Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In recognition of Fermat's 410th birthday, Google ha(s/d) a special google-doodle with Fermat's last theorem.

The first link point(s/ed) to an article on PCMag.com which states:

In time, Fermat was considered to be the founder of the modern number theory. He came up with Fermat's Last Theorem, which states that $x^n + y^n = z^n$.

Am I missing something or is the PCMag article missing something?

share|improve this question
10  
The article is missing something. –  The Chaz 2.0 Aug 17 '11 at 15:07
2  
There is a good deal of uncertainty about the year Fermat was born. –  André Nicolas Aug 17 '11 at 15:09
2  
Kudos for @oosterwal 's choice of an appropriate tag dripping with delicious irony. –  Willie Wong Aug 17 '11 at 15:57
5  
Even the portrait is incorrect - it is Kepler, not Fermat. That's worse than the Legendre portrait fiasco. –  Bill Dubuque Aug 17 '11 at 16:12
    
Which portrait? The one at pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2391245,00.asp now is the same as in Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_de_Fermat.jpg: maybe it has been changed. However, I found a Kepler portrait labelled as Fermat at news.m3n4.com/general/2011/pierre-de-fermat –  Robert Israel Aug 17 '11 at 20:48

3 Answers 3

up vote 8 down vote accepted

PCMag is missing something. Fermat's Last Theorem is that for integers $x$, $y$, $z$, and $n$, with $n > 2$, $x^n + y^n \ne z^n$ (provided that $x$, $y$, and $z$ are nonzero).

share|improve this answer
4  
..provided $xyz\neq 0$. trollface –  Bonanza Aug 17 '11 at 15:04
    
trollface didn't render correctly. Maybe you need $trollface$ :) –  The Chaz 2.0 Aug 17 '11 at 15:06
    
I fixed the post. –  gereeter Aug 17 '11 at 15:14

PCMag's unreliability does not end there. Later on in the same short article we have

"He died in the belief that he had found a relation which every prime must satisfy, namely $2^{2n}+1= \:\text{a prime}.$"

Then the article tells us that Euler disproved this by showing it was false at $n=5$. Quite an achievement for Euler, showing that $1025$ is not prime!

Of course it should be $2^{2^n}+1$, not $2^{2n}+1$.

Also, "that every prime must satisfy" is wonderfully ambiguous.

share|improve this answer

The theorem should read,

There do not exist nonzero integers $x, y, z$ such that $x^n+y^n=z^n$ for any $n>2$.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

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.