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)
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top