THE BIG FERMAT THEOREM

1. THE INTRODUCTION

In order to understand what is the standing point we are at now, let us start with some explanations.
How did I find this.
Who is the first one, to have the complete proof of the theorem.
What is interesting about this poof.
To what extent I have been able to prove this theorem.
However, in the case that you are not interested in those facts, you can just skip to the next part.

The first of all, lets see how did I came about this proof.
During some of the competitions for gifted students, there was one of the problems that was requiring a knowledge of the
Pythagoras's theorem. The solution was simple, but not so efficient. So, I have looked for some more mathematical ground
in order to optimize the code I had.
Somehow, at that time, I was reading a book about the nature of a space in the Universe.
There are three possible states of the Universe:
The space is flat.
The space is curved in the positive manner.
The space is curved in the negative manner.
This has turned to be the crucial part for this findings.

The first person to provide complete proof for this theorem was Mr. Andrew Willes.
That proof was very comprehensive, and there is a lot of facts going to it. The reader needs to be informed about math at
high level in order to be able to understand it. The starting point for this theorem was a long long time ago, when Mr. Piere
de Fermat wrote on his margins that the proof is a very simple and that it is too obvious to be noted due to the lack of the
space on the margins. Well, it was not so obvious to the rest of the world. Well, for a lot of us at least. The very large
number of mathematicians was striving to find that, almost obvious proof.
Now, since Mr Andrew has provided his proof, we know that there is no triplet to full fill that equation.

In my opinion, the most interesting thing about my article is the fact that it will try to prove all Mr. Andrew did, but with
simple math only.
Even do, I have placed a lot of effort, I have not been able to finish it completely. There are some interesting techniques,
that might be used furthermore in some other occasions.
So, even do, it is not for filling the registers jet, there is some potential to it.

The extent to which I have been able to provide the proof is significant, however it is not at the final point at which we are
going to be able to say and yes, thats it we did it .
The purpose of this article is more to inform people about my findings, and to inspire somebody to finish it with only
simple math.

2. THE MAIN PART

2.1 THE THEOREM

For those people who dont know the theorems statement.

With n, x, y, z N (meaning: x,y,z are all positive whole numbers) and n > 2 the equation xn + yn = zn has no solutions.
Most popular treatments of the subject state it this way. In contrast, almost all math textbooks state it over Z.

This statement is copied from Wikipedia.

2.2 THE EXTENT TO WHICH I WAS ABLE TO COMPLETE THE PROOF

In this part, I will try to explain to what extent I have been able to prove that there is no triplets that will full fill the
Fermats big theorem.

So, lets see what is the base for this proof.

I have divided all triplets of the numbers(x,y,z), that could possibly yield the solution, into the three groups. The starting
points are the triplets of numbers that are compared like in the Pythagoras's theorem. The squares of any three numbers,
that could potentially become, when risen to higher power are observed.

The first case, is the one in which the sum of two squares is equal to the third number.
I Case
x2 + y2 = z2

The second case, is the one in which the sum of two squares is smaller than the third number.
II Case
x2 + y2 < z2

The third case, is the one in which the sum of two squares is greater than the third number.
III Case
x2 + y2 > z2

After this, the case III is divided into three sub cases: III. 1, III. 2, III. 3 and III. 4. The first three cases have at least one
number that is greater than z. The case III. 4 has both numbers x and y smaller than the number z. That is the case that was
giving me troubles. However, I have been able to reduce the set of possible candidates even further. Now, I hope that with
this reductions, there is possibility to prove this beautiful monster theorem. All, it needs now is to find some algebra
transformations and some non-equation in order to finish it. The possible interval is now obvious.

Then, I have used some more theorems in order to additionally reduce the possible set that could stay out of the proven
area.
For that, I have found the proof which will say that number n needs to be greater that the smaller of two numbers(x, y).
This part will come as a addition to the first part of the theorem.

Then, there is one more part that could be found on Wikipedia. This part could also be found in many of those books I
have listed at the end of the article.

The graphical representation for this is:

The Case The Case The Case The Case The Case The Case
I II III. 1 III. 2 III. 3 III. 4

The Case
n >= min( x, y)
This last case( III. 4), has not been finished yet. In the picture above, that is the red part.

2.3 THE PROOF

In short, the all triplets that could become solutions are analyzed and proven that they will not be the solution.

I. CASE: x2 + y2 = z2

In order to provide proof for this part, I will need to refer you to helper theorem 1. In order to conduct our proof we will
say that x < z and y < z. The second conclusion could be derived with the same helper theorem 1, if we substitute x for y
and y for x.
In order to continue our proof, we will have some algebra transformations and we will have something like this:

(Now, comes the part when we multiply the both sides of the equation with *z(n-2).)

From this we will have:

x2 * z(n-2) + y2 * z(n-2) = z2 * z(n-2)

or

x2 * z(n-2) + y2 * z(n-2) = zn

and since we know that (x < z) and (y < z) , we could comfortably say that xn-2 < zn-2 and yn-2 < zn-2 . This would be easy due
to the fact that this are natural numbers and they are greater than 1.

We could observe that:

xn + yn < x2 *z(n-2) + y2 *z(n-2) = zn

Or that we have xn + yn < zn.

So, to conclude.
If we have start conditions x2 + y2 = z2, we will not get any solutions from this triplet, because the higher powers will stay
smaller than zn.
I have found the base for this proof in the book no 5.

II. CASE: x2 + y2 < z2

In order to consider this case, we will need helper theorem 2. After the same algebra operation is performed,we will have
the same conclusion.

x2 + y2 < z2

Then, after we apply the multiplication with z(n-2) we will have:

x2 * z(n-2) + y2 * z(n-2) < z2 * z(n-2)

Or, after we apply some more modifications, we will have:

x2 * z(n-2) + y2 * z(n-2) < zn

Since, we know that x < z and y < z, this part has been proven in helper theorem 2.

we could say that xn < zn and yn < zn, with the respect to nature of the solutions.
xn + yn < x2 * z(n-2) + y2 * z(n-2) < zn.

Or the important part:

xn + yn < zn

This tell us that we will have no possible solutions for higher powers.

III. CASE: x2 + y2 > z2

This case has been proven to be the most resistant. I have split that case into four possible sub-cases.

So, there is:

III.1. SUB CASE: (x2 + y2 > z2) and (x > z) and (y > z)

All we need to do, is to divide both side of the equation by z2.

Since x > z when we divide this by z, and with the respect to the nature of solutions, we will know that:
x/z is greater than 1, and similar to this we would be able to say that y/z is greater than 1.
So, when we have higher powers, the expression (x/z), (x/z)2, (x/z)3, (x/z)n will be greater than 1.
So, when we have higher powers, the expression (y/z), (y/z)2, (y/z)3, (y/z)n will be greater than 1.

After we consider this two facts, we could say that left side of the equation is greater than one. When we note that we will
have:
x2/z2 + y2/z2 > 1

and when we have higher powers it will stay higher than 1. Due to the fact that, for higher powers, the (x/z)n will only grow,
and there is no way it could be equal to 1. That would mean, that there is no potential solution for that equation.

III.2. SUB CASE: (x2 + y2 > z2) and (x > z) and (y < z)

The only change is that we will have only one part(x/z), that will stay greater than 1 and from that we could say that we will
not have potential solutions. In this case we will take the higher powers that two.

III.3. SUB CASE: (x2 + y2 > z2) and (x < z) and (y > z)

The only change is that we will have only one part(y/z), that will stay greater than 1 and from that we could say that we will
not have potential solutions.

In this two sub-cases, I have omitted to write any of the mathematical formula, because it is almost the same as the sub-
case III. 1. or III. 2..

III.4. SUB CASE: (x2 + y2 > z2) and (x < z) and (y < z)

This is the sub-case that not so easy to prove. I have found some additional reductions. do.

The first reduction, that will tell us something about the possible solutions in the case that n > min( x, y). Or in another
words, if we have possible solution, it will not be the case in which power n is greater than smaller of two number on the
left side of the equation. Moreover, it seems like the possible solutions will always be between max( x, y ) + 1 and max( x,
y ). This idea might be the wight path, or dead end. It is still to be seen.
In order to prove this additional reduction, we will have this part of the theorem that I have found in the book numbered 4.

If somebody is in doubts, do the triplets like this even exists ? Lets take one example case that will illustrate that.

52 + 62 = 25 + 36 = 61 > 49 = 72 or 52 + 62 > 72.

53 + 63 = 125 + 216 = 314 < 343 = 73.

Or to conclude we will have the example case:

52 + 62 > 72 and 53 + 63 < 73.

THE ADDITIONAL REDUCTION n > min( X, Y)

Lets say that n > min( X, Y) and that we are observing the case in which x > y and n > y. And lets say that we have found
that solution xn + yn = zn. Then number z is not member or N, and that means that it will not satisfy the conditions of the big
Fermats theorem.

From this part of the proof, we will be able to say that n could only be smaller than min( X, Y).
That will have some already proven cases proven twice, but it will additionally reduce the part that is not proven.
For proof look at the helper theorem 3.

After Fermat proved the special case n = 4, the general proof for all n required only that the theorem be established for all
odd prime exponents. In other words, it was necessary to prove only that the equation an + bn = cn has no integer solutions
(a, b, c) when n is an odd This follows because a solution (a, b, c) for a given n is equivalent to a solution for all the factors
of n. For illustration, let n be factored into d and e, n = de. The general equation

an + bn = cn

implies that (ad, bd, cd) is a solution for the exponent e

(ad)e + (bd)e = (cd)e.

Thus, to prove that Fermat's equation has no solutions for n >2, it would suffice to prove that it has no solutions for at
least one prime factor of every n. Each integer n > 2 is divisible by 4 or by an odd prime number (or both). Therefore,
Fermat's Last Theorem could be proved for all n if it could be proved for n =4 and for all odd primes p.

This part is copied from Wikipedia.

3. THE CONCLUSION

We have seen the parts we have accomplished till now, I would like to see what needs to be done in order to complete the
theorem.
After we have observed the three mayor cases, we have divided the third case into four of the sub cases. Then, we have
seen that if the number that will full fill that condition exists, then it must be that our power (n) is lower than min( x, y ).
In another words, that n will not be that big number, when compared to x and y. This part of the proof will add some
restrictions to the possible set of the solutions, that could full fill the equation.
The last reduction is already well know and it will tell us something about those three numbers: x, y and z.

Yeah, it is not proven yet, but it has many advances that look promising after all. Due to the fact that I am not professional
mathematician, nor even the enthusiast, I have decided to share this with the rest of the world.
I just hope that somebody will be able to complete the proof. I would never do that if I had no faith left in that task.

After Endrus results, it is bit easier to look for something when you know what are you looking for.

In a way, we can say that the cat is still needed, in order to pool the beet from the ground. Yeah, I have found the mouse
now.

4. THE HELPER THEOREMS

HELPER THEOREM 1
Lets say that we have this equation

x2 + something = z2

and that something is greater than zero.

There will be: x2 + something = z2 and something > 0.

Since something is greater than zero and positive, it will be added to x2 to get z2.
This will mean that x2 < z2.
Now, when we have this part, it is easy to say that x < z, because those are whole numbers.

To make it clear, we have concluded that if condition x2 + something = z2 and condition something > 0 are full filed, then
we will have x < z, in the case of whole numbers.

HELPER THEOREM 2

To prove this theorem, I will start from x2 + y2 < z2.

Now, lets take the case in which we will see what is the relationship between x and z. Due to the fact that both of this
number are positive, and that is due to the nature of the solutions of our non-equation.
There will be
x2 + something < z2

And from this, since both numbers are whole number, we could say that we will have:

x 2 < z2

and since we can conclude that

x < z.

Analog to this, we could say that y < z.

HELPER THEOREM 3

Now, lets take the number x+1 and observe its n-th power.

The result will be like this:

( x + 1 )n = xn + n*x(n-1) + the rest of positive powers and one.

Since n > y and x > y, due to the conditions in our theorem it will be that

( x + 1 )n = xn + n*x(n-1) + the rest of positive powers and one > xn + n*x(n-1) > xn + y*y(n-1) > xn + yn.

Now we could say that ( x + 1 )n > xn + yn > xn.

This will mean that our solution is placed between two n-th powers ( x + 1 )n and xn. Since there is no whole numbers that
belong to set N, between x+1 and x, we will know that the zn is not whole number.

It is also possible to exclude the situation where n = y too. That is so, because we have

(x +1)n > xn + n*y(n-1) and if n = y it will be

(x +1)n > xn + n*y(n-1) = xn + yn > xn .

However, it might be possible to fix this part with those additional conditions.
5. LITERATURE

1. Razgovori o matematici, grupa autora.

2 . I n o s t r a n a j u n i o r s ka t a k m i e nj a , V l a d i m i r S t oj a n ov i .
3. Matematika takmienja u RS, Vidan Govedarica.
4 . Uv o d u t e o r ij u b r oj ev a , M i i , K a d el b u rg i u k i .
5. Zadaci sa takmienja s resenjima, elebi i Novi.
6. Wikipedia.
7. Sajmon Sing , Fer mats l ast the orem.