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

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Terry Coates
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conditions under which a set of modular arithmetic statements can all be true, particularly focusing on odd integers and their implications for Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT). Participants explore potential solutions and counterexamples, examining the validity of claims related to specific values of A, B, C, and n.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that when n is odd, the equations hold true if A = B + C, but this may not be the only solution.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty and agrees with the initial claim, indicating they cannot find alternative solutions.
  • A third participant conducted a computational search for solutions up to certain limits and concludes that no other solutions exist, while leaving open the possibility for larger values of A or n.
  • One participant notes that omitting one of the conditions and setting n = 2 leads to Pythagorean triples, suggesting a different context for the equations.
  • A later reply challenges the method of proving general rules through counterexamples, emphasizing that failing to find counterexamples does not constitute proof.
  • Another participant provides an example of a polynomial that appears to yield prime numbers for several integer inputs but ultimately fails for a specific case, reinforcing the argument against proving general rules based solely on limited examples.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach consensus on whether the proposed conditions are the only solutions. There are competing views regarding the validity of using counterexamples to prove general rules, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in proving general mathematical claims based on finite examples, as well as the dependence on specific definitions and assumptions regarding the modular arithmetic statements.

Terry Coates
Messages
39
Reaction score
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
Hm ... I can't see any other way.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Terry Coates said:
in which case here is a simple proof of FLT with n odd.
Hmmm...

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...
 
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   Reactions: berkeman
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   Reactions: Terry Coates

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 96 ·
4
Replies
96
Views
12K