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

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Terry Coates
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the mathematical statements involving odd integers and modular arithmetic, specifically questioning if there are alternative solutions beyond the case where A equals B plus C. The original poster conducted a Qbasic program analysis up to certain limits but found no additional solutions, suggesting a potential proof of Fermat's Last Theorem for odd n. However, the thread emphasizes that failing to find counterexamples does not constitute proof of a general rule. The moderator intervened, highlighting the importance of independent proof rather than relying solely on examples, and closed the thread for moderation. The conversation underscores the complexity of proving mathematical conjectures and the necessity for rigorous proof beyond empirical evidence.
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 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 Terry Coates
Back
Top