40

Can someone provide the proof of the special case of Fermat's Last Theorem for $n=3$, i.e., that $$ x^3 + y^3 = z^3, $$ has no positive integer solutions, as briefly as possible?

I have seen some good proofs, but they are quite long (longer than a page) or use many variables. However, I would rather have an elementary long proof with many variables than a complex short proof.

Edit. Even if the bounty expires I will award one to someone if they have a satisfying answer.

qwr
  • 11,362
  • 56
    “I have seen some good proofs, but they are quite long (more than a page) or use many variables.” Welcome to mathematics! – Carsten S Feb 03 '14 at 18:20
  • When the exponent is a prime, use & abuse Newton's binomial theorem. All the terms of any row of Pascal's triangle whose index is a prime number divide through it. This is what ultimately makes the Diophantine equations $a^p+b^p=c^p$ impossible, starting with $p=3$. It's a fairly simple (but very laborious) question of exploiting divisibility. With all primes $>2$ out of the way, their multiples soon follow, so all that's left is $n=4$. You inevitably arrive at a point where the product of two terms equals a product of n terms. For $n=2$ this works, but not for $n=p>2$, due to co-primality. – Lucian Feb 03 '14 at 18:38
  • 14
    @Lucian Well, that even seems to fit a book's margin. – Hagen von Eitzen Feb 03 '14 at 18:42
  • @Lucian Can you add a bit more detail and post that as an answer? – qwr Feb 03 '14 at 18:50
  • Unfortunately, as I've already said, my proof for $n=3$ is also quite long (though by no means complex), and it does use quite a few extra variables, so... – Lucian Feb 04 '14 at 03:23
  • Most proofs use factorization in $\Bbb Z[\zeta_3]$, as far as I know. Oh, oh, you want rational-points-on-elliptic-curves? Sure, it would reduced a variable in the calculation! – Balarka Sen Feb 04 '14 at 05:49
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem_for_specific_exponents#n.C2.A0.3D.C2.A03 – Alraxite Feb 05 '14 at 21:21
  • @Lucian if it's not complex, I would like to see it – qwr Feb 05 '14 at 21:38

4 Answers4

48

Main idea. The proof that follows is based on the infinite descent, i.e., we shall show that if $(x,y,z)$ is a solution, then there exists another triplet $(k,l,m)$ of smaller integers, which is also a solution, and this leads apparently to a contradiction.

Assume instead that $x, y, z\in\mathbb Z\smallsetminus\{0\}$ satisfy the equation (replacing $z$ by $-z$) $$x^3 + y^3 + z^3 = 0,$$ with $x, y$ and $z$ pairwise coprime. (Clearly at least one is negative.) One of them should be even, whereas the other two are odd. Assume $z$ to be even.

Then $x$ and $y$ are odd. If $x = y$, then $2x^3 = −z^3$, and thus $x$ is also even, a contradiction. Hence $x\ne y$.

As $x$ and $y$ are odd, then $x+y$, $x-y$ are both even numbers. Let $$ 2u = x + y, \quad 2v = x − y, $$ where the non-zero integers $u$ and $v$ are also coprime and of different parity (one is even, the other odd), and $$ x = u + v\quad \text{and}\quad y = u − v. $$ It follows that $$ −z^3 = (u + v)^3 + (u − v)^3 = 2u(u^2 + 3v^2). \tag{1} $$ Since $u$ and $v$ have different parity, $u^2 + 3v^2$ is an odd number. And since $z$ is even, then $u$ is even and $v$ is odd. Since $u$ and $v$ are coprime, then $$ {\mathrm{gcd}}\,(2u,u^2 + 3v^2)={\mathrm{gcd}}\,(2u,3v^2)\in\{1,3\}. $$

Case I. $\,{\mathrm{gcd}}\,(2u,u^2 + 3v^2)=1$.

In this case, the two factors of $−z^3$ in $(1)$ are coprime. This implies that $3\not\mid u$ and that both the two factors are perfect cubes of two smaller numbers, $r$ and $s$. $$ 2u = r^3\quad\text{and}\quad u^2 + 3v^2 = s^3. $$ As $u^2 + 3v^2$ is odd, so is $s$. We now need the following result:

Lemma. If $\mathrm{gcd}\,(a,b)=1$, then every odd factor of $a^2 + 3b^2$ has this same form.

Proof. See here.

Thus, if $s$ is odd and if it satisfies an equation $s^3 = u^2 + 3v^2$, then it can be written in terms of two coprime integers $e$ and $f$ as $$ s = e^2 + 3f^2, $$ so that $$ u = e ( e^2 − 9f^2) \quad\text{and}\quad v = 3f ( e^2 − f^2). $$ Since $u$ is even and $v$ odd, then $e$ is even and $f$ is odd. Since $$ r^3 = 2u = 2e (e − 3f)(e + 3f), $$ the factors $2e$, $(e–3f )$, and $(e+3f )$ are coprime since $3$ cannot divide $e$. If $3\mid e$, then $3\mid u$, violating the fact that $u$ and $v$ are coprime. Since the three factors on the right-hand side are coprime, they must individually equal cubes of smaller integers $$ −2e = k^3,\,\,\, e − 3f = l^3,\,\,\, e + 3f = m^3, $$ which yields a smaller solution $k^3 + l^3 + m^3= 0$. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution $(x, y, z)$ was impossible.

Case II. $\,{\mathrm{gcd}}\,(2u,u^2 + 3v^2)=3$.

In this case, the greatest common divisor of $2u$ and $u^2 + 3v^2$ is $3$. That implies that $3\mid u$, and one may express $u = 3w$ in terms of a smaller integer, $w$. Since $4\mid u$, so is $w$; hence, $w$ is also even. Since $u$ and $v$ are coprime, so are $v$ and $w$. Therefore, neither $3$ nor $4$ divide $v$.

Substituting $u$ by $w$ in $(1)$ we obtain $$ −z^3 = 6w(9w^2 + 3v^2) = 18w(3w^2 + v^2) $$ Because $v$ and $w$ are coprime, and because $3\not\mid v$, then $18w$ and $3w^2 + v^2$ are also coprime. Therefore, since their product is a cube, they are each the cube of smaller integers, $r$ and $s$: $$ 18w = r^3 \quad\text{and}\quad 3w^2 + v^2 = s^3. $$ By the same lemma, as $s$ is odd and equal to a number of the form $3w^2 + v^2$, it too can be expressed in terms of smaller coprime numbers, $e$ and $f$: $$ s = e^2 + 3f^2. $$ A straight-forward calculation shows that $$ v = e (e^2 − 9f^2) \quad\text{and}\quad w = 3f (e^2 − f^2). $$ Thus, $e$ is odd and $f$ is even, because $v$ is odd. The expression for $18w$ then becomes $$ r^3 = 18w = 54f (e^2 − f^2) = 54f (e + f) (e − f) = 3^3 \times 2f (e + f) (e − f). $$ Since $3^3$ divides $r^3$ we have that $3$ divides $r$, so $(r /3)^3$ is an integer that equals $2f (e + f) (e − f)$. Since $e$ and $f$ are coprime, so are the three factors $2e$, $e+f$, and $e−f$; therefore, they are each the cube of smaller integers, $k$, $l$, and $m$. $$ −2e = k^3,\,\,\, e + f = l^3,\,\,\, e − f = m^3, $$ which yields a smaller solution $k^3 + l^3 + m^3= 0$. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution $(x, y, z)$ was impossible.

Note. See also here.

Ivan Neretin
  • 13,429
  • Can you present the proof all together? – qwr Feb 12 '14 at 20:24
  • 1
    I incorporated a proof, using a simple lemma: http://fermatslasttheorem.blogspot.com/2005/05/fermats-last-theorem-n-3-a2-3b2.html – Yiorgos S. Smyrlis Feb 13 '14 at 09:42
  • But the infinite descent only works for positive integers.. You should show that there is a positive solution which gets progressively smaller..so at least one of the positive solution of $(x,y,z)$ gets smaller.. It is not immediately clear to me why is it so – Ant Apr 27 '16 at 07:53
3

There’s a wonderful elementary (and fairly short) proof in this paper by S.Dolan.

2

Eight years and one elementary number theory course later, I can give a brief but not as elementary sketch of an answer based on the ring of Eisenstein integers. They have a strong connection to cubes, considering the cubic root of unity $\omega$. Assume it is already established the Eisenstein integers $\mathbb Q(\omega)$ are a Euclidean domain, so UFD. This answer follows that in Dörrie's 100 great problems of elementary mathematics, but he spends some pages reproving results about Euclidean domains.

First off we can assume in $\alpha^3 + \beta^3 = \gamma^3$ that $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ are coprime in the Eisenstein integers due to unique factorization. By trivially replacing $\gamma$ with $-\gamma$ the equation is $\alpha^3 + \beta^3 + \gamma^3 = 0$.

Now $i\sqrt 3 = \omega - \omega^2 = 2 \omega + 1$ is an Eisenstein prime by properties of norm. (Dörrie calls this $J-O$, where he defines $J = - \omega^2 = (1 + i \sqrt 3)/2, O = - \omega = (1-i \sqrt 3)/2$. He uses $\{J, O\}$ as a basis instead of $\{1,\omega\}$ or $\{\omega, \omega^2\}$ for some reason?)

By some basic computations and casework of $a,b$ mod 3 I'm too lazy to write up, if 3 divides $a + b$ then $i \sqrt 3$ divides $a + b \omega$, and more calculations show Lemma: if $i \sqrt 3$ doesn't divide $a + b\omega$, then $(a + b\omega)^3 \equiv \pm 1 \pmod 9$.

Now Lemma: $\alpha^3 + \beta^3 + \gamma^3 = 0$ implies $i \sqrt 3$ divides exactly one of $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$. This holds because suppose $i \sqrt 3$ didn't divide any of $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$. Then $\alpha^3 \equiv e, \beta^3 \equiv f, \gamma^3 \equiv g \pmod 9$ where $e^2 = f^2 = g^2 = 1$. But by casework mod 9, this is impossible. And we know $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ are coprime so can't share a factor of $i \sqrt 3$.

Finally, $\alpha \beta \gamma \ne 0$ is impossible by some arguments of common divisor and infinite descent on the norm given in R. Andrew Ohana's more algebraic proof. Actually I should've just linked his proof instead of writing all the above, since the algebraic structure is more enlightening. But I'll leave the answer as a source of references and getting down ideas.

qwr
  • 11,362
-1

Assume $x^3+y^3=z^3$, $x$, $y$, $z$ c0-prime, $x$ even, $y$ odd, $z$ odd.

Let $x+y=z+d$. Cubing the latter, subtracting the hypothesis: $$3x^2y+3y^2x=3z^2d+3d^2z+d^3.$$ Transposing and substituting: $$3(z+d)(xy-zd)=d^3.$$ $3\mid d$, so let $d=3e$. The equation becomes: $$3(z+3e)(xy-3ze)=27e^3.$$ Dividing by $3$, $$(z+3e)(xy-3ze)=9e^3.$$ The left side is divisible by $e^3$. However, each factor cannot be divisible by $e$, or else $e\mid(z+3e)$, or $e\mid z$, and $e\mid (xy 3ze)$, or $e \mid xy$. Hence $e\mid(z\text{ and }x)$ or $e \mid (z\text{ and }y)$, which is impossible because co-prime.

$e\ne1$ because we would have $(z+3)(xy-3z)=9$.

$9$ divides the left side, but both factors cannot be divisible by $3$,or $3 \mid z$ and $3 \mid xy$, impossible.

Returning to $$(z+3e)(xy-3ze)=9e^3,$$ we repeat the argument just completed to get the result:
the 2 factors on the left can only be divisible be $e^3$, $9e^3$, $1$, and $9$,so we have the $4$ possibilities:
(a) $z+3e=9e^3$, $(xy-3ez)=1$;
(b) $z+3=e^3$, $(xy-3ez)=9$
(c) $(z+3e)=9$, $(xy-3ez)=e^3$,
(d) $(z+3e)=1$, $(xy-3ez)=9e^3$.
Now (d) and (c) are clearly impossible. In (a) and (b), the expression $xy-3ez=xy -dz$ is the difference of 2 even numbers; their difference could not be $1$ or $9$. Q.E.D. Ed Gray

user26857
  • 53,190
  • 2
    This answer is simply wrong. You claim that $(z+3)(xy-3z) = 9e^3$ is impossible if $x,y,z$ are coprime with $x$ even and $y,z$ odd. But your 'argument' is totally invalid. (It is already invalid for $e = 1$, but by luck you made a true claim.) You have many more than 4 possibilities. A counter-example is not needed to invalidate your argument, but in this case there is one: $(x,y,z,e) = (2,1461,95,10)$. – user21820 Mar 14 '17 at 08:32
  • The comment by user 21820 used the erroneous equation (z + 3)(xy - 3z). – Edwin Gray Mar 15 '17 at 12:09
  • user21820 made a typo in the equation, but also gave an explicit counter example which checks out in the actual equation: namely subbing $(x,y,z,e) = (2,1461,95,10)$ into your equation $(z+3e)(xy-3ze) - 9e^3$ gives $0$. – user51764 Feb 01 '22 at 07:46