Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

It is easy to find 3 squares (of integers) in arithmetic progression. For example, $1^2,5^2,7^2$.

I've been told Fermat proved that there are no progressions of length 4 in the squares. Do you know of a proof of this result?

(Additionally, are there similar results for cubes, 4th powers, etc? If so, what would be a good reference for this type of material?)

Edit, March 30, 2012: The following question in MO is related and may be useful to people interested in the question I posted here.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 17 down vote accepted

Here are a few proofs: 1, 2 (which is excellent), and the somewhat bizarre 3.

Unfortunately, there are no cases where you have nontrivial arithmetic progressions of higher powers. This is a string of proofs. Carmichael himself covered this for n = 3 and 4, about a hundred years ago. But it wasn't completed until Ribet wrote a paper on it in the 90s. His paper can be found here. The statement is equivalent to when we let $\alpha = 1$. Funny enough, he happens to have sent out a notice on scimath with a little humor, which can still be found here.

share|cite|improve this answer
Oh, this is excellent! Many thanks! – Bruce George Jun 6 '11 at 2:03
+1 for the bizarre link. – Arjang Jun 6 '11 at 7:28
The link at the end from sci.math is now broken. It looks like the whole "Mathematical Atlas" site that Rusin set up and hosted on his webpages is now gone. – KCd Jun 7 '15 at 21:34
@KCd, the link is still available through the Internet Archive: link. – FredH Feb 25 at 16:40

A quick Google search found this: . It contains a sketch of an elementary proof at the end and cites Dickson's History of the theory of numbers.

share|cite|improve this answer
Very nice write-up. Thank you! – Bruce George Jun 6 '11 at 2:04
The link seems to be dead. Does anyone have a backup or another link to the exposition? – PrimeRibeyeDeal Oct 19 '14 at 16:42
@PrimeRibeyeDeal, that's too bad. Perhaps you can ask the author Ian Kiming ? – lhf Oct 19 '14 at 19:03
What a terrific idea! I did, and the author says the link should be restored soon. He also says his treatment is the same as in Cassels' book on elliptic curves. – PrimeRibeyeDeal Oct 21 '14 at 11:52

My favourite proof of this is Van der Poorten's ( — it uses descent, as Fermat almost certainly would have.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.