Is there another way that these statements can all be true?

  • I
  • Thread starter Terry Coates
  • Start date
In summary: In other words, showing that something is true for the first 100, or 1000, or even 10^100 cases does not guarantee that it will always be true. This is why we require rigorous mathematical proofs, which use logical reasoning and mathematical principles to demonstrate that something is true for all possible cases.
  • #1
Terry Coates
39
2
When n is odd
(B^n + C^n) MOD A = 0
A^n MOD (B+ C) = 0
(A^n - B^n) MOD C = 0
C^n MOD (A - B) = 0
(A^n - C^n) MOD B = 0
B^n MOD (A - C) = 0

The only way I can find is when A = B + C and n is any odd integer
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hm ... I can't see any other way.
 
  • #3
I've written a Qbasic program to look for any other way with powers up to 39 and A up to 600 but no other way found. So I conclude that there is no other way.

Perhaps there is a way with much higher powers and/or of A.

Nice if this way can be proved to be the only way.
 
  • #4
Note if you omit (B^n + C^n) MOD A = 0 and put n = 2 there are all the Pythaqorean triples that satisfy all the other five statements.

Since no replies so far to show that there are other ways with n odd (and greater than one), it looks as if there are none, in which case here is a simple proof of FLT with n odd.
 
  • #5
Terry Coates said:
in which case here is a simple proof of FLT with n odd.
Hmmm...

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...
 
  • #6
You cannot prove a general rule by looking for small counterexamples.

Are ##n^{17} + 9## and ##(n+1)^{17} + 9## always coprime? If you check all n starting from 1 you'll never find a counterexample. Does that prove there is no counterexample? No, and indeed the claim is wrong: n=8424432925592889329288197322308900672459420460792433 is the first counterexample.

We know that there are no counterexamples to Fermat's last theorem of course, as there is a proof. But that doesn't mean you can prove it in different ways just by looking for counterexamples, failing to find them (of course you won't find any) and then just stopping somewhere. You have to independently prove that there cannot be any counterexamples. As this thread does nothing in that aspect, it will stay closed.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #7
mfb said:
You cannot prove a general rule by looking for small counterexamples.
An even simpler example:
Question: Is ##x^2 + x + 41## prime, with x an integer value?
If x = 1, we get ##1^2 + 1 + 41 = 43## -- prime
If x = 2, we get ##2^2 + 2 + 41 = 47## -- prime
If x = 3, we get ##3^2 + 3 + 41 = 53## -- prime
If x = 4, we get ##4^2 + 4 + 41 = 61## -- prime
If x = 5, we get ##5^2 + 5 + 41 = 71## -- prime
If x = 6, we get ##6^2 + 6 + 41 = 83## -- prime
We can continue with this exercise for many more values of x, producing a prime at each step. It would seem reasonable to conclude from these examples that ##x^2 + x + 41## must be prime.

However, if x = 40, we get ##40^2 + 40 + 41 = 40^2 + 40 + 40 + 1 = 40^2 + 2 \cdot 20 + 1 = (40 + 1)^2##, which is a perfect square, so obviously not prime.
To rephrase what @mfb said, "No specific number of examples will suffice to prove a general rule."
 
  • Like
Likes Terry Coates

What does it mean for statements to be true?

Statements are considered true if they accurately reflect reality or correspond to facts. In science, statements are often evaluated based on evidence and experimentation.

Can multiple statements be true at the same time?

Yes, it is possible for multiple statements to be true at the same time. In science, different theories or explanations can coexist if they are supported by evidence and can both accurately explain a phenomenon.

What is the importance of having multiple true statements?

Having multiple true statements allows for a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of a topic or phenomenon. It also allows for the development of new theories and ideas based on existing knowledge.

Is there a limit to the number of statements that can be true?

In theory, there is no limit to the number of statements that can be true. However, in practice, there may be limitations based on current knowledge, evidence, and the ability to accurately measure and observe certain phenomena.

How can conflicting statements both be true?

Conflicting statements can both be true if they are referring to different aspects or perspectives of a topic. They can also both be true if they are based on different levels of analysis or different types of evidence.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
657
Replies
1
Views
750
  • General Math
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
837
  • General Math
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
365
Replies
5
Views
362
  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
731
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top