MHB Why isn't {0}^{3}+{0}^{3}={0}^{3} a proof for Fermat's Last Theorem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angel11
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
AI Thread Summary
Fermat's Last Theorem states that no three positive integers can satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for n greater than 2. The confusion arises from considering the case where a, b, and c are equal to zero, which does not apply since the theorem specifically requires positive integers. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the conditions of mathematical theorems, as well as the value of asking questions to clarify concepts. Participants acknowledge the oversight regarding the requirement for positive numbers and encourage continued inquiry into mathematical topics. Engaging with such theorems is a valuable learning experience.
Angel11
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hello, It is me again.So i was watching some math videos and i came across Fermat's Last Theorem which was very intersting.But i was confused because i wondered for a second and sayed "well if A,B and C are equal then they could be 0 to prove it" but at the same time i thought "well if it works something like the pythagorean theorem then that would be impossible because if a triangle has 3 sides with the length of 0 then there would be nothing" BUT again i also thought "But Fermat's Last Theorem doesn't say anything about a right triangle or any triangle it is just the formula" So my question is:Why isn't {0}^{3}+{0}^{3}={0}^{3} proof (or on any other power with n>2)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I've moved this thread from Differential Equations to Number Theory as that's a better fit.

From Wikipedia:

In number theory, Fermat's Last Theorem (sometimes called Fermat's conjecture, especially in older texts) states that no three positive integers $a$, $b$, and $c$ satisfy the equation $a^n+b^n=c^n$ for any integer value of $n$ greater than 2. The cases $n=1$ and $n=2$ have been known to have infinitely many solutions since antiquity.
 
oh i didn't realize the "positive number" how stupid of me. Also thanks for moving the thread to number theory. I put it hear because i didn't know where to put it and also thank you for replying
 
Angel1 said:
oh i didn't realize the "positive number" how stupid of me.

I don't think there's anything "stupid" about investigating theorems. It can be easy to miss details, and so asking about it is smart. :D

Angel1 said:
Also thanks for moving the thread to number theory. I put it hear because i didn't know where to put it and also thank you for replying

In the future, if you are unsure about where to post a thread, just make your best guess (as you did for this thread), and then use the post reporting feature to call the thread to the attention of the staff.

To do so, look for the http://mathhelpboards.com/images/mhb/buttons/report-40b.png icon beneath the post, and click that and you will be presented with a form to enter the reason you're reporting the post. Once you enter the reason then submit the form.

When you report the post, just indicate that you are unsure about whether it's posted in the best forum, and someone on staff will be happy to move the thread if needed. (Yes)
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top