The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

BMO question from 1980

Prove that the equation x^n + y^n = z^n, where n is an integer > 1, has no solution in integers x, y, and z, with 0 < x <= n, 0 < y <= n.

Find the shortest solution you can; I have one that only takes 4 lines of working.
Reply 1
Avatar for joostan
joostan
13
Original post by HapaxOromenon2
Prove that the equation x^n + y^n = z^n, where n is an integer > 1, has no solution in integers x, y, and z, with 0 < x <= n, 0 < y <= n.

Find the shortest solution you can; I have one that only takes 4 lines of working.


One can get this pretty snappily with the contrapositive. Took me quite a while to notice this.

Spoiler

Original post by joostan
One can get this pretty snappily with the contrapositive. Took me quite a while to notice this.

Spoiler



What I did: By Fermat's Last Theorem there are no solutions for n>2, so since we are given n>1, we need only consider n = 2. Thus we have that x^2 + y^2 = z^2 and 0<x<=2, 0<y<=2, so x and y can each only be 1 or 2.
Thus we check 1^2 + 1^2 = 2, 1^2 + 2^2 = 2^2 + 1^2 = 5, 2^2 + 2^2 = 8, none of which are square numbers. Thus the result follows.

Much simpler than your approach...
Reply 3
Avatar for joostan
joostan
13
Original post by HapaxOromenon2
What I did: By Fermat's Last Theorem there are no solutions for n>2, so since we are given n>1, we need only consider n = 2. Thus we have that x^2 + y^2 = z^2 and 0<x<=2, 0<y<=2, so x and y can each only be 1 or 2.
Thus we check 1^2 + 1^2 = 2, 1^2 + 2^2 = 2^2 + 1^2 = 5, 2^2 + 2^2 = 8, none of which are square numbers. Thus the result follows.

Much simpler than your approach...


I disagree, assuming Fermat's Last Theorem is gigantic, the proof of it - monumental.
Moreover this question was initially set before the theorem was proved.
Original post by joostan
I disagree, assuming Fermat's Last Theorem is gigantic, the proof of it - monumental.
Moreover this question was initially set before the theorem was proved.


True. But it's still easier to understand than the thing you did, because you don't have to understand the proof of a theorem in order to understand it's statement and to use it to solve problems.
Reply 5
Avatar for Zacken
Zacken
22
Original post by joostan
I disagree, assuming Fermat's Last Theorem is gigantic, the proof of it - monumental.
Moreover this question was initially set before the theorem was proved.


He's a well known troll, this is his ~10/11th account. I wouldn't bother replying to him.
Original post by Zacken
He's a well known troll, this is his ~10/11th account. I wouldn't bother replying to him.


I demand that you cease and desist from defamation of me at once.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you