Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Topic: From Fermat little theorem to Fermat Last Theorem
Replies: 62   Last Post: Mar 14, 2013 9:59 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 John Jens Posts: 24 Registered: 11/27/12
Re: From Fermat little theorem to Fermat Last Theorem
Posted: Nov 28, 2012 2:00 AM

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:26:12 AM UTC+2, Pubkeybreaker wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2:58 pm, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>

> > John Jens wrote:
>
> > >quasi wrote:
>
> > >>John Jens wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >>>http://primemath.wordpress.com/
>
> >
>
> > >>Copying part of the text from the link above (enough to
>
> > >>expose the error in Jens' reasoning) ...
>
> >
>
> > >>>Fermat?s little theorem states that if p is a prime number,
>
> > >>>then for any integer a, the number a^p is an integer multiple
>
> > >>>of p.
>
> >
>
> > >>>   a^p = a(mod p)
>
> >
>
> > >> Yes, but note that a^p = a (mod p) does not imply 0 <= a < p.
>
> >
>
> > >>>Assume that a,b,c naturals and p prime and
>
> >
>
> > >>>   0 < a <= b < c < p
>
> >
>
> > >>> ...
>
> >
>
> > >>>So we can?t find naturals 0 < a <= b < c < p with p prime to
>
> > >>>satisfy a^p + b^p = c^p.
>
> >
>
> > >> Sure, but that doesn't even come close to proving Fermat's
>
> > >> Last Theorem. All you've proved is the trivial result that if
>
> > >> a,b,c are positive integers with p prime such that
>
> > >> a^p + b^p = c^p then c >= p.
>
> >
>
> > >"Assume that a , b , c naturals and p prime and 0<a=b<c<p"
>
> >
>
> > Yes, you can assume anything you want, but then any conclusion
>
> > is conditional on that assumption.
>
> >
>
> > Without loss of generality, you can assume
>
> >
>
> >    0 < a <= b < c
>
> >
>
> > but how do you justify the inequality c < p?
>
> >
>
> > Of course you can take 2 cases:
>
> >
>
> >    (1) c < p
>
> >
>
> >    (2) C >= p
>
> >
>
> > The case you analyzed is the case c < p (the trivial case),
>
> > and you never even considered the other case. Thus, you
>
> > did not actually prove Fermat's Last Theorem.
>
>
>
>
>
> He might also want to check his proof when p = 2.....

From the condition 0 < a <= b < c < p , p must be bigger then 2 because don't exist minimum two numbers (a <= b, c) between 0 and 2.

Date Subject Author
11/27/12 John Jens
11/27/12 quasi
11/27/12 John Jens
11/27/12 quasi
11/27/12 Pubkeybreaker
11/28/12 John Jens
11/28/12 quasi
11/28/12 John Jens
11/28/12 Frederick Williams
11/28/12 John Jens
11/29/12 David Bernier
11/29/12 Michael Stemper
11/28/12 Ki Song
11/28/12 John Jens
11/28/12 gus gassmann
11/28/12 John Jens
11/28/12 Ki Song
11/28/12 quasi
11/29/12 Pubkeybreaker
11/28/12 John Jens
11/28/12 quasi
12/1/12 vrut25@gmail.com
12/2/12 John Jens
12/2/12 quasi
12/2/12 quasi
12/29/12 John Jens
12/29/12 J. Antonio Perez M.
12/30/12 John Jens
1/5/13 John Jens
1/5/13 J. Antonio Perez M.
1/5/13 John Jens
1/6/13 Michael Klemm
1/6/13 John Jens
1/6/13 Michael Klemm
1/7/13 John Jens
1/7/13 Michael Klemm
1/7/13 Pubkeybreaker
1/7/13 John Jens
1/7/13 Bart Goddard
1/7/13 Michael Klemm
1/7/13 John Jens
1/7/13 Michael Klemm
1/7/13 John Jens
1/7/13 Michael Klemm
3/7/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
3/14/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
12/29/12 quasi
12/30/12 John Jens
12/30/12 quasi
12/30/12 John Jens
12/30/12 quasi
12/31/12 John Jens
12/31/12 quasi
12/31/12 quasi
1/2/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
1/4/13 John Jens
1/4/13 quasi
1/4/13 John Jens
12/30/12 Pubkeybreaker
12/30/12 John Jens
12/30/12 Pubkeybreaker
11/27/12 wheretogo