Fermat's Last Theorem for exponent 4
Statement
There are no positive integers with ; consequently none with either.
Why is it true?
This is the one case Fermat himself wrote a proof for, found among his papers after his death. The method — infinite descent — builds, from any hypothetical solution, a strictly smaller one, impossible for positive integers; it is the ancestor of well-founded induction used throughout modern mathematics and computer science.
Proof sketch
Suppose a solution in positive integers to exists; choose one with minimal. If , then and is smaller — contradiction. So , is a primitive Pythagorean triple; say is odd. By Euclid's parametrization, coprime of opposite parity give , , .
From , the triple is itself primitive, so coprime give , , . Then , so with pairwise coprime and product a perfect square, forcing each to be a square: , , .
Substituting into gives — a new solution of the same equation, with : strictly smaller, contradicting minimality. No solution exists. For , setting would give a solution of , just ruled out.
Topics that use this theorem
Step-by-step proofs
No step-by-step proof yet for this theorem.
References
- Andrew Wiles (1995). Modular elliptic curves and Fermat's Last Theorem · DOI:10.2307/2118559
- Kenneth A. Ribet (1990). On modular representations of Gal(Q-bar/Q) arising from modular forms · DOI:10.1007/BF01234424
- Gary Cornell, Joseph H. Silverman, Glenn Stevens (eds.) (1997). Modular Forms and Fermat's Last Theorem · DOI:10.1007/978-1-4612-1974-3