Solve Fermat's Equation: Leopold Kronecker UFD

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kummer
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the Diophantine equation y3 = x2 + 2, exploring methods to demonstrate that it has only a single solution. Participants also delve into historical aspects of unique factorization domains (UFD) and the contributions of mathematicians like Leopold Kronecker and Ernst Eduard Kummer.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests examining the sequence of cubes and squares modulo 4 as a potential approach.
  • Another participant argues that this approach is not viable, noting that certain cubic forms do not align with odd squares modulo 4.
  • There is a discussion about narrowing down the problem to proving a related equation, y3 - 27 = x2 - 25, has only two integer solutions.
  • Some participants express confusion over the implications of finding two solutions, questioning whether that concludes the proof.
  • One participant proposes a method involving modular arithmetic and factorization to explore integer solutions further.
  • Another participant mentions the historical context of UFD, attributing the concept to Kronecker and discussing Kummer's contributions and misconceptions regarding Fermat's Last Theorem.
  • A participant shares a link to a purported proof but later admits to an error in it.
  • Further discussions involve the complexity of elementary solutions to Diophantine equations and the historical challenges faced by mathematicians like Euler.
  • Some participants explore the implications of unique factorization in the context of the equation and related forms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to prove the uniqueness of the solution to the equation. Multiple competing views and methods are presented, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the effectiveness of the proposed techniques.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the completeness of their proofs and the validity of their approaches, indicating that assumptions and definitions may need clarification. The discussion also highlights the historical context of UFD and its relevance to the problem at hand.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying number theory, particularly in the context of Diophantine equations and unique factorization domains, as well as individuals interested in the historical development of these mathematical concepts.

Kummer
Messages
296
Reaction score
0
Consider the Diophantine equation:
[tex]y^3 = x^2 + 2[/tex]

Without using rational elliptic curves and unique factorization in [tex]\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-2}][/tex] how many different ways can you show that this equation has only a single solution.


Historical question: Who was the mathematician who created the concept of UFD? I think it was Leopold Kroneckor, am I correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps look at the sequence of cubes and squares mod 4.
 
Gib Z said:
Perhaps look at the sequence of cubes and squares mod 4.
No hope for that line of attact since (4n+3)^3 = 3 mod 4 which is 2 more than an odd square mod 4.
I narrowed it down to proving that the equation

[tex]y^3-27 = x^2 -25[/tex] has only two solutions in integers which is y = 3 and x = +/-5. Both sides can be factored but I don't know how to proceed after that. Perhaps mod 25
 
Last edited:
I don't understand, if you narrowed it down to proving the equation you posted has only 2 solutions in integers, and you found 2 solutions, aren't you done?

How did you narrow it down By the Way?
 
Gib Z said:
I don't understand, if you narrowed it down to proving the equation you posted has only 2 solutions in integers, and you found 2 solutions, aren't you done?

How did you narrow it down By the Way?
I was already aware that 3^3 was 2 more than 5^2. But I am not sure that I have proven that there are only two solution sets to the equation, since each side is not necessarily equal to zero.
 
ramsey2879 said:
I was already aware that 3^3 was 2 more than 5^2. But I am not sure that I have proven that there are only two solution sets to the equation, since each side is not necessarily equal to zero.
Further work
[tex](3+m)^{3} = (5+n)^{2} + 2[/tex] expands to
[tex]27+27m + 9m^{2} + m^{3} = 25 + 10n + n^{2} + 2[/tex]
[tex]27m + 9m^{2} + {m}^3 = 10n + n^{2}[/tex]
[tex]m(27+9m + m^{2}) = n(10+n)[/tex]
So we have to prove that m=0 and n=0 or -10 are the only solution in integers to the equation immediately above
lets consider it mod 4 with m = 0,1,2,3 mod 4 respectively to see if the left side is either 0 or 3 which are the only right side choices. If m = 0 mod 4 is the only fit then I think we made progress.
 
Last edited:
The approaches that you are using are called Elementary solutions to diophantine equations. They are the best ones but often the most difficult methods. According to E.T. Bell, Euler has spend 7 years solving this equation with elementary techinques. This shows how difficult it is without advanced methods in number theory.

But I was not asking for an elementary approach, for I believe it is too long. I was asking for other approaches I have never seen before.
 
Kummer: Historical question: Who was the mathematician who created the concept of UFD? I think it was Leopold Kroneckor, am I correct?

I am surprised you would ask that! Wasn't it Kummer who thought he had solved Fermat's Last Theorem, until he discoverd the bit about unique factorization?


However, Wikipedia adds: "The extension of Kummer's ideas to the general case was accomplished independently by Kronecker and Dedekind during the next forty years." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_number

And here is another tidbit from the same source:

"It is widely believed that Kummer was led to his "ideal complex numbers" by his interest in Fermat's Last Theorem; there is even a story often told that Kummer, like Lamé, believed he had proven Fermat's Last Theorem until Dirichlet told him his argument relied on unique factorization; but the story was first told by Kurt Hensel in 1910 and the evidence indicates it likely derives from a confusion by one of Hensel's sources. Harold Edwards says the belief that Kummer was mainly interested in Fermat's Last Theorem "is surely mistaken"
 
Last edited:
robert Ihnot said:
I am surprised you would ask that! Wasn't it Kummer who thought he had solved Fermat's Last Theorem, until he discoverd the bit about unique factorization?

I assumed it was him but mostly his student, Leopold Kronecker that extended some ideas of Kummer ideals and Unique Factorization.
 
  • #10
I think I have a short proof:

http://rayb07.blogspot.com/2007/08/fermat-equation.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
rayb07 said:
I think I have a short proof:
I do not understand it.
 
  • #12
Sorry, I don't have a proof, there's a simple error in it. My bad.
 
  • #13
rayb07 said:
Sorry, I don't have a proof, there's a simple error in it. My bad.
Not bad! It could be the new idea which Kummer asked for. Maybe, you just didn't follow it through properly.
You showed that if [tex]y^3[/tex] is an new candidate for Fermat's equation where [tex]y > 3[/tex] then there is an integer [tex]n> 0[/tex]solving
[tex]n^{2} + 10n +27 -y^{3} = 0[/tex] [3]




You futher said [3] is a quadratic equation, and its coefficients can be labelled a, b, and c. Further, you noted that "In order for n to be an integer, b2 - 4ac must be a perfect square, k"



which reduces to [tex]k^{2} = 4(y^{3}-2)[/tex]

Now [tex]y^{3}-2[/tex] is a square, call that square [tex]c^{2} | c>5[/tex]

Then [tex]n = -5 + c | n>0[/tex] by the quadratic formula.

Pluging that back into your equation we get

[tex]25-10c +c^{2} -50+10c +27 -y^{3}[/tex] = 0
[tex]c^{2} = y^{3}-2[/tex]

So your equation does check out but where to go after that I don't know
 
Last edited:
  • #14
The matter of unique factorization in [tex]\sqrt-2[/tex] can be side stepped to a certain extent. But it involves some difficulity.

X==-2 Mod p is true for p =8k+1, and p=8k+3. The next matter is to show that those primes can be expressed in the form p=a^2+2b^2, and, hopefully, uniquely so. (Maybe that can be assumed to be written up somewhere.)

Then it is no trouble to show that numbers in the form of s^2+2t^2 are closed under multiplication.

Thus we arrive at the fact that Y^3 is in the form of (a^2+2b^2)^3. The next problem to discover is just how many different ways can this be resolved. For example even though 5 in the form a^2+b^2 can only be expresssed as 2^2 +1^2, 5^3 = 11^2+2^2, and 10^2+5^2.

Now if we find (a^2+2b^2)^3 = (a^3+2ab^2)^2 + 2[(a^2)b+2b^3]^2, this will NOT give the answer, but its fine if a=1, b=1 to find 3^3=3^2+2(3^2)--should that be of some use now and then.

BUT, if we can get (a^3-6ab^2)^2 + 2[3(a^2)b-2b^3]^2. THIS WILL WORK for a=b=1.
And...less I forget to say, it is an easy matter to see that the form: 2b^2[3a^2-2b^2] =2. can only be resolved for the case a, b = [tex]\pm1[/tex]. (b doesn't matter and the answer for x is either [tex]\pm5[/tex].
 
Last edited:
  • #15
robert Ihnot said:
The matter of unique factorization in [tex]\sqrt-2[/tex] can be side stepped to a certain extent. But it involves some difficulity.

X==-2 Mod p is true for p =8k+1, and p=8k+3. The next matter is to show that those primes can be expressed in the form p=a^2+2b^2, and, hopefully, uniquely so. (Maybe that can be assumed to be written up somewhere.)

Then it is no trouble to show that numbers in the form of s^2+2t^2 are closed under multiplication.

Thus we arrive at the fact that Y^3 is in the form of (a^2+2b^2)^3. The next problem to discover is just how many different ways can this be resolved. For example even though 5 in the form a^2+b^2 can only be expresssed as 2^2 +1^2, 5^3 = 11^2+2^2, and 10^2+5^2.

Now if we find (a^2+2b^2)^3 = (a^3+2ab^2)^2 = 2[(a^2)b+2b^3]^2, this will NOT give the answer, but its fine if a=1, b=1 to find 3^3=3^2+2(3^2)--should that be of some use now and then.

BUT, if we can get (a^3-6ab^2)^2 + 2[3(a^2)b-2b^3]^2. THIS WILL WORK for a=b=1.
And...less I forget to say, it is an easy matter to see that the form: 2b^2[3a^2-2b^2] =2. can only be resolved for the case a, b = [tex]\pm1[/tex]. (b doesn't matter and the answer for x is either [tex]\pm5[/tex].
I am just beginning to study fields and your insight is very much appreciated. I have something else I want to take a look at also:
ramsey2879 said:
Still another variable "w" to add to the mix.
Let A(0) = 0, A(1) = 1, A(n) = 2*A(n-1)-A(n-2) + w
If w = 1 then you have the triangular series
If w = 2 then you have the series of squares
In general [tex]A_n = w*(n^2 -n)/2 + n[/tex] is a direct formula for [tex]A_n[/tex]

redefine [tex]D_{(b,n,m)[/tex] as:

[tex](A_{(n-b)}-m)*(A_{(n+2b)}-m) - (A_{(n+b)}-m)*(A_{(n-2b)}-m)[/tex]

Then
[tex]D_{(b,n,m)} = b(w*(2n-1)+2)*(A_{n} -wb^{2} -m)[/tex]
Now if [tex]w=-b[/tex] and [tex]m = A_{n}+2[/tex] we get
[tex]\frac{D_{(b,n,m)}}{2b-b^2(2n-1)} = b^3-2[/tex]
so the left hand side should be a square (25) only for b = 3 for all integer n.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K