# help me (if you can) whith problem

• May 13th 2006, 08:59 AM
SkyWatcher
help me (if you can) whith problem
i have to proove that for any odd prime number p we have got:

for any (X,Y,Z) belonging to Z*Z*Z and not equal to (0,0,0) we cannot have: X^p+Y^p=Z^p

This problem is reputed to be very difficult, but it may have suffer from his reputation and seems out of the domain of communication according to the silence the readers of Mr FreeLunch thread have kept allthough his demonstration can be obviously disqualified in two lines (off writing your lasy creatures)
I am certain it has a very elementary solution but that the isolated persons who have tried to solve it couldnt find it yet, paralysed by the presuposed impossibility to solve it, the wise dimention of elementary investigation, and the fact that nobody give the clues they have on this problem.
Someone will certainly give me a correct answer soon.
Accept my anticipated congratulation.
• May 13th 2006, 12:01 PM
CaptainBlack
[QUOTE=SkyWatcher]i have to proove that for any odd prime number p we have got:

for any (X,Y,Z) belonging to Z*Z*Z and not equal to (0,0,0) we cannot have: X^p+Y^p=Z^p

This problem is reputed to be very difficult, but it may have suffer from his reputation and seems out of the domain of communication according to the silence the readers of Mr FreeLunch thread have kept allthough his demonstration can be obviously disqualified in two lines (off writing your lasy creatures)[\quote]

Commenting on purported elementary proofs of FLT is a waste of time
with very high probability. I have done more than what I consider my
fair share and don't look at them anymore, as I am sure many others
also don't, despite the antics that go on the Maths groups of Usenet.

RonL
• May 14th 2006, 07:31 AM
SkyWatcher
finily we have got a good and reasonable explanation for this silence
I hope nobody's has interpreted it the wrong way because he might had waste his time (if time can be wasted)

what is the usenet site you are talking about, i tried a few times to find a site on the flt topic (i was told their were a lot) but i could'nt find one (those days i had to add "2006" (or 2005) to my request to get a few fresh stuff related to "fermat" otherwise i would get old stuff (2000-2001)
I must say that my personal interface whith google requires me to type "mathhelpforum.com" to get the information about the exsistence of your site, your comercial link on google.fr desapeared sudainly the 26th november, but's it's just a viewing from my screen anyway (i am like Mr PerfectHacker i am FBI controled (i am joking: i am just paid by big brother to say "bigbrother is watching you"))
anyway if you know websites were 'antics' are not afraid or disgusted to talk about this vital subject i would be gratefull to you or anyone else to give me the links
by
• May 14th 2006, 07:17 PM
ThePerfectHacker
This is Fermat's Last Theorem by my favorite mathematician Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665) proposed in 1646.

Classical attemps:
1)case n=4 was demonstrated by Fermat himself.
2)case n=3 was demonstrated by Euler
3)case n=5 was demonstrated by Lame'
4)case n=17 was demonstrated by Dirichilet (my avatar)
5)Sophia Germain,Gauss,Krounecker-all failed

Gauss was jealous of Fermat, and quit his efforts after 2 weeks. Hilbert proposed this problem to be indepened from all the axioms (which is not true)

Finally proved in 1993 by Andrew Wiles of MIT using the theory of Elliptic Functions and Curves.

Many doubt there is an elementary proof. Fermat is he did have a proof solved it with "infinite descent" his little tool he created for proving impossibility os solutions.

I, myself do believe that Fermat did have an elementary proof.
• May 14th 2006, 08:47 PM
CaptainBlack
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
Finally proved in 1993 by Andrew Wiles of MIT using the theory of Elliptic Functions and Curves.

Princeton.

RonL
• May 15th 2006, 10:35 AM
ThePerfectHacker
Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainBlack
Princeton.

RonL

Same place whatever.

I got it confused because I search for some people on MIT and Princeton sites. Remember finding Wiles among them.
• May 16th 2006, 08:08 AM
topsquark
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
Same place whatever.

I got it confused because I search for some people on MIT and Princeton sites. Remember finding Wiles among them.

Warning: I don't have the reference for what I am about to say, so it may not be correct.

I heard several years ago that someone analyzing a proof that Fermat had been working on (for FLT) was apparently trivial, but on close inspection contained a easily made small error that invalidated it. It was suspected that this proof was what Fermat had been referring to, so presumably he did not have a proof of the theorem after all.

-Dan
• May 16th 2006, 12:48 PM
ThePerfectHacker
Quote:

Originally Posted by topsquark
Warning: I don't have the reference for what I am about to say, so it may not be correct.

I heard several years ago that someone analyzing a proof that Fermat had been working on (for FLT) was apparently trivial, but on close inspection contained a easily made small error that invalidated it. It was suspected that this proof was what Fermat had been referring to, so presumably he did not have a proof of the theorem after all.

-Dan

There was an error in the original proof by Wiles, later he redone his proof along with making it simpler and shorter.