MHB Fermat's Theorem: Did Fermat Have a Proof?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether Fermat had a proof for his famous theorem. Participants express skepticism that Fermat possessed a valid proof for all integers, suggesting he may have believed he had one but later realized it was flawed. The mention of Fermat publishing proofs for specific cases (n=3 and n=5) supports the idea that he did not have a general proof. Additionally, the consensus is that if a simpler proof existed, it would likely have been discovered by the many mathematicians who explored the theorem over the centuries. Overall, the discussion leans towards the belief that Fermat did not have a proof that would withstand scrutiny.
Fermat1
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
In your opinion did Fermat have a proof for his theorem?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hey, if Fermat doesn't know!

My opinion (and it is only an opinion) is that what happened is what happens to all of us. Fermat thought that he had a simple proof, wrote a quick note to that effect, then went to bed. And discovered when he tried to carry out the proof, that he it did not work. That is supported by the fact that after he wrote that, he published proofs of the theorem for the cases n= 3 and 5. He wouldn't have done that if he had a proof for all n.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Hey, if Fermat doesn't know!

My opinion (and it is only an opinion) is that what happened is what happens to all of us. Fermat thought that he had a simple proof, wrote a quick note to that effect, then went to bed. And discovered when he tried to carry out the proof, that he it did not work. That is supported by the fact that after he wrote that, he published proofs of the theorem for the cases n= 3 and 5. He wouldn't have done that if he had a proof for all n.

I share your opinion on this. :D
 
To my mind it doesn't really make sense that this kind of problem doesn't have a more elementary (less artificial I mean) solution. Having said that, if Fermat had a proof, he would have written it
 
Fermat said:
To my mind it doesn't really make sense that this kind of problem doesn't have a more elementary (less artificial I mean) solution. Having said that, if Fermat had a proof, he would have written it

Considering the monumental giants who tackled the problem during the centuries it remained unresolved, I tend to think that if a more elementary proof of the theorem existed, it very likely would have been found. :D
 
Definitely agree he did not have a proof that would hold up. I would be very curious to see what it was though.

There was an even better video on the subject I saw once, but this one is also interesting.

 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...

Similar threads

3
Replies
105
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top