THE LAST THEOREM OF FERMAT

ANALYSIS AND SIMPLE PROOF

By: Ramn Garza Wilmot

Monterrey N.L. Mexico
August 9, 2017

"On the other hand, it is impossible to decompose a cube into two cubes, or a
fourth power into two fourth powers or, in general, any power - except a square
- into two powers with the same exponent. , But unfortunately it is so extensive
that it does not fit into the margin. "
With these words, Pierre de Fermat, a French jurist, no professional on
mathematics, exposed in the year 1637, a note in Latin language on the margin
of a copy of the work of Diophantus.
It was not until May 1995 (358 years later) that a mathematician named Andrew
Wiles published in the journal "Annals of Mathematics" proof that Fermat was
right.
Pierre de Fermat was born in Beaumont-de-Lomagne on 17 August 1601 and
died in Castres on 12 January 1665. In fact, together with Ren Descartes, he
was one of the most important mathematicians of the first half of the
seventeenth century.
Pierre de Fermat was the one who discovered differential calculus much earlier
than Newton and Leibniz. He also co-founded, along with Blaise Pascal, the
theory of probabilities and also discovered the fundamental principle of analytic
geometry.
In spite of all this, Pierre de Fermat was best known for his contributions to
number theory, mainly Fermat's famous theorem. This theorem was one of the
main problems of mathematicians for more than 350 years, until Andrew Wiles,
with the help of Richard Taylor, demonstrated it in 1995 based on the Shimura -
Taniyama Theorem at a relatively recent date, using diverse mathematical tools
that arose long after the death of Fermat.
The incredible about this integer thing is that in those 358 years, generations of
mathematicians could not prove it and he (Fermat) said that it was more
extensive than it would be at the margin. That is to say; It was extensive but
conceived that fit into a little more than a margin.
Today, modern mathematics is so advanced and so sophisticated that most of it
is beyond the reach of the general public. And the solution of the Theorem
acquired dyes of novel of giants.
In this exposition of a simple solution to the Theorem, I think I have solved it
and I hope it will be so. I must admit that my presentation surely does not keep
the rigorous formalism of mathematical proof or the modern notation of number
theory that I do not know, and I can even accept that I could be wrong in the
solution. But, I do not think so, and if the proof is indeed correct, I will ask the
reader to forgive my lack of rigor and think more about the structure of the
solution than the details of the format.

The Theorem can be exposed in the following way:

The last Fermat's Theorem states that for every integer exponent "n" greater
than 2, the following equality for all a, b, c, and n integers:
If a, b and c are all integers
(1) a^n + b^n = c^n is false
(a and b), (a and c), (b and c) can be integers but not all the three

(2) a^n + b^n = c^n is true

How should the above equations be interpreted? ;

The problem can be seen from two directions:
a) Given two integers a and b and an integer exponent n greater than 2, there is
no third integer c that raised to n is equal to the sum of the two sums a and b.
b) Given the integer c raised to n power, there are no two sums a and b that
raised to that same power, results in c raised to n.
It should be clarified that although Fermat did not specify it (at least in the text
quoted), that the combination a, b, c does admit that there are up to 2 integers
but the third cannot be. That is, if a and b are integers, c is not. If a and c are
integers, b is not. etc. The above is so simple to see that it is enough to give
values to any of the two literals and you can get the third. To prove that this
third literal is not integer would be the object of the Theorem.
We can say then that there is a third direction (definition) that is correct and
complete:

c) If in c^n=a^n+b^n

Are up to two integers, the third one is not an integer.

Of these visions, by the writing of Fermat it follows that he was referring to the
second.
I will quote before the proves, some properties of the integers:
- Irrational fractions do not have a last decimal, are not cyclical and cannot be
represented as the ratio of two integers.
- To the irrational numbers can be applied all arithmetic operations, but their
results will always be irrational. Excepted are the potencies of the roots that
gave them origin and division by themselves or by their multiples.
- All non-exact roots of any order are algebraic irrationals.
- All the roots of integers that are not perfect powers of that root are irrational.
- A perfect power is the number that results from raising an integer power to an
entire power.

Previous notes:
The symbol ^ means exponent and this can be integer or fractional, ie:
- a^n means "a" raised to the "n" power
- a^ (1/n) means "a" to the "n" root
> Means that the term on the open side of the symbol is larger than the one on
the other side. So it is the same to say: a> b that b <a
means that the term on the open side is greater than or equal to the one on
the closed side.
- all exposure refers to positive integers.

PROOF

The solution I attempt to solve here, deals more around logical concepts than a
rigorously algebraic or mathematical proof. However, it is not entirely words and
simple algebra is necessary. For that I must previously expose some properties
of natural numbers and their exponents (exposed as premises). However, it
seems to me that these properties are at hand in texts of the subject and on the
Internet that I will not mention because it is from the common of the people
which knows the minimum mathematical and algebraic principles.
I will extend myself on explanations, but I think it necessary.
Let's see :
Note: NN stands for Natural Numbers
1.- In the sequence of the natural numbers, the smallest difference that exists
between two of them, is between the consecutives, and this difference is 1
If we identify the sequence of NN as a, b, c, d ...... etc.
c-b=1
Where a = 1, b = 2, c = 3, etc.

2. The difference between the powers of consecutive natural numbers is greater

than 1. That is, for example: 2^3 - 1^3 = 8 - 1 = 7> 1

3.- A consequence of the above is that, in (s^n - r^n) = D being s^n and r^n NN
integers, these last ones are NOT consecutive, (8 is not consecutive of 1. Even
if r and s are consecutive) is that there may be other integers in the middle of
them (those that are between s^n and r^n. But none that is an integer raised to
n power In the example; between 1 and 8 are the 7, 6 , 5, 4, 3 ,2 and none of
them has a cubic root that is an integer, since there cannot be other integers
between two consecutive ones The nth roots of these intermediate numbers
must be necessarily irrational. Graphically it would look like this:

Graph

Any natural number greater than the natural r^n NN1 and smaller than
s^n NN2 must be between the two (NN1 and NN2). These are: s^n-1, s^n-2,
s^n-3 etc, etc. Which are the natural numbers indicated with on the graph.

Then s^n> s^n -1> r^n or with the others s^n> s^n - 2> s^n-3. Etc. which are the
numbers indicated by the blue arrows.
Graph shows the concepts:
We conclude that; Of all natural numbers between s^n and r^n, there is NO an
integer natural number whose nth root is between r and s since these two are
consecutive and can not have any integer between them..

There are many natural numbers between s^n and r^n (which are all the s^n-1,
s n-2, s^n-3 etc, etc., but none of them have n integers roots, Then all
(s^n w) are NN which does not have an integer root If we go from s^n back,
this happens until:
(s^n w) 1 = r^n
How much is w? It is the difference (s^n - r^n) -1 = w which I will call D - 1
Then, any NN lesser than (s^n - w), before it gets the value (s^n - w) = r^n, is a
number that has no exact nth roots including a (s^n - 1)
But also:
(S^n - w)^(1/n) (2) is irrational for all w = D -1

As an example of the above, let s = 3 and r = 2 (in order to not confuse the
example with large numbers) and n = 3
s^3 - r^3 = 27 - 8 = 19
w = (s^n r^n) -1 = 19 1 = 18
Then from (s^n - 1)^(1/n) to (s^n - 18)^(1/n) will be irrational for those values
of s, r and n.

19> w> 0

s r n w (s^n-w)^(1/n)

3 2 3 0 3
3 2 3 1 2.962496068
3 2 3 2 2.924017738
3 2 3 3 2.884499141
3 2 3 4 2.84386698
3 2 3 5 2.802039331
3 2 3 6 2.758924176
3 2 3 7 2.714417617
3 2 3 8 2.668401649
3 2 3 9 2.620741394
3 2 3 10 2.571281591
3 2 3 11 2.5198421
3 2 3 12 2.466212074
3 2 3 13 2.410142264
3 2 3 14 2.351334688
3 2 3 15 2.289428485
3 2 3 16 2.223980091
3 2 3 17 2.15443469
3 2 3 18 2.080083823
3 2 3 19 2
 Only until w acquires the value of 0 or 19, the roots becomes integer and the
number is rational.

Of course I have here indicated only 18 numbers, but there may be many more
if the consecutive NN's are higher in the NN sequence.

Then, the coordinate (of the axis of the NN) (s^n 1) is a natural number
immediately anterior to s^n, but has no n integers roots. As I said, between
s^n and r^n there are no any integer that comes from an integer raised to n
power.

Then the range of the irrational ones in the interval: (r^n + 1) to (s^n -1) is

(s^n - w)^(1/n) = (&) Irrational (3)

It is important to note that equation (2) is valid only between consecutive r and
s. numbers But, note that the radical (s^n - 1)^(1/n) is independent of the
previous consecutive number, because the minimum difference between all
possible potentials is 3 for n 2. This is because the smallest consecutive NN's
are 1 and 2 and their minimum powers with the minimum n being 2, are the 1
and the 4. That is, the numbers from s^n to r^n which are: s^n -1, s^n 2,
s^n - 3, are irrational for any power greater or equal than 2.
Then (s^n - (1 ...3))^(1/n) is irrational no matter what the previous number of
the range is. With this, the (s^n w)^(1/n) numbers that can be, are not
excluded, but for sure, all the cases with 4 > w > 1 are irrational.
If we speak of the n = 3 exponent, then 8 > w > 1 or from 1 to 7

. Notice then that at least all w's between 1 and 7 for n = 3 generate irrational
numbers no matter what the value of s^n. is. Of course, 1 is the values of w
that I will use for the proof. That is, the s^n-1

What Equation (2) tells us is that behind (s^n - 1)^(1/n) all the roots n of the
numbers in the range from (r + 1). Up to (s^n-1) inclusive, are irrational

Why do I say that equation (2) is an irrational and not a fractional?

Because between r^n and s^n there is no a number whose root is a nth perfect
(n) power. For there would have to be another NN between two consecutive NN
and that is NOT possible, then its n roots are irrational because:
The nth root of a natural that is not a nth perfect power is an
irrational
A number greater than r^n and lesser than s^n may have a root whose index is
n. But that number cannot have an integer value, it must be one with fractions
such as: r^n + 0.1 or r^n + 0.2 or something like this, but without arriving at s^n

It also happens that these integer "inner" numbers that lies between s^n and r^n
may have entire roots, but in that case, the roots will not be equal to n. And if
the root n is to be an integer, then the number is NOT integer.
Example r = 4 s = 6 n = 3

r^3 = 64 s^6 = 216

Among other interior numbers of this example are the numbers 81, 100, 121,
144, 169, 196 all them have square roots, but the radical index is 2 different
from 3. Or if I take any other like 128 for example, and get its entire root "e",
then.
e = 128 (1/n)
n = ln 128 / ln e
"n" can no longer be exact integer.

Because all non-exact roots of any number is an algebraic irrational.

Then: if the number (s^n -1)^(1/n) is an integer, "n" can not be exact (integer),
and vice versa. If (s^n -1)^(1/n) where n is an integer, the number is an irrational
number.

(s^n-1) is an integer. The one that is irrational is (s^n - 1)^(1/n)

because n is indeed exact integer..

4.- Then: & = (s^n-1)^ (1/n) (4)

It is an irrational number according from the deduction of equation (2) being s

an integer and taking w = 1

Now, I'm going to change the literals for clarity of exposure.

a = (c^n-1)^(1/n) (5)

That I have taken from (4), where c is an integer, then:

a^n = c^n -1

Multiplying both members by an integer b raised to the n power, then we have:

a^n.b^n = c^n.b^n - 1.b^n

(a.b)^n = (c.b)^n - b^n (6)

Changing the name of the products: a.b = x, c.b = z and b=k

Then: x^n = z^n - k^n

Clearing z^n. z^n = x^n + k^n

Where z> k z> x

- z^n is an integer because z = c.b is an integer

- k^n is an integer because b is an integer

- But x = a..b is an irrational number (according to equation 3) because "a" is

an irrational multiplying an integer b. Then an equation where both z and x and
k are integers is impossible. Since there will always be at least one irrational. x
in the prove.

This proves that Fermat's Theorem is true.

5 - In addition, we find that (s^n w) = r^n + 1 (see graph) then, if (s^n -1)^(1/ n)
is an irrational, so it is

(r^n + 1)^(1/n) = &

&^n = r^n + 1
And changing the literals as I did before.

a^n = c^n + 1
Multiplying by b^n
a^n.b^n = c^n.bn + b^n

x^n = z^n + k^n

z^n = k^n - x^n

Is false if all three literals are integers

This means that for the subtraction k^n - x^n also fulfill the Fermats theorem
where z > k z> x . The complete theorem can be described as follows:

z^n k^n x^n is true

For the three literals and the exponent n with integer values.

THE END