Fermat's Last Theorem - Exponent Three

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Brimley
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponent Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Fermat's Last Theorem, specifically focusing on the case of exponent 3 and whether it can be proven that if \(x^3 + y^3 = z^3\) for rational integers \(x\), \(y\), and \(z\), then at least one of these integers must be zero. Participants explore historical attempts at proof and the implications of different exponents.

Discussion Character

  • Historical
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the possibility of proving that \(x^3 + y^3 = z^3\) implies \(x\), \(y\), or \(z\) is zero.
  • Another participant mentions that Fermat's Last Theorem does not apply to exponents 1 and 2 and notes Euler's early attempts at proving the case for exponent 3, referencing the use of Eisenstein numbers.
  • A historical note is provided about Fermat's original note on the theorem and Euler's proof, which was acknowledged to have an omission.
  • One participant expresses a belief that exponent 4 might be the easiest case, suggesting a potential misunderstanding regarding the nature of the exponents being discussed.
  • Another participant asserts that Fermat provided a proof for the case of exponent 4, although this claim is noted to be somewhat disputed.
  • A later reply acknowledges the historical context and expresses gratitude for the information shared about the proofs of various cases.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the proofs related to various exponents, particularly regarding the cases of exponents 3 and 4. There is no consensus on the ease or difficulty of proving the theorem for these exponents, nor on the validity of Fermat's claims regarding exponent 4.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of proving Fermat's Last Theorem for different exponents and the historical context surrounding these proofs. Some assumptions about the nature of the proofs and their implications remain unresolved.

Brimley
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Hello Physics Forums,

I read around and saw a few examples for Fermat's last theorem for exponents 1 and 2, but I was wondering if this can be proven for exponent 3. That is:

Proof that IF [itex]x^3+y^3=z^3[/itex], where [itex]x,y,[/itex] and [itex]z[/itex] are rational integers, then [itex]x, y,[/itex] or [itex]z[/itex] is [itex]0[/itex].

Can this be done?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Professor Google may have the answer for you. He never sleeps.
 
Fermat's Last Theorem does not apply for exponents 1 and 2. The proof for n=3 was first attempted by Euler. The proof used by Hardy and Wright, An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers, involves the Eisenstein numbers, i.e. a+bu, where u represents the cube root of 1. This involves a certain amount of difficulity.
 
A further historical note: Fermat is assumed to have written his famous note about his Last Theorem in the margin around 1673. (He did not publish on the matter.) But it was not until 1770, more than 130 years later, that Euler came up with his proof, which was correct but contained an omission.

So one has to see how difficult this problem would prove for amateurs knowing little math. In fact, in 200 years the only cases proven were 3,5,7.
 
i always thought 4 was the easiest and hence presumably first case. perhaps you are thinking of prime exponents, but since the case 2 has solutions, you still seem to need to do the case of exponent 4.
 
Robert: thanks for the history. my post was inspired by this quote in yours:

" In fact, in 200 years the only cases proven were 3,5,7."
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K