A Tangential Model of Fermats Conjecture

Tony Thomas
Abstract
This paper uses a geometrical construction to model Fermats Conjecture (FLT). The contrary
assumption (FLT) is made and propositions derived from this assumption with the aim of
revealing inconsistencies under the conditions applicable to FLT.
Introduction
The aim of this paper is to establish a more direct proof of Fermats Last Theorem than the proof
published by Andrew Wiles in The Annals of Mathematics 142 (1995). The main idea is that the
three terms an, bn and cn all lie on the curve xn which facilitates the construction of diagrams
showing the relation between these terms and several auxiliary variables used in the proof. The
two diagrams used are shown in the annex.
11d41
Fermats Conjecture
Fermats Conjecture: there are no natural numbers a, b, c, n such that an + bn = cn when n > 2.
FLT may be expressed formally as: abcn an + bn = cn
subject to the following conditions:
(1) a,b,c and n are distinct natural numbers*

abcn

(2) a,b and c have no common factors

abc NCF

(3) n is greater than 2.

n>2

(4) a useful convention

a<b<c

(5) n is a prime number

* The term integer is used throughout to signify a positive integer ie n

Parity limitations
Condition (2) implies that a, b and c cannot all be even numbers otherwise they would have the
common factor 2. Furthermore, if any two variables are even numbers then they have the common
factor 2 and the third variable must also be even. Consequently, two of the variables must be odd
and the third even. It will be shown later that b must be an odd variable given condition (3) so
either a or c is even.

The geometrical model

Diagram 1 shows the main elements of the model. Given any two integers a and c there will be two
points (a, an) and (c, cn) on the curve xn. A line drawn through these points intersects the
x-axis at . Parallel to this secant there is a unique tangent that meets the curve at (K, Kn) and
intersects the x-axis at .
Let the gradient of this tangent be g such that:

= g,

= g and

=g

Furthermore it can be seen that

=g

Henceforth the antithesis of FLT will be assumed to be true: abcn an + bn = cn subject to the
given conditions (1) through (5).

The Gradient as basis for the model

The gradient of the secant must be equal to the gradient of the tangent, since the two lines are
parallel.

g=

= consequently nKn-1 =

Applying the antithesis FLT, bn = cn an produce the equation nKn-1 =

It should be noted that

is always an odd integer when n is a prime greater than 2 and c and a

are of opposite parities; therefore g is an odd integer so b must also be an odd integer. Since n is
defined as a prime number greater than 2 it must be odd, so g must also be odd.
Superficially, it may seem from the equation bn = (ca)nKn-1 that b must be irrational, however by
setting K = n(ca) the integer solution b = K results as a special case.

It can be seen from Diagram 2 that g = so that = , consequently = a + b c where

is the x-axis intercept of a line drawn parallel to the tangent line through the point (b, bn).
The value of K

From Diagram 1 it is evident that = g = nKn-1 so that n = .

Rearranging; K = 1 and =

(1)

. If K is an odd integer then must be even, although will

be a rational fraction if n | K. Also, n1| is necessary for K .

Henceforward it will be assumed for convenience that a is an even number and that c is odd until
reconsidered at the appropriate time.

Why has n been defined as a prime?

If FLT can be proven for prime exponents (n>2) then it must be true for all exponents (n4).
Suppose m and m = pq where p is prime and q is either prime or composite.

am + bm = cm apq + bpq + cpq

Let A = aq, B = bq and C = cq so that am + bm = cm Ap + Bp = Cp
If it can be shown that ABC Ap + Bp = Cp then it follows that abc am + bm = cm
Consequently, it is only necessary to prove FLT for prime exponents.
The value of
Lemma: g | an g | cn

g | bn (g | an g | cn )
Condition (2) stipulates a, b and c have no common factors.
Since bn = g(c - a) and g it follows that g | bn.
Applying modus ponens proves the Lemma
From Diagram 1 it can be seen that a =
So = a

and = c

and c =

Applying the Lemma shows is a rational fraction.

However, g = ga an and g = gc cn so it is evident that g is an even number.
Analysis of K
When n= 2, K lies at the-mid-point between a and c so K =

+
2

because

2 2

(+)()

therefore c + a = 2K = g.
This special characteristic explains why Pythagorean triples are possible because a and c always
lie symmetrically about K. It will be shown below that this is not the case when n >2 so the secant
can never simultaneously intersect integer values of (a, an) and (c, cn) when K.
The variables a and c can be defined in terms of K as follows:

a = K q and c = K + p so that c a = p + q, where p and q are deviations on either side of K.

A secant may be formed by moving the tangent an integer distance left of K.
When n =2 an equal deviation occurs to the right of K so that p = q. The underlying reason is that
the differential coefficient of x2 is the rectilinear function 2x. When n > 2 it is evident that an
integer move to the left will result in a lesser and possibly fractional deviation to the right.

It can be seen from Diagram 2 that g =

expressed as: p =

( )

and q =

( )

. In terms of the deviations this can be

, where Z = Kn + g( )= g(K ) .

Parities of variables
Case 1

Case 2

Function

even

odd

odd

even

odd

odd

nKn-1

odd

odd

g(K )

even

odd

cK

odd

even

Ka

even

even

(n-1)Kn

even

even

ga an

odd

odd

odd

odd

fraction fraction

Parity analysis of p and q

Case 1: p =

(o-o) =

( )

()()

cK=

()( )

e=

The result is a disparity. The variables on the RHS are assumed to be integers so the conclusion is
that p cannot be an integer.
Case 2: q =

(o-o) =

( )

()()

Ka=

e=

()( )

This is also a disparity showing that q is not an integer assuming the variables on the right are
integers.
Case 1 assigned an even parity to a and an odd parity to c. Case 2 assigned an odd parity to a and
an even parity to c. This reversal had no effect on the results.
Corollary: Either p is not an integer or q is not an integer under the given assumptions.
So (p + q) and since p + q = c a it follows that (c a).

This conclusion is a consequence of assuming that K is an integer and also that Z, as a function of K,
is an integer. The remaining possibilities are that K is a rational fraction or that it is an irrational
number. These possibilities will now be examined.
Assuming K is a rational fraction

Let K = where u, v and u, v have no common factors.

1

g = nKn-1 = (1 )
1

Since g, n and 1 g cannot be an integer as vn-1 | n because n is prime.

Corollary: If K is a rational fraction then g cannot be an integer, but g must be an integer if

c, a because

and g =

If g is not an integer then either a is not an integer or c is not an integer.

Assuming K is an irrational number
The above proof will not suffice when K because K may be an n-1th root. An auxiliary analysis
of K is required first.
Let K and let K = n where
Now n =

so n =

(1)

and the irrational term cancels out.

This resolves the rationality of n when K is irrational.

The above method can now be applied when K : g = nKn-1 = n(n)n-1= nnn-1

but as noted above g = nKn-1 = .

()1

Substituting n for K: g = n(n)n-1= (1)=

()1

=nnn-1.

So g will be irrational unless n-1

Let K be the n-1th root of m, where m
So K = n = m1/n-1 and nn-1n-1= m

Therefore n-1 = 1 which is a rational fraction.

1

Now = (n-1) so n-1 = 1 = (1)1

therefore m =

1 1
(1)1

which is consistent with K = 1 = n

but n-1 = n-1(n-1)n-1 = (n-1)n-11 which is a rational fraction.

No inconsistency arises when K in the special case when K = n = m1/n-1.

This is intuitively evident since a secant passing through the integer points (a,an) and (c,cn) must
be associated with a tangent which can be irrational without affecting the rationality of (c a).

Introducing Fermats Conjecture

= g and m = Kn-1 so = g

but n = so = mn consequently mn = g
but g =

= given FLT so bn = mn(c-a) and bn = Kn-1 n(c-a).

Now n cannot have a rational nth root because it is a prime and the nth root of Kn-1 is also
irrational.

provided that cn an = bn but b = (c a)1/n(mn)1/n is irrational whether or not (c - a)1/n is

rational. Given that the secant passes through the integer points (a, an) and (c, cn) when K
the conclusion must be that (c a ) and that b and consequently that cn an bn .

Summary and conclusion

(1) If K is an integer then g is not an integer so either a is not an integer or c is not an integer.
(2) If K is a rational fraction then g is not an integer so either a is not an integer or c is not an
integer
(3) If K is an irrational number then b is irrational.
In arriving at these conclusions the negative hypothesis abcn an + bn = cn was assumed
together with the conditions (1) through (5) applicable to FLT. The three conclusions above prove
that the negative hypothesis under the given conditions is inconsistent, consequently FLT
must be true reductio ad absurdum.

Tony Thomas
7 Sunblest Crt
Eatons Hill
Queensland 4037
15th November 2015

Annex