The Wonders of Arithmetic from Pierre Simon de Fermat

We can honestly confess that so far not everything that keep in Fermat's cache is accessible and understandable to us. Moreover, we cannot even determine where this place is. But also, to declare that everything that we tell here, is only ours, would be clearly unfair and dishonest because nobody would have believed us then. On the other hand, if everything was so simple, then it would be completely to no one interesting. The worst thing that could be done, is to reveal the entire contents of Fermat’s cache so that everyone will forget about it immediately after reading.

We will act otherwise. If something will be revealed, only to give an opportunity to learn about the even more innermost mysteries of science, which will not only make everyone smarter, but will indicate the best ways to solve vital problems. Using the example of solving the FLT problem, it will be quite easily to make sure this since with a such solution science receives so a reliable point of support that it can do whatever it wants with the integer power numbers. In particular, it may be easily calculated as much as you like of integer power numbers, which in sum or difference will give again an integer power number. The fact that only a computer can shovel such a work, is very ashamed for current science because this task is too simple even for children.

The most quick-witted of them will clearly prefer that adults ask them to explain something more difficult for example, FLT proof, which in their time was completely inaccessible to them. Children of course, will not fail to get naughty and will be important like high-class nobles when answer to stupid questions of adults and indicating to them that it would be nice for someone to learn something else. But it will be only little flowers. But after that, the amazement of adults will become simply indescribable when they find out that the children are addicted to peeping and copying everything that interests them directly from Fermat's cache! Indeed, at their age they still do not realize their capabilities and it seems to them that this is at all not a difficult task.

However, if they had not read interesting books about science, then such an idea would never have occurred to them. But when they find out that someone is doing this, they will find that they can do it just as well if even not better! Do you not believe? Well, everyone who wants to be convinced of this, will have this opportunity now. But one more small detail remains. Fermat in his "heretical writings" although he pointed out that he had to provide proofs of three simple theorems for children, which he specially prepared for them, but so far he did not have time for this nevertheless firmly promised that as soon as he has a time, then he will certainly and sure do it.

But apparently, he did not have enough time and so he did not manage to add the necessary recordings. Or perhaps he changed his mind because didn’t want to deprive children of joy on their own to learn to solve just such problems that adults can't afford. If the children can't cope, then who them will reproach for it. But if they manage it, then adults will not go anywhere and will bring to children many, many gifts!

4.3. Theorems About Magic Numbers

The above presented proof of FLT not only corresponds to Fermat's assessment as" truly amazing", but is also constructive since it allows us to calculate both the Pythagorean numbers and other special numbers in a new way what demonstrate the following theorems.

Theorem 1. For any natural number n, it can be calculated as many

triples as you like from different natural numbers a, b, c such that

n = a2 + b2 – c2. For example :

n=7=62+142–152=282+1282–1312=5682+51882–52192=

=1783282+53001459282–53001459312 etc.

n=34=112+132–162=3232+30592–30762=

=2475972+20434758052–20434758202 etc.

The meaning of this theorem is that if there is an infinite number of Pythagoras triples forming the number zero in the form a2+b2−c2=0 then nothing prevents creating any other integer in the same way. It follows from the text of the theorem that numbers with such properties can be “calculated”, therefore it is very useful for educating children in school.

In this case, we will not act rashly and will not give here or anywhere else a proof of this theorem, but not at all because we want to keep it a secret. Moreover, we will recommend that for school books or other books (if of course, it will appear there) do not disclose the proof because otherwise its educational value will be lost and children who could show their abilities here will lose such an opportunity. On the other hand, if the above FLT proof would remain unknown, then Theorem 1 would be very difficult, but since now this is not so, even not very capable students will quickly figure out how to prove it and as soon as they do, they will easily fulfill the given above calculations.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

Примечания

1

Naturalized geometric elements form either straight line segments of a certain length or geometric figures composed of them. To make of them figures with curvilinear contours (cone, ellipsoid, paraboloid, hyperboloid) is problematic, therefore it is necessary to switch to the representation of geometric figures by equations. To do this, they need to be placed in the coordinate system. Then the need for naturalized elements disappears and they are completely replaced by numbers for example, the equation of a straight line on the plane looks as y=ax+b, and the circle x2+y2=r2, where x, y are variables, a, b are constants offset and slope straight line, r is the radius of the circle. Descartes and independently of him Fermat had developed the fundamentals of such (analytical) geometry, but Fermat went further proposing even more advanced methods for analyzing curves that formed the basis of the Leibniz – Newton differential and integral calculus.

2

Under conditions when the general state of science is not controlled in any way, naturally, the process of its littering and decomposition is going on. The quality of education is also uncontrollable since both parties are interested in this, the students who pay for it and the teachers who earn on it. All this comes out when the situation in society becomes conflict due to poor management of public institutions and it can only be “rectified” by wars and the destruction of the foundations of an intelligence civilization.

3

The name itself “the Basic theorem of arithmetic”, which not without reason, is also called the Fundamental theorem, would seem a must to attract special attention to it. However, this can be so only in real science, but in that, which we have, the situation is like in the Andersen tale when out of a large crowd of people surrounding the king, there is only one and that is a child who noticed that the king is naked!

4

On a preserved tombstone from the Fermat’s burial is written: “qui literarum politiforum plerumque linguarum” – skilled expert in many languages (see Pic. 93-94 in Appendix VI).

5

It is believed that Fermat left only one proof [36], but this is not entirely true since in reality it is just a verbal description of the descent method for a specific problem (see Appendix II).

6

It was a truly grandiose mystification, organized by Princeton University in 1995 after publishing in its own commercial edition "Annals of Mathematics" the “proof” of FLT by A. Wiles and the most powerful campaign in the media. It would seem that such a sensational scientific achievement should have been released in large numbers all over the world. But no! Understanding of this text is available only to specialists with appropriate training. Wow, now even that, which cannot be understood, may be considered as proof! However, for fairness it should be recognized that even such an overtly cynical mockery of science, presented as the greatest "scientific achievement" of the luminaries of Princeton University, cannot be even near to the brilliant swindle of their countrymen from the National Space Administration NASA, which resulted that the entire civilized world for half a century haven’t any doubt that the American astronauts actually traveled to the moon!

7

The “proof”, which A. Wiles prepared for seven years of hard work and published on whole 130 (!!!) journal pages, exceeded all reasonable limits of scientific creativity and of course, him was awaiting inevitable bitter disappointment because such an impressive amount of casuistry understandable only to its author, neither in form nor in content is in any way suitable to present this as proof. But here the real wonder happened. Suddenly, the almighty unholy himself was appeared! Immediately there were influential people who picked up the "brilliant ideas" and launched a stormy PR campaign. And here is your world fame, please, many titles and awards! The doors to the most prestigious institutions are open! But such a wonder even for the enemy not to be wish because sooner or later the swindle will open anyway.

8

If this book was published during the life of Fermat, then he would simply be torn to pieces because in his 48 remarks he did not give a proof of any one of his theorems. But in 1670 i.e. 5 years after his death, there was no one to punish with and venerable mathematicians themselves had to look for solutions to the problems proposed by him. But with this they obviously had not managed and of course, many of them could not forgive Fermat of such insolence. They were also not forgotten that during his lifetime he twice arranged the challenges to English mathematicians, which they evidently could not cope with, despite his generous recognition of them as worthy rivals in the letters they received from Fermat. Only 68 years after the first publication of Diophantus' "Arithmetic" with Fermat's remarks, did the situation at last get off the ground when the greatest science genius Leonard Euler had proven a special case of FLT for n=4, using the descent method in exact accordance with Fermat's recommendations (see Appendix II). Later thanks to Euler, there was received solutions also of the other tasks, but the FLT had so not obeyed to anyone.

9

In pt. 2-30 of the letter Fermat to Mersenne, the task is set:

“Find two quadrate-quadrate, the sum of which is equal to a quadrate-quadrate or two cubes, the sum of which is a cube” [9, 36]. The dating of this letter in the edition by Tannery is doubtful since it was written after the letters with a later dating. Therefore, it was most likely written in 1638. From this it is concluded that the FLT is appeared in 1637??? But have the FLT really such a wording? Even if these two tasks are special cases of the FLT, how it can be attributed to Fermat what about he could hardly even have guessed at that time? In addition, the Arabic mathematician Abu Mohammed al Khujandi first pointed to the insolubility of the problem of decomposing a cube into a sum of two cubes as early else the 10th century [36]. But the insolvability of the same problem with biquadrates is a consequence of the solution of the problem from pt. 2-10 of the same letter: "Find a right triangle in numbers whose area would be equal to a square." The way of proving Fermat gives in his 45th remark to Diophantus' “Arithmetic”, which begins like this: “If the area of the triangle were a square then two quadrate-quadrates would be given, the difference of which would be a square.” Thus, at that time, the wording of this problem and the approach to its solution were very different even from the particular case of FLT.

10

In order no doubts to appear, attempts were made to somehow “substantiate” the fact that Fermat could not have the proof mentioned in the original of FLT text. See for example, https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/node26.html (Did Fermat prove this theorem?). Such an "argument" to any of the sensible people related to science, it would never come to mind because it cannot be convincing even in principle since in this way any drivel can be attributed to Fermat. But the initiators of such stuffing clearly did not take into account that this is exactly evidence of an organized and directed information campaign on the part of those who were interested in promoting Wiles’ “proof”.

11

An exception is one of the greatest English mathematicians John Wallis (see pt. 3.4.3).

12

Obviously, if it come only about the wording of the FLT, it would be very unwise to write it in the margins of the book. But Fermat’s excuses about narrow fields are repeated in other remarks for example, in the 45th, at the end of which he adds: “Full proof and extensive explanations cannot fit in the margins because of their narrowness” [36]. But only one this remark takes the whole printed page! Of course, he had no doubt that his Gascon humor would be appreciated. When his son, Clement Samuel who naturally found a discrepancy in the notes prepared for publication, was not at all surprised by this since it was obvious to him that right after reading the book it was absolutely impossible to give exact wording of tasks and theorems. The fact that this copy of Diophantus’ “Arithmetic” with Fermat's handwritten notes didn’t come to us suggests that even then this book was an extremely valuable rarity, so it could have been bought by another owner for a very high price. And he was of course not so stupid to trumpet about it to the whole world at least for his own safety.

13

The text of the last FLT phrase: “I have discovered a truly amazing proof to this, but these margins are too narrow to put it here”, obviously does not belong to the essence of the theorem, but for many mathematicians it looks so defiant that they tried in every way to show that it's just empty a Gascon boasting. At the same time, they did not notice neither humor about the margins nor the keyword “discovered”, which is clearly not appropriate here. More appropriated words here could be, say, “obtained” or “founded”. If Fermat’s opponents paid attention to this, it would become clear to them that the word “discovered” indicates that he received the proof unexpectedly by solving the Diophantus' task, to which a remark was written called the FLT. Thus, mathematicians have unsuccessfully searched during the centuries for FLT proof instead of looking for a solution to the Diophantus' task of decomposing a square into the sum of two square. It seemed to them that the of Diophantus' task was clearly not worth their attention. But for Fermat it became perhaps the most difficult of all with it he has worked on, and when he did cope with it, then received the discovery of the FLT proof as a reward.

14

It is curious that the Russian-language edition this fundamental work of Euler was published in 1768 under the title "Universal Arithmetic" although the original name "Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra" should be translated as the Complete Introduction to Algebra. Apparently, translators (students Peter Inokhodtsev and Ivan Yudin) reasonably believed that the equations are studied here mainly from the point of view of their solutions in integers or rational numbers i.e. by arithmetic methods. For today's reader this 2-volume edition is presented as a Chinese literacy because along with the highly outdated Russian language and spelling, there is simply an incredible number of typos. It is unlikely that today's RAS as the heiress of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, which published this work, understands its true value, otherwise it would have been reprinted a long time ago in a modern and accessible form.

15

Here there is an analogy between algebra and the analytic geometry of Descartes and Fermat, which looks more universal than the Euclidean geometry. Nevertheless, Euclidean arithmetic and geometry are the only the foundations, on which algebra and analytical geometry can appear. In this sense, the idea of Euler to consider all calculations through the prism of algebra is knowingly flawed. But his logic was completely different. He understood that if science develops only by increasing the variety of equations, which it is capable to solve, then sooner or later it will reach a dead end. And in this sense, his research was of great value for science. Another thing is that their algebraic form was perceived as the main way of development, and this later led to devastating consequences.

16

Just here is the concept of a “number plane” appears, where real numbers are located along the x axis, and imaginary numbers along the y axis i.e. the same real, only multiplied by the “number” i = √-1. But along that come a contradiction between these axes – on the real axis, the factor 1n is neutral, but on the imaginary axis no, however this does not agree with the basic properties of numbers. If the “number” i is already entered, then it must be present on both axes, but then there is no sense in introducing the second axis. So, it turns out that from the point of view of the basic properties of numbers, the ephemeral creation in the form of a number plane is a complete nonsense.

17

According to the Basic theorem of arithmetic the decomposition of any natural number into prime factors is always unambiguous, for example, 12=2×2×3 i.e. with other prime factors this number like any other, is impossible to imagine. But for “complex numbers” in the general case this unambiguity is lost for example, 12=(1+√–11)×(1+√–11)=(2+√–8)×(2+√–8) In fact, this means the collapse of science in its very foundations. However, the generally accepted criteria (in the form of axioms) what can be attributed to numbers and what is not, as there was not so still is not.

18

The theorem and its proof are given in “The Euclid's Elements” Book IX, Proposition 14. Without this theorem, the solution of the prevailing set of arithmetic problems becomes either incomplete or impossible at all.

19

Soviet mathematician Lev Pontryagin showed these “numbers” do not have the basic property of commutativity i.e. for them ab ≠ ba [34]. Therefore, one and the same such “number” should be represented only in the factorized form, otherwise it will have different value at the same time. When in justification of such creations scientists say that mathematicians have lack some numbers, in reality this may mean they obviously have lacked a mind.

20

If some very respected public institution thus encourages the development of science then what one can object? However, such an emerging unknown from where the generosity and disinterestedness from the side of the benefactors who didn’t clear come from, looks somehow strange if not to say knowingly biased. Indeed, it has long been well known where these “good intentions” come from and whither they lead and the result of these acts is also obvious. The more institutions there are for encouraging scientists, the more real science is in ruins. What is costed only one Nobel Prize for "discovery" of, you just think … accelerated scattering of galaxies!!!

21

Waring's problem is the statement that any positive integer N can be represented as a sum of the same powers xin, i.e. in the form N = x1n + x2n + … + xkn. It was in very complex way first proven by Hilbert in 1909, and in 1920 the mathematicians Hardy and Littlewood simplified the proof, but their methods were not yet elementary. And only in 1942 the Soviet mathematician Yu. V. Linnik has published arithmetic proof using the Shnielerman method. The Waring-Hilbert theorem is of fundamental importance from the point of view the addition of powers and does not contradict to FLT since there are no restrictions on the number of summands.

22

A counterexample refuting Euler’s hypothesis is 958004 + 2175194 + 4145604 = 4224814. Another example 26824404+153656394+187967604=206156734. For the fifth power everything is much simpler. 275+845+1105+1335=1445. It is also possible that a general method of such calculations can be developed if we can obtain the corresponding constructive proof of the Waring's problem.

23

Of course, this does not mean that computer scientists understand this problem better than Hilbert. They just had no choice because closed links are looping and this will lead to the computer freezing.

24

The axiom that the sum of two positive integers can be equal to zero is clearly not related to arithmetic since with numbers that are natural or derived from them this is clearly impossible. But if there is only algebra and no arithmetic, then also not only a such things would become possible.

25

It is curious that even Euler (apparently by mistake) called root extraction the operation inverse to exponentiation [8], although he knew very well that this is not so. But this is no secret that even very talented people often get confused in very simple things. Euler obviously did not feel the craving for the formal construction of the foundations of science since he always had an abundance of all sorts of other ideas. He thought that with the formalities could also others coped, but it turned out that it was from here the biggest problem grew.

26

This is evident at least from the fact, in what a powerful impetus for the development of science were embodied countless attempts to prove the FLT. In addition, the FLT proof, obtained by Fermat, opens the way to solving the Pythagorean equation in a new way (see pt. 4.3) and magic numbers like a+b-c=a2+b2-c2 (see pt. 4.4).

27

In the Russian-language section of Wikipedia, this topic is titled "Гипотеза Била". But since the author’s name is in the original Andrew Beal, we will use the name of the “Гипотеза Биэла” to avoid confusion between the names of Beal (Биэл) and Bill (Бил).

28

In a letter from Fermat to Mersenne from 06/15/1641 the following is reported: “I try to satisfy Mr. de Frenicle’s curiosity as completely as possible … However, he asked me to send a solution to one question, which I postpone until I return to Toulouse, since I am now in the village where I needed would be a lot of time to redo what I wrote on this subject and what I left in my cabinet” [9, 36]. This letter is a direct evidence that Fermat in his scientific activities could not do without his working recordings, which, judging by the documents reached us, were very voluminous and could hardly have been kept with him on various trips.

29

If Fermat would live to the time when the Academy of Sciences was established and would become an academician then in this case at first, he would publish only problem statements and only after a sufficiently long time, the main essence of their solution. Otherwise, it would seem that these tasks are too simple to study and publish in such an expensive institution.

30

To solve this problem, you need to use the formula that presented as the identity: (a2+b2)×(c2+d2)=(ac+bd)2+(ad−bc)2=(ac−bd)2+(ad+bc)2. We take two numbers 4 + 9 = 13 and 1 + 16 = 17. Their product will be 13×17 = 221 = (4 + 9) × (1+16) = (2×1 + 3×4)2 + (2×4 − 3×1)2 = (2×1 − 3×4)2 + (2×4 + 3×1)2 = 142 + 52 = 102 + 112; Now if 2216 = (2213)2 = 107938612; then the required result will be 2217 = (142 + 52)×107938612 = (14×10793861)2 + (5×10793861)2 = 1511140542 + 539693052 = (102 + 112)×107938612=(10×10793861)2 + (11×10793861)2=1079386102 + 1187324712; But you can go also the other way if you submit the initial numbers for example, as follows: 2212 = (142 + 52)×(102 + 112) = (14×10 + 5×11)2 + (14×11 − 5×10)2 = (14×10 − 5×11)2 + (14×11+5×10)2 = 1952 + 1042 = 852 + 2042; 2213 = 2212×221 = (1952 + 1042)×(102 + 112) = (195×10 + 104×11)2 + (195×11 − 104×10)2 = (195×10 − 104×11)2 +(195×11 + 104 × 10)2 = 3 0942 + 11052 = 8062 + 31852; 2214 = (1952 + 1042)×(852 + 2042) = (195×85 + 104×204)2 + (195×204 − 85×104)2 = (195×85 − 104×204)2 + (195×204 + 85×104)2 = 377912 + 309402 = 46412 + 486202; 2217 = 2213×2214 = (30942 + 11052)×(377912 + 309402) = (3094×37791 + 1105×30940)2 + (3094×30940 − 1105×37791)2 = (3094×37791 − 1105×30940)2 + (3094×30940 + 1105×37791)2; 2217 = 1511140542 + 539693052 = 827366542 + 1374874152