Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Primes, divisors, arithmetic, number properties, ...

aruff
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:24 am

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by aruff » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:26 pm

I have not finished reading, but you have an error in your theorem.
11+31=41
Obviously 1 and 3 are both odd which means your main theorem is incorrect. Likely there is some reason for n>1. If there is no obvious reason for this, then there is a fault deeper in your proof.

User avatar
ggoyo
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:45 am
Location: Paris
Contact:

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by ggoyo » Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:20 am

You state in the beginning of your paper that this theorem ($a$ and $b$ can't be both odd) will be proven, pretend that it leads to Fermat's theorem and then start something completely different in your paper.
Last edited by ggoyo on Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:04 am, edited 3 times in total.
Image

RanberSingh
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by RanberSingh » Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:30 pm

[quote="aruff"]I have not finished reading, but you have an error in your theorem.
11+31=41
Obviously 1 and 3 are both odd which means your main theorem is incorrect. Likely there is some reason for n>1. If there is no obvious reason for this, then there is a fault deeper in your proof

well n=1 is a trivial case..... true for any addition
for n>=2 theorem is undoubtly true. I will change main theorem statement precisely for n>=2

thundre
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 9:01 am

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by thundre » Thu Aug 07, 2014 5:41 pm

RanberSingh wrote:
aruff wrote:I have not finished reading, but you have an error in your theorem.
11+31=41
Obviously 1 and 3 are both odd which means your main theorem is incorrect. Likely there is some reason for n>1. If there is no obvious reason for this, then there is a fault deeper in your proof
well n=1 is a trivial case..... true for any addition
for n>=2 theorem is undoubtly true. I will change main theorem statement precisely for n>=2
That changes the statement from false to unproven. If your proof relies on this statement, you must either provide a reference to an accepted proof of it or prove it yourself as a lemma.
Image

RanberSingh
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by RanberSingh » Thu Aug 07, 2014 10:16 pm

thundre wrote:
RanberSingh wrote:
aruff wrote:I have not finished reading, but you have an error in your theorem.
11+31=41
Obviously 1 and 3 are both odd which means your main theorem is incorrect. Likely there is some reason for n>1. If there is no obvious reason for this, then there is a fault deeper in your proof
well n=1 is a trivial case..... true for any addition
for n>=2 theorem is undoubtly true. I will change main theorem statement precisely for n>=2
That changes the statement from false to unproven. If your proof relies on this statement, you must either provide a reference to an accepted proof of it or prove it yourself as a lemma.
Proof is very clear in the manuscript. Please read manuscript carefully.

quantheory
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:31 pm

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by quantheory » Wed Aug 13, 2014 1:37 am

The reasoning after (3.14) is not sufficient to prove that y1 and y2 are coprime. It could be the case that y1 = k g2 x2 and y2 = k g1 x1, where k > 1 is coprime to both g1 and g2. Without showing that y1 = g2x2, you cannot prove that rad(m) = rad(d1d2), and most of the rest of the proof fails.

RanberSingh
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by RanberSingh » Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:13 am

From where k come??? strange
we have g1x1y1=g2x2y2
where gcd(g1x1,g2x2)=gcd(g1x1,y1)=gcd(g2x2,y2)=1

User avatar
jaap
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by jaap » Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:47 am

RanberSingh wrote:From where k come??? strange
we have g1x1y1=g2x2y2
where gcd(g1x1,g2x2)=gcd(g1x1,y1)=gcd(g2x2,y2)=1
From those facts you have concluded that gcd(y1,y2)=1, but that does not follow from those facts alone.
For example:
y1 = 2*3
g1x1 = 5*7
g2x2 = 3
y2 = 2*5*7
This satisfies gcd(g1x1,g2x2)=gcd(g1x1,y1)=gcd(g2x2,y2)=1 and g1x1y1=g2x2y2 but gcd(y1,y2)=2 (which is the k that quantheory was talking about).

RanberSingh
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by RanberSingh » Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:06 am

thanks, I got it now what do you mean, but still main results will not change.
g1x1y1=g2x2y2, where gcd(g1x1,g2x2)=gcd(g1x1,y1)=gcd(g2x2,y2)=1
if gcd(y1,y2)=k then we can write
g1x1(kz1)=g2x2(kz2), where y1=kz1, y2=kz2 and gcd(z1,z2)=1,
still the result rad(m)=rad(d1d2) is true. Anyway I will check carefully again.

RanberSingh
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by RanberSingh » Wed Aug 13, 2014 1:59 pm

I once again thank you "jaap" for your important observation. I had wrongly concluded rad(m)=rad(d1d2) from m=a-d2=b-d1. But this somehow seems correct.
Anyway the main results are not strictly dependent on this relation, rad(m)=rad(d1d2).

It has not changed the main results of Fermat's Last Theroem in my article. I have to change partialy the main theorem. I still believe the main results are true. I hope you continue to read after the equation g1x1z1=g2x2z2. I uploaded a new version with some corrections.

quantheory
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:31 pm

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by quantheory » Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:02 pm

There is still a problem here. In Case 2, you say that d1+d2+2m (which is the same as c+m) cannot be an integer factor of d1+d2+m (which is the same as c). This is quite true (because d1, d2, and m are all positive), but it does not prove your point, because the left hand side is not c, but cn. What you really need to show to complete your proof is that c+m contains at least one prime factor that is not also in c, i.e. that c ≠ 0 mod (rad(c+m)).

Since your proof no longer shows that m and c are coprime (because some of the factors in f may also be in c), you can no longer prove that c and c+m are coprime, and your proof is incomplete.

By the way, if you assume Fermat's Last Theorem to be true, combined with some well-known results about Pythagorean triples, you can show that it actually is true that rad(m) = rad(d1d2). But of course you can't use Fermat's Last Theorem to prove itself, so unless you can fix your proof of this statement, you can't use it...

Speaking for myself, it seems virtually impossible that such a straightforward proof of the theorem could emerge after all this time. I think that it's possible that a proof somewhat simpler than that of Wiles will be found one day, but I can't believe that anything this simple was missed by thousands of students and mathematicians for centuries.

RanberSingh
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by RanberSingh » Thu Aug 14, 2014 6:10 am

I was wondering the same, how such a simple proof is missed for centuries by great mathematician who worked on this theorem for their whole life......... Even Andrew wiles also spent his whole prime time to find very complex proof of this theorem.

However, still your point is explainable. Since we have
gcd(c,d1d2)=gcd(f,d1d2)=1 and rad(m)=rad(fd1d2), d1 and d2 cannot be simultaneously equal to 1. So, c+m must have atleast one prime which is not in c or c^n. We know rad(c)=rad(c^n).

quantheory
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:31 pm

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by quantheory » Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:11 am

Say d1=1, d2=2, and m=6. Then f=3.

What if c=21? Then c+m=27. But then c+m is a factor of c3.

So your proof still has a hole in it.

RanberSingh
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by RanberSingh » Thu Aug 14, 2014 11:37 am

wao,,, great to know. You are very good in math. I always missed basic points. But doing math of munbers is great fun for me. I do it sometimes in my free time. By profession I am physicist in material science.
Few months back I come to about Fermat's last theorem while reading a news about Beal's conjecture. Then I started thinking is it realy so hard to prove Fermat's last theorem.
I hope someone will find a answer in the procedure I have adopted. I also ceratnly will continue... whenever i find time. Thanks..

User avatar
nicolas.patrois
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by nicolas.patrois » Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:18 pm

My little finger tells me that whenever someone finds an error, you will believe that the rest of your proof is valid despite it’s full of math errors that you should not commit.
Image

RanberSingh
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by RanberSingh » Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:36 pm

keep your such advice upto you

User avatar
nicolas.patrois
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by nicolas.patrois » Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:45 pm

Heh, sorry, but I do not pretend that I have an elementary proof of Fermat-Wiles’ theorem.
Image

User avatar
hk
Administrator
Posts: 10315
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:34 am
Location: Haren, Netherlands

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by hk » Thu Aug 14, 2014 7:02 pm

RanberSingh wrote:keep your such advice upto you
Please keep it friendly, otherwise I have to lock the topic.

hk, moderator.
Image

RanberSingh
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:00 am

Re: Analytical simple proof of Fermat's last theorem ????

Post by RanberSingh » Thu Aug 21, 2014 7:28 pm

I think I have acceptable reasoning to believe that rad(m)=rad(d1d2).
For n=2, we have $m=\sqrt(2d_1d_2).$ It implies that for n >= 3, we have m < \sqrt(2d_1d_2) for (d_1+m)^n+(d_2+m)^n=(d_1+d_2+m)^n because (d_1+m)^n, (d_2+m)^n and d_1+d_2+m)^n are strictly increasing with increasing n for given d_1 and d_2. We also clearly see in the manuscript that m^n==0 (\mod{d_1d_2}). Thus, rad(m)=rad(d_1d_2) because m^n==0 (\mod{d_1d_2}) and m <=\sqrt(2d_1d_2).

Thus for n=2, odd n and n=2^k the proof is quite clear.
Only the reasoning for even n=(2^k)l, l an odd integer, is probably not good.
I will update the manuscript for any further comments.

Post Reply