Страница 19 из 28
“Summary of discoveries in the science about numbers. …
1. Since the usual methods set in the Books are not sufficient to prove very difficult sentences, I finally found a completely special way to solve them. I called this method of proof infinite or indefinite descent. At first, I used it only to prove negative sentences such as: … that there exists no a right triangle in numbers whose area is a square”. See Appendix II for details.
The science about numbers is called here arithmetic and the further content of the letter leaves no doubt about it. Namely with arithmetic not only mathematical, but also all other sciences begin. In arithmetic itself the descent method is one of the fundamental one. The following are examples of problems whose solution without this method is not only very difficult, but sometimes even hardly to be possible. Here we will name only a few of these examples.
"2. For a long time, I could not apply my method to affirmative sentences because rounds and circuitous ways to achieve the aim are much more difficult than those that served me for negative sentences. Therefore, when I needed to prove that every prime number that is by unit more than multiple of four, consists of <sum of> two squares, I was in a greatest difficulty. But finally, my thoughts repeated many times shed light that I did not have and the affirmative sentence became possible to interpret with my method using some new principles that needed to be attached to them. This progress in my reasoning for the case of affirmative sentences is as follows: if some prime number that on 1 exceeds the multiplied of 4, does not consist of two squares, then there is another a prime number of the same nature, smaller than this and then a third, also smaller etc. going down until you come to the number 5, which is the smallest from all numbers of this nature. It therefore, ca
This Fermat’s theorem was first proven by Euler in 1760 [6, 38], (see Appendix III), and in the framework of the very complex Gauss' "Deductive Arithmetic" this theorem is proving in one sentence [23]. However, no one succeeded in repeating the proof of Fermat himself.
“… 3. There are infinitely many questions of this kind, but there are others that require new principles for applying the descent method to them … This is the next question that Bachet as he confesses in his commentary on Diophantus, could not prove. On this occasion, Descartes made the same statement in his letters acknowledging that he considers it so difficult that he sees no way to solve it. Each number is a square or consists of two, three or four squares".
Else earlier, 22 years ago, in October 1636 in a letter to Merse
However, only few people knew that these tasks were very difficult and Fermat understood that if he would publish their solutions, they would not make any impression at all. He already had such an experience and now he has prepared a real surprise. For those who don't appreciate the value of his solution, he would offer to solve another task. This is the Basic theorem of arithmetic, which is of particular importance for all science since without it the whole theory loses its strength. Fermat found a mistake in the proof of Euclid and came to the conclusion that to prove this theorem without applying the descent method is extremely difficult if at all possible. However, now we can also reveal this secret with the help of our opportunities to look into Fermat’s cache with “heretical writings” and return his lost proof to science in the form of the reconstruction presented below.
3.3.2. The Proof of Fermat
So, to prove the Basic theorem of arithmetic we suppose that there exist equal natural numbers A, B consisting of different prime factors:
A=B (1)
where A=pp1p2 …pn; B=хx1x2 …xm ; n≥1; m≥1
Due to the equality of the numbers A, B each of them is divided into any of the prime numbers pi or xi. Each of the numbers A, B can consist of any set of prime factors including the same ones, but at the same time there is no one pi equal to xi among them, otherwise they would be in (1) reduced. Now (1) can be represented as:
pQ=xY (2)
where p, x are the minimal primes among pi, xi; Q=A/p; Y=B/x .
Since the factors p and x are different, we agree that p>x; x=p–δ1 then
pQ=(p – δ1)(Q+δ2) (3)
where δ1=p–x; δ2=Y–Q
From (3) it follows that Qδ1=(p – δ1)δ2 or
Qδ1=xδ2 (4)
Equation (4) is a direct consequence of assumption (1). The right side of this equation explicitly contains the prime factor x. However, on the left side of equation (4) the number δ1 ca
Then it remains only to admit that if there exist natural numbers A = B composed of different prime factors, then it is necessary that in this case there exist another natural number A1=Qδ1 and B1=xδ2; also equal to each other and made up of different prime factors. Given that δ1=(p–x)<p, and δ2=(Y–Q)<Y and also, after comparing equation (4) with equation (2), we can state:
A1 = B1, where A1<A; B1<B (5)
Now we get a situation similar to the one with numbers A, B only with smaller numbers A1, B1. Analyzing now (5) in the ma
A2=B2, where A2<A1; B2<B1 (6)
Following this path, we will inevitably come to the case when the existence of numbers Ak=Bk, where Ak<Ak-1; Bk<Bk-1 as a direct consequence of assumption (1) will become impossible. Therefore, our initial assumption (1) is also impossible and thus the theorem is proven.41
Looking at this very simple and even elementary proof by the descent method naturally a puzzling question arise, how could it happen that for many centuries science not only had not received this proof, but was completely ignorant that it had not any one in general? On the other hand, even being mistaken in this matter i.e. assuming that this theorem was proven by Euclid, how could science ignore it by using the "complex numbers" and thereby dooming itself to destruction from within? And finally, how can one explain that this very simple in essence theorem, on which the all science holds, is not taught at all in a secondary school?
41
The reconstructed proof of Fermat excludes the mistake made by Euclid. However, begi