| 
June 1st, 2006, 09:52 AM
| | Junior Member | | Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 43
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker Maybe this would help.  must be odd and  is even. | That's not true. You only know exactly one of the 3 is even, but it could be either one. Unless you found a good proof to the contrary?
Anyway, it doesn't matter, like I said, I have a solution that doesn't depend on parity. | 
June 1st, 2006, 10:05 AM
|  | Global Moderator | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: New York City
Posts: 11,177
Country: Thanks: 482
Thanked 3,779 Times in 3,073 Posts
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by DMT That's not true. You only know exactly one of the 3 is even, but it could be either one. Unless you found a good proof to the contrary? | I found it by contradiction, that is only possible case.
By considers the integers, Quote: |
Originally Posted by DMT Anyway, it doesn't matter, like I said, I have a solution that doesn't depend on parity. | I was hoping you find a soltion via infinite descent and post it here. But alas, it is difficult.
----
Did you use Kummer's method/theorem? | 
June 1st, 2006, 10:21 AM
| | Junior Member | | Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 43
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | I posted the start of the infiinite descent solution above. It should be fairly easy from there. I can give more details if needed, but it's not that hard to work out starting from where I showed. | 
June 21st, 2006, 09:52 AM
|  | Super Member | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: India
Posts: 642
Country: Thanks: 38
Thanked 137 Times in 127 Posts
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by DMT For those who care, I do have a solution now, working of course in  where zeta is the third root of unity. We can then easily show that:
where j is a unit. We can ignore negative units easy enough, which leave three cases to try:
The first two lead to a direct contradiction, and the third leads to an infinite descent step. | Could someone please explain to me this solution.
Keep Smiling
Malay
__________________ Keep Smiling
Malay
raah pakad tu ek chala chal, paa jayega madhushala | 
June 21st, 2006, 09:56 AM
|  | Global Moderator | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: New York City
Posts: 11,177
Country: Thanks: 482
Thanked 3,779 Times in 3,073 Posts
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by malaygoel Could someone please explain to me this solution.
Keep Smiling
Malay | No offense malay, but you are no experienced enough to follow these concepts. Not because you are not cabaple but rather because you have never studied them.
You need to be familiar with, Algbraic Number Theory. Which itself you need to be familiar with Abstract Algebra and Field Theory. | 
June 21st, 2006, 10:00 AM
|  | Super Member | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: India
Posts: 642
Country: Thanks: 38
Thanked 137 Times in 127 Posts
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by DMT I need to prove that the equation
has no integer solutions. I can do it easily for all cases except where z has a factor of 3, in which case I don't know what to do.
I am assuming the 3 in front of the z term is supposed to make this easier somehow than the same equation without it, but I'm failing to see the simplification that this allows.
Anyone know? | The equation can be rewritten as 
Here,  is expressed as the sum of two integers  and  which I claim is impossible.
I could restate the above statement in the following way:
I claim that it is impossible to break a perfect cube  in two integers a and b such that  as well as  , both are perfect cubes.
Hence there are no solutions to the given equation.
The claim can be easily proved.
Keep Smiling
Malay
__________________ Keep Smiling
Malay
raah pakad tu ek chala chal, paa jayega madhushala | 
June 21st, 2006, 10:08 AM
|  | Super Member | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: India
Posts: 642
Country: Thanks: 38
Thanked 137 Times in 127 Posts
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by malaygoel I claim that it is impossible to break a perfect cube  in two integers a and b such that  as well as  , both are perfect cubes.
Hence there are no solutions to the given equation.
The claim can be easily proved. | Let 
and 
hence, 
Now, 
which cannot be a perfect cube for any value of k.
Hence the clain is proved and the question is solved.
Keep Smiling
Malay
__________________ Keep Smiling
Malay
raah pakad tu ek chala chal, paa jayega madhushala | 
June 22nd, 2006, 01:39 AM
| | Junior Member | | Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 43
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by malaygoel Could someone please explain to me this solution.
Keep Smiling
Malay | It's a real pain to type out in a forum. But it's pretty simple with the information I posted if you understand basic algebraic number theory. If you tell me where you are getting stuck I could help a bit if you give it a try. | 
June 22nd, 2006, 01:42 AM
| | Junior Member | | Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 43
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by malaygoel Let 
and 
hence, 
Now, 
which cannot be a perfect cube for any value of k.
Hence the clain is proved and the question is solved.
Keep Smiling
Malay | You do realize this doesn't make sense, right? And even if you did manage to show that FLT for p=3 implies  is a perfect cube for integers z and k, you haven't proven that this is impossible, just stated it. | 
June 22nd, 2006, 04:59 AM
|  | Super Member | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: India
Posts: 642
Country: Thanks: 38
Thanked 137 Times in 127 Posts
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by DMT You do realize this doesn't make sense, right? And even if you did manage to show that FLT for p=3 implies  is a perfect cube for integers z and k, you haven't proven that this is impossible, just stated it. | Could you show that  is a perfect cube for any positive integer z and integer k?
Let 
Let z be a given natural number.
I will prove that there is no integer k(k is an integer for which  is a perfect cube) such that S is a perfect cube. 
S is a perfect cube if and only if 
that is, S is a perfect cube iff 
which has no solutions.
Hence , S can never be a perfect cube.
Keep Smiling
Malay
__________________ Keep Smiling
Malay
raah pakad tu ek chala chal, paa jayega madhushala
Last edited by malaygoel; June 22nd, 2006 at 07:44 AM.
| 
June 22nd, 2006, 08:54 AM
| | Junior Member | | Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 43
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by malaygoel Could you show that  is a perfect cube for any positive integer z and integer k? | I assume you understand that your comment here is utterly meaningless? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Quote: |
Originally Posted by malaygoel 
S is a perfect cube if and only if  | How exactly did you make this step? | 
June 22nd, 2006, 07:51 PM
|  | Super Member | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: India
Posts: 642
Country: Thanks: 38
Thanked 137 Times in 127 Posts
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by DMT How exactly did you make this step? | I have just completed the cube.
You would have sometimes completed the square. 
If you an expression,  and you want to find in what conditions it is a perfect square, we would do some adjustments and express it as 
For it to be a perfect square,  and  should be a perfect square.
I have done exactly the same thing, I have compared S with  and equated the term  with  .
You can see it in this way also. 
For S to be a perfect cube  has to be zero for some value of k for a given z which is impossible.
Keep Smiling
Malay
__________________ Keep Smiling
Malay
raah pakad tu ek chala chal, paa jayega madhushala | 
June 23rd, 2006, 01:17 AM
| | Junior Member | | Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 43
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by malaygoel You can see it in this way also. 
For S to be a perfect cube  has to be zero for some value of k for a given z which is impossible.
Keep Smiling
Malay | That's not necessarily true. You have stated this without showing it.
Why does that term have to be 0? For example, you have:
-8=64-72
-8 is a cube, 64 is a cube, and 72 is divisible by 3, so at first quick glance you can't rule it out, and even if you do rule it out, you haven't shown that nothing works.
You keep doing this Malay. You seem to misunderstand a fundamental idea about proofs and assumptions. I would suggest you spend some time improving that understanding before continuing with this line of attack or you will likely continue to make the same type of error over and over again.
The p=3 case of FLT does not have a simple solution (though it is simpler than most of the higher order cases). I don't know of any that don't use infinite descent. | 
June 23rd, 2006, 05:19 AM
|  | Super Member | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: India
Posts: 642
Country: Thanks: 38
Thanked 137 Times in 127 Posts
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by malaygoel I have just completed the cube.
You would have sometimes completed the square. 
If you an expression,  and you want to find in what conditions it is a perfect square, we would do some adjustments and express it as 
For it to be a perfect square,  and  should be a perfect square.
I have done exactly the same thing, I have compared S with  and equated the term  with  . | Is there anything wrong in this work?
KeepSmiling
Malay
__________________ Keep Smiling
Malay
raah pakad tu ek chala chal, paa jayega madhushala | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:47 AM. | | |