th position, or (0+0-8) evaluated at the 2nd position of this sum, while the latter uses the numbers comprised of the last k+1 digits evaluated at the k+2 position, or (07+05-8Z)_{3}. I think it can be shown that this discrepancy does not make a difference since the digits in positions k or less cancel out with no borrow from the k+1 position since u(k) = 0 . There could be a carry over to the k+1 position but 1 substracted from 5 in the k+1 position does not affect any carry to or borrow from the k+2 position.
 
<h2>1. What is Fermat's Last Theorem?</h2><p>Fermat's Last Theorem is a mathematical conjecture proposed by French mathematician 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.</p><h2>2. What is the significance of a "one-operation proof" for Fermat's Last Theorem?</h2><p>A "one-operation proof" refers to a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem that only uses one mathematical operation. This is significant because previous attempts at proving the theorem required multiple operations and were often very complex and difficult to understand. A one-operation proof would provide a simpler and more elegant solution to this famous mathematical problem.</p><h2>3. Who first proposed a one-operation proof for Fermat's Last Theorem?</h2><p>In 1995, British mathematician Andrew Wiles presented a proof for Fermat's Last Theorem that only used one operation, specifically modular forms. This proof was later verified by other mathematicians and is now widely accepted as a valid proof for the theorem.</p><h2>4. What is the impact of the one-operation proof for Fermat's Last Theorem?</h2><p>The one-operation proof for Fermat's Last Theorem has had a significant impact on the field of mathematics. It not only solved a famous and long-standing problem, but it also introduced new techniques and ideas that have been applied to other mathematical problems. It also solidified the importance of rigorous proof and sparked further research in number theory and algebraic geometry.</p><h2>5. Are there any remaining questions or controversies surrounding the one-operation proof for Fermat's Last Theorem?</h2><p>While the one-operation proof for Fermat's Last Theorem is widely accepted, there are still some debates and discussions among mathematicians about certain aspects of the proof. Some argue that it relies on advanced mathematical concepts that may be difficult for non-experts to understand, while others question the validity of certain assumptions made in the proof. However, these controversies do not diminish the significance of the proof and it remains a major achievement in the field of mathematics.</p>

1. What is Fermat's Last Theorem?

Fermat's Last Theorem is a mathematical conjecture proposed by French mathematician 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. What is the significance of a "one-operation proof" for Fermat's Last Theorem?

A "one-operation proof" refers to a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem that only uses one mathematical operation. This is significant because previous attempts at proving the theorem required multiple operations and were often very complex and difficult to understand. A one-operation proof would provide a simpler and more elegant solution to this famous mathematical problem.

3. Who first proposed a one-operation proof for Fermat's Last Theorem?

In 1995, British mathematician Andrew Wiles presented a proof for Fermat's Last Theorem that only used one operation, specifically modular forms. This proof was later verified by other mathematicians and is now widely accepted as a valid proof for the theorem.

4. What is the impact of the one-operation proof for Fermat's Last Theorem?

The one-operation proof for Fermat's Last Theorem has had a significant impact on the field of mathematics. It not only solved a famous and long-standing problem, but it also introduced new techniques and ideas that have been applied to other mathematical problems. It also solidified the importance of rigorous proof and sparked further research in number theory and algebraic geometry.

5. Are there any remaining questions or controversies surrounding the one-operation proof for Fermat's Last Theorem?

While the one-operation proof for Fermat's Last Theorem is widely accepted, there are still some debates and discussions among mathematicians about certain aspects of the proof. Some argue that it relies on advanced mathematical concepts that may be difficult for non-experts to understand, while others question the validity of certain assumptions made in the proof. However, these controversies do not diminish the significance of the proof and it remains a major achievement in the field of mathematics.

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
705
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
26
Views
6K
Back
Top