MHB Is Fermat's Last Theorem Solvable for n=4 Using Pythagorean Triples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mente oscura
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a proposed demonstration of Fermat's Last Theorem for n=4, focusing on the impossibility of finding integer solutions for the equation x^4 + y^4 = z^4 using Pythagorean triples. The author presents a method involving the breakdown of variables into coprime factors and explores the implications of common elements in Pythagorean triples. A key point raised is the challenge of proving that two Pythagorean triples cannot share two common elements, which is central to the argument. Participants engage in clarifying the assumptions made about the factors and the coprimality conditions necessary for the proof. The discussion concludes with a consensus on the correctness of the approach while addressing specific mathematical nuances.
mente oscura
Messages
167
Reaction score
0
Hello.

I share with you , a demonstration, which authorship is mine.

I do not know, if it exists, similar other one.Section A) demonstration Fermat’s Last Theorem, for n = 4.

Let \ A, \ B, \ C \ \in{\mathbb{N}} / A, \ C \ = \ odd; \ B \ = \ even \ / A^2+B^2=C^2

(*)We consider, as possible:

A=x^2

B=y^2

C=z^2

So:

x^4+y^4=z^4

According to the "traditional" formulas, to obtain "Pythagorean Triplet":

A=M^2-N^2

B=2MN

C=M^2+N^2

Properties:

1ª)

C+B=M^2+N^2+2MN=(M+N)^2

C+B=z^2+y^2=(M+N)^2. Por (*)

2ª)

C-B=M^2+N^2-2MN=(M-N)^2

C-B=z^2-y^2=(M-N)^2. Por (*)

Conclusion: we get two "Pythagorean triplet", in which two of its elements are equal.

z^2+y^2=(M+N)^2

z^2-y^2=(M-N)^2

Consideration: If we show that it is not possible that two "Pythagorean triplet", have two common elements, we will have shown the Fermat Last Theorem, for n = 4.

Section B) demonstration of the impossibility of that, two "Pythagorean triplet", have two common elements:

Let \ a, \ b, \ c \ \in{\mathbb{N}} / a, \ c \ = \ odd; \ b \ = \ even \ / a^2+b^2=c^2.(1)

Sean \ d, \ b, \ c \ \in{\mathbb{N}} / d, \ c \ = \ odd; \ b \ = \ even \ / c^2+b^2=d^2.(2)

Considerations:

1º) a, b, c, d, co-prime, so are primitive Pythagorean Triplets.

2º) “c” It is the odd small, which meets (1) y (2)Option 1º)

a^2+b^2=c^2

a=m^2-n^2

b=2mn

c=m^2+n^2Option 2º)

c^2+b^2=d^2

c=u^2-v^2

b=2uv

d=u^2+v^2

Course: "m" and "n" co-prime, same as "u" and "v".

By Option 1º) y Option 2º):

b=2mn=2uv

I'm going to break down "b" in four co-prime factors: "e", "f", "g" and "h", such that:

b=2efgh

And, we assign, for example:

m=ef

n=gh

u=eg

v=fh

Being: e=mcd(m,u), f=mcd(m,v), g=mcd(n,u), h=mcd(n,v)

Note: “mcd”= greatest common divisor.

Now, using the other element common to the Pythagorean Triplets: "c"

c=m^2+n^2=e^2f^2+g^2h^2

c=u^2-v^2=e^2g^2-f^2h^2

Therefore:

e^2f^2+g^2h^2= e^2g^2-f^2h^2

g^2h^2+f^2h^2= e^2g^2-e^2f^2

h^2(g^2+f^2)=e^2(g^2-f^2)

To be "h" and "e" co-prime, and, also, g^2+f^2 y g^2-f^2, (note that "g" or "f" should be "evenr"), it follows that:

h^2=g^2-f^2

e^2=g^2+f^2

Thus, we have other two Pythagorean Triplets with two common elements, but:

c \ > \ g

Since:

c=m^2+n^2>n^2=g^2h^2>g^2>g

It is not possible, since we had considered "c", as the odd minor who met the conditions (1) and (2).

Whereupon, demonstrated the Section B)" and, therefore, also the "Section A)", concluding the impossibility of:

x^4+y^4=z^4


Regards.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I haven't checked through all of your proof, but yes, your approach is absolutely correct : the main step towards FLT4 is to prove that there can't be any 4-tuple $(a, b, c, d)$ satisfying $a^2 + b^2 = c^2$ and $b^2 + c^2 = d^2$. The standard step actually is to rearrange and multiply both sides to get $(ad)^2 = c^4 - b^4$ and it can be shown by infinite descent that $x^4 - y^4 - z^2$ over $\Bbb C^3$ has no integer points over it.

EDIT : Hold it. I don't understand your step when you break up $b$ in 4 coprime factors $e, f, g$ and $h$. $b = 2mn = 2uv$ is absolutely correct and upto that I agree, and as a conclusion $mn = uv$, but I am not sure why you are assuming that $(m, n, u, v) = (ef, gh, eg, fh)$. How about $(m, n, u, v) = (pqr, xyz, pxy, qrz)$? In that case $m$ and $n$ are coprime, so are $u$ and $v$ and $m \cdot n = u \cdot v = xyzpqr$ also.

So my point is why break $b$ in $\boxed{4}$ parts? Why not $6$ or $8$ parts, like I did above?
 
Last edited:
mathbalarka said:
I haven't checked through all of your proof, but yes, your approach is absolutely correct : the main step towards FLT4 is to prove that there can't be any 4-tuple $(a, b, c, d)$ satisfying $a^2 + b^2 = c^2$ and $b^2 + c^2 = d^2$. The standard step actually is to rearrange and multiply both sides to get $(ad)^2 = c^4 - b^4$ and it can be shown by infinite descent that $x^4 - y^4 - z^2$ over $\Bbb C^3$ has no integer points over it.

EDIT : Hold it. I don't understand your step when you break up $b$ in 4 coprime factors $e, f, g$ and $h$. $b = 2mn = 2uv$ is absolutely correct and upto that I agree, and as a conclusion $mn = uv$, but I am not sure why you are assuming that $(m, n, u, v) = (ef, gh, eg, fh)$. How about $(m, n, u, v) = (pqr, xyz, pxy, qrz)$? In that case $m$ and $n$ are coprime, so are $u$ and $v$ and $m \cdot n = u \cdot v = xyzpqr$ also.

So my point is why break $b$ in $\boxed{4}$ parts? Why not $6$ or $8$ parts, like I did above?

Hello.

where is the problem?

b=2mn=2uv=2xyzpqr

According to your example:

m=pqr

n=xyz

u=pxy

v=qrz

We operate:

c=m^2+n^2=p^2q^2r^2+x^2y^2z^2

c=u^2-v^2=p^2x^2y^2-q^2r^2z^2

p^2q^2r^2+x^2y^2z^2=p^2x^2y^2-q^2r^2z^2

q^2r^2(p^2+z^2)=x^2y^2(p^2-z^2)

q^2r^2=p^2-z^2

x^2y^2=p^2+z^2

Two Pythagorean Triplets with two common elements, but:

c \ > \ p

c=m^2+n^2=p^2q^2r^2+x^2y^2z^2

Therefore:

c \ > \ p^2 \ > \ p

Regards.
 
Excellent, you have made it clear that even $4$ or $8$ or higher factors would result the same. I'll move on to the next point :

mente oscura said:
e^2f^2+g^2h^2= e^2g^2-f^2h^2

g^2h^2+f^2h^2= e^2g^2-e^2f^2

h^2(g^2+f^2)=e^2(g^2-f^2)

To be "h" and "e" co-prime, and, also, g^2+f^2 y g^2-f^2, (note that "g" or "f" should be "evenr"), it follows that:

h^2=g^2-f^2

e^2=g^2+f^2

I don't understand this bit. $h$ and $e$ are coprime, yes, as $(m, n) = 1$, but why are $g^2 + f^2$ and $g^2 - f^2$ relatively coprime too? Please clarify.

[Note : If $ab = xy$, it is necessary condition to have $(a, x) = (b, y) = 1$ to conclude $a = y$ and $b = x$. Take for example, $5 \cdot 4 = 2 \cdot 10$, where $4$ and $10$ have nontrivial gcd]
 
mathbalarka said:
Excellent, you have made it clear that even $4$ or $8$ or higher factors would result the same. I'll move on to the next point :
I don't understand this bit. $h$ and $e$ are coprime, yes, as $(m, n) = 1$, but why are $g^2 + f^2$ and $g^2 - f^2$ relatively coprime too? Please clarify.

[Note : If $ab = xy$, it is necessary condition to have $(a, x) = (b, y) = 1$ to conclude $a = y$ and $b = x$. Take for example, $5 \cdot 4 = 2 \cdot 10$, where $4$ and $10$ have nontrivial gcd]

Hello.

I have considered that "g" or "f" is an even number. Only one.

You can choose, what is the pair, and see how the result is similar.

In this case, the show is trivial:

Let \ i \ , \ j \in{\mathbb{N}} \ / one \ is \ even \ and \ the \ other \ odd

If \ k |(i+j) \ and \ k |(i-j) \rightarrow{} k | (i+j+i-j) \rightarrow{}k|i

If \ k |(i+j) \ and \ k |(i-j) \rightarrow{} k | (i+j-i+j) \rightarrow{}k|j

Conclusion:

"i" and "j" they are not coprime.

Regards.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
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...
Back
Top