You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Fermat's last theorum Watch

1. (Original post by Slumpy)
If I'm remembering correctly, nearer the end of his life, Fermat published proofs for some small cases(n=3,4,5 or something), suggesting that either his original proof had a mistake, or hadn't existed. But I may be wrong.
He published a proof for the case n = 4, which was an argument by infinite descent. I think he also published an incorrect proof of the case n = 3 — in any case, Euler published a correct proof later. It is speculated that, yes, Fermat realised his original argument was flawed somehow.
2. (Original post by Zhen Lin)
He published a proof for the case n = 4, which was an argument by infinite descent. I think he also published an incorrect proof of the case n = 3 — in any case, Euler published a correct proof later. It is speculated that, yes, Fermat realised his original argument was flawed somehow.
I knew it was 2 of 3,4,5, and thought one was wrong, but no more than that. Clearly need to brush up on my maths history a tad!
3. (Original post by Zhen Lin)
There's good reason to believe this, but there's no evidence. For instance, if it can be shown that every formal sentence (in first-order logic, say) is has a proof which has polynomial length, and if a polynomial-time algorithm is invented to find such proofs, we would have a constructive (!) proof that P = NP. (Actually, it would be even stronger than that, because it suffices to solve the Boolean satisfiability problem, which is equivalent to finding disproofs of propositions.) But we tend to believe that NP is strictly bigger than P, so we should also believe there is either no such algorithm, or that lengths of proofs can grow faster than polynomials.
Sorry, why is there good reason to believe a computer could never prove FLT? Automated theorem proving already exists. Proving something like the FLT would be a huge step-up, but I don't see why it would be impossible.
4. i thought that by this

Andrew Wiles who shut himself away for 7 years to prove that
a^n+b^n does not equal c^n where n= interger>2

Computers can't do it (yet).
NJA meant that computers aren't yet able to provide integer solutions to a^n+b^n=c^n for n>2, but they might be able to in the future

probably should've read the post properly
5. (Original post by Kolya)
Sorry, why is there good reason to believe a computer could never prove FLT? Automated theorem proving already exists. Proving something like the FLT would be a huge step-up, but I don't see why it would be impossible.
Indeed, computers have proved FLT, they happen to be biological, but there is nothing particular about human brains that means they can't be simulated by some sufficiently advanced artificial computer.

My knowledge of complexity theory amounts to a few sound-bites, but I think the implication of being alluded to here is that there even though proofs may be polynomial time checkable, there is no general polynomial time algorithm for generating them.

This doesn't mean that computers are theoretically forbidden from finding difficult proofs, it just means that it will not be a mechanised polynomial time process . You would rely on heuristics, guess work some brute force, and the like- much as humans do. Which is nice because it means computers need to be as creative as people.
6. (Original post by Pheylan)
NJA meant that computers aren't yet able to provide integer solutions to a^n+b^n=c^n for n>2, but they might be able to in the future
How? We know there aren't any

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: December 18, 2010
Today on TSR

### Oxford grad sues for £1m

Claims damages because he didn't get a first

### Gunshots lead to Oxford Circus evacuation

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.