Proving Non-Equality of Cubes of Natural Numbers

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the equation \(a^3 + b^3 \neq c^3\) for natural numbers \(a\), \(b\), and \(c\). This is supported by Fermat's Last Theorem, established by Andrew Wiles, which asserts that there are no integer solutions to the equation \(x^n + y^n = z^n\) for \(n > 2\). While proving this for \(n=3\) is considered simpler, it remains a specific case of the theorem rather than a complete proof. Participants emphasize the necessity of advanced mathematical concepts such as group theory and Galois theory for a comprehensive understanding.

PREREQUISITES
  • Fermat's Last Theorem
  • Diophantine equations
  • Group theory
  • Galois theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem by Andrew Wiles
  • Explore Diophantine equations and their properties
  • Learn about group theory and its applications in number theory
  • Investigate Galois theory and its relevance to polynomial equations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of number theory, and anyone interested in the complexities of Fermat's Last Theorem and its implications in higher mathematics.

  • #31
mathbalarka said:
It's quite trivial to prove that.

Absolutely!My understanding

Let $$b^2$$ be an odd square number.There exists a pythagorean triple including $$b^2$$ because the odd number $$b^2$$ can form the last number of the string of consecutive odd numbers of another square number $$a^2$$.So there are PPTs as long as there are odd numbers and their squares,so they are infinite...
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #32
i have a little different approach to prove there are infinite triples ,(though its unnecessary)
let x,z be two variables ,
let x^2+z^2=(x+y)^2
then z^2=y^2+2xy =y(y+2x)
and if we consider y to be perfect square we can adjust x such that y+2x is perfect square
since there are infinite perfect squares there and infinite x's and thus we can find infinite z's thus there are infinite solutions to x^2+y^2=z^2

- - - Updated - - -

i tried applying same method to n=3 but i found myself cycling around ... :mad:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K