The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Replies: 65   Last Post: Mar 17, 2001 11:59 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
gus gassmann

Posts: 92
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Posted: Jan 19, 2001 8:36 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply



jstevh@my-deja.com wrote:

> Sigh. Let me remind you of the facts. You are given that x and y are
> nonzero integers, and that x^2 + y^2 = 0. You notice that
>
> x^2 + y^2 = (x+sqrt(-1)y)(x-sqrt(-1)y), and let me explain that
> further,


Around here somewhere is your Assumption number 1: There exist nonzero
integers x and y for which x^2 + y^2 = 0.

> sqrt(-1) here is an object that we can prove is not an integer, but we
> don't go off and then say that it's complex, because we're in the ring
> of integers.
>
> What we're doing is noting that if there were this thing that
> multiplied times itself to give -1, then we'd have that factorization.
>
> We assume that such a thing exists.


This is your Assumption number 2.

> At this point that's all I care about.
>
> But you're ready to pull out a textbook on complex numbers. That's not
> necessary because I know this thing isn't an integer by elementary
> means, and I don't need to know anything else at this point.
>
> Then I notice that (x+sqrt(-1)y)(x-sqrt(-1)y) = 0 because x^2 + y^2 = 0.
>
> And remember, at this point as far as I'm concerned x and y are still
> integers!
>
> Why?
>
> Because if I know they aren't at this point then I already must have
> reached the point of contradiction. And then, your argument must be
> that the proof I've given is too long!!!
>
> So, knowing that I have this odd object that is not an integer, but is
> *interacting with integers* I follow standard rules for integers.


This is Assumption number 3. You don't know if you can work with
this object (call it sqrt(-1), call it i, call it the Harris constant, I
don't care)
in the same way you can work with the integers.

> ***That leads to a contradiction.***

Maybe so, but which of your three assumptions is untenable? You'd
like it to be assumption 1, but you (YOU, James Steven Harris!)
have to rule out the other two possibilities. Otherwise your proof
is incomplete, as in: unfinished, not done, containing a gap.

> What some of you appear to be arguing is that when I realize that this
> thing, sqrt(-1) is not an integer, I must stop, and pull out a book on
> complex number theory.


No. What people are saying is that once you realize that this thing,
sqrt(-1) is not an integer, you must stop, and define (or state) what
you mean by the operations x + sqrt(-1)*y, x - sqrt(-1)*y and
(x + sqrt(-1)*y) * (x - sqrt(-1)*y). And you have to _prove_ for
these objects (because they are NOT integers) that you can infer
from (x + sqrt(-1)*y) * (x - sqrt(-1)*y) = 0 that either
x + sqrt(-1)*y = 0 or x - sqrt(-1)*y = 0. And when you do
_that_ proof, you have to make damn sure that it does not
somewhere rely on another statement, namely that
x^2 + y^2 = 0 has no solutions in the positive integers.
Otherwise, your argument is circular.

> ***But I'm doing a proof by contradiction.***
>
> I'm looking for something that pushes me outside of integers because
> that's what I want to prove must happen!
>


But why don't you then simply write x^2 + y^2 = 2*[(x^2)/2 +( y^2)/2]
and point out that this pushes you out of the integers already? Remember,
no one forces you to introduce sqrt(-1) into the proof, so the only one
doing the pushing is yourself.

> You say the textbooks do it a different way, and I assume that assaults
> your sense of order for me to show it this way because if everybody has
> done it one way, you seem to assume that any other way is wrong.
>
> Then prove it's wrong!!!
>


OK. The example has been given several times before. Use the 2x2 matrices
and embed the integers in them as follows:

If x is an integer, associate with it the matrix | x 0 |
| 0 x |

Addition is done componentwise, like ordinary matrix addition:

| x 0 | + | y 0 | = | x+y 0 |
| 0 x | | 0 y | | 0 x+y |,

multiplication is also ordinary matrix multiplication.
(I can spell it out for you, but I assume that you can do
matrix multiplication on your own.)

Verify for yourself that these objects behave exactly like the
integers with respect to addition and multiplication. The two
rings (of integers and matrices of this form) are isomorphic,
and it does not matter which representation you work with.

Now define the symbol i = | 0 -1 |
| 1 0 |.

Verify that i*i = -1. (Again this can be spelled out if you wish.)

Verify further that (x+iy) * (x-iy) = x^2 + y^2.

Accept (or verify for yourself!) that the set of all 2x2 matrices
with integer coefficients is a ring with the above operations.

Finally, verify that | 1 -1 | * | 1 1 | = | 0 0 |
| 1 -1 | | 1 1 | | 0 0 |,

even though neither factor is zero. In other words, in the ring
of 2x2 matrices with integer coefficients, AB = 0 DOES NOT IMPLY
that either A = 0 or B = 0.

--
gus gassmann

"When in doubt, travel"
======================================================================
To reply, remove SPAM BLOCK







Date Subject Author
1/15/01
Read FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/15/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dik T. Winter
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Charles H. Giffen
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Michael Hochster
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Peter Johnston
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Doug Norris
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Doug Norris
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dik T. Winter
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dik T. Winter
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/20/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/20/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
oooF
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Peter Percival
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/26/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Algebra...
Franz Fritsche
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
gus gassmann
1/20/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/20/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Doug Norris
1/26/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Matrix or not, that's NOT the question...
Franz Fritsche
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/17/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/20/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Peter Percival
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
3/17/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Ross A. Finlayson
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
hale@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
1/29/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dik T. Winter
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dennis Eriksson
1/15/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Michael Hochster
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Michael Hochster
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Peter Percival
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
oooF
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Dik T. Winter
1/21/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
oooF
1/18/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Edward Carter
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
W. Dale Hall
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Michael Hochster
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Randy Poe
1/17/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
W. Dale Hall
1/17/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying (Grammar fix)
W. Dale Hall
1/19/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
oooF
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
Charles H. Giffen
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
David Bernier
1/16/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
jstevh@my-deja.com
1/18/01
Read Hi - little fun about FLT
Arthur
1/30/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
plofap@my-deja.com
1/30/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
plofap@my-deja.com
1/30/01
Read Re: FLT Discussion: Simplifying
plofap@my-deja.com

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.