According to Fermat's Last Theorem, an+bn=cn have no solutions in positive integers, if n is an integer greater than 2.
But I can (hopefully) only prove x3+y3=z3.
Expand x3+y3=z3 and you will get (x+y)(x2−xy+y2)
So,
x3+y3= (x+y)(x2−xy+y2)
Any integer can be expressed as x+y.
Hence, let z be x+y
(x+y)(x2−xy+y2)=(x+y)3
Dividing both sides by (x+y)
x2−xy+y2=(x+y)2
Expanding (x+y)2, you will get x2+2xy+y2
Simplifying the equation,
−xy=2xy
0=3xy
Hence, x=0 and y=any integer.
OR
x=any integer and y=0.
But anybody know that 0 can be a solution.
Note that 0 is a neutral number
Now consider the case, z=x+y
Assume z=k(x+y)
Where k is any integer.
Using graph theory it is easy to realise that there are no rational solutions.
If interested, view Leonhard Euler's proof of this.
#NumberTheory
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
@Calvin Lin I think you would like this.
Seems legid but it means that −1=2. I can't find the error and how to resolve it.
Only hitch in the solution is that 3xy=0 does not imply that BOTH x=0 and y=0. Only one the statements has to be true.
@Julian Poon . I don't see the problem you're having. Where does −1=2? Or has the note been edited?
Log in to reply
I dont really think theres a problem with this but @Luke Zhang says that this step isnt valid even though this step is valid to me:
−xy=2xy
However, this step (to me) isn't valid:
−1=2
Since this proof does not have the division by 0, I don't think there is a problem.
Log in to reply
For that part you can't prove -1=2 as you will be dividing both sides by 0 which is invalid. No problem with that prove. Just lacking 3 more cases.
Please comment about any loop holes (I'm only 14)
Log in to reply
The Boh is right.
Log in to reply
The BOH?
I still dont think that there is any error in this cause there is no division by 0. It is just proving x and/or y is 0.
Log in to reply
Yes Julian But I said both x and y bust be 0
Log in to reply
Log in to reply