PROOF THAT THE EQUATION FOR THE QUINTIC TRIPLE HAS NO SOLUTION IN NATURAL NUMBERS

Proof that the quintic triple equation has no solution in positive integers was not established until 1825, approximately 190 years after Fermat implied that his generalized proof covered the quintic triple. It was only then that Gustav Lejeune-Dirichlet and Adrien-Marie Legendre, working independently, were able to improve upon a method devised by Sophie Germain, which conrmed Fermat's generalized statement: in which he had claimed to possess a proof for all prime exponents greater than 2. But again, proof of the quintic did not lead to a general proof, and it would be another fourteen years before Gabriel Lam discovered how to further adapt Sophie Germain's method for a proof of the septimal triple. The proof that now follows is unrelated to the method suggested by Sophie Germain; instead, it is similar to that used when demonstrating the impossibility of two cubes, with integer dimensions, combining in sum to form a third cube having integer dimensions.

Proof
Consider a5 + b5 = c5 {N} : a, b, c, are pairwise, relatively prime, and 5 is not a factor of a, b, c. Hence, a + b = c + d for which d > 0. For, were it otherwise, (a + b + d)5 = c5 , which is absurd. Thus (a + b)5 = (c + d)5 which implies 5a4 b + 10a3 b2 + 10a2 b3 + 5ab4 = 5c4 d + 10c3 d2 + 10c2 d3 + 5cd4 + d5 . Whence, 5 | d. Also, 5ab a3 + b3 + 10a2 b2 (a + b) = 5cd c3 + d3 + 10c2 d2 (c + d) + d5 . This can be simplied to 5ab (a + b) a2 ab + b2 + 5ab (a + b) 2ab = 5cd (c + d) c2 cd + d2 + 5cd (c + d) 2cd + d5 . From which, 5ab (a + b) a2 + ab + b2 = 5cd (c + d) c2 + cd + d2 + d5 . But this equation contains a contradiction. 5 ab by denition. 5 (a + b) because a + b = c + d and 5 c by denition. Also, 5 a2 + ab + b2 , because (a, b) {1, 2, 3, 4, } (mod. 5) a2 + ab + b2 = 0 (mod. 5). Therefore, 52 5ab (a + b) a2 + ab + b2 . But 52 | 5cd (c + d) c2 + cd + d2 + d5 , because 52 | 5cd and 52 | d5 . Consequently, a contradiction exists, based upon the conjecture that a5 + b5 = c5 can be resolved from the set of positive integers. The conjecture is therefore false. Hence, a5 + b5 c5 {N} , when 5 is not a factor of a, b, c. Consider a5 + b5 = c5 {N} such that a, b, c, are pairwise relatively prime, and without loss of generality, let it be supposed that 5 | a. As before, a + b = c + d and 5 | d. Hence, (a + b) a4 a3 b + a2 b2 ab3 + b4 = c5 and (a + b) a3 2a2 b + 3ab2 4b3 (a + b) + 5b4 = c5 (a + b) | c5 . It will now be proved that (a + b) and a3 2a2 b + 3ab2 4b3 (a + b) + 5b4 have no common factor. 5 c 5 (a + b) . Instead, let q = 5 be any prime factor of (a + b) ; from which it must follow that q 5b4 ; for if q | (a + b) then it cannot divide b unless it also divides a; but gcd(a, b) = 1. Consequently, (a + b) and a3 2a2 b + 3ab2 4b3 (a + b) + 5b4 have no common factor. But (a + b) | c5 (a + b) = w5 : w {N} . Consider (c b) c4 + c3 b + c2 b2 + cb3 + b4 = a5 ; i.e., (c b) c3 + 2c2 b + 3cb2 + 4b3 (c b) + 5b4 = a5 ; therefore, (c b) | a5 . Let q2 = 5 be a prime factor of (c a) , which implies q2 | a. From this, it must follow that q2 5b4 ; since gcd (a, b) = 1. However, 5 | a and 5 | (c b) because c b = a d for which, 5 | a and 5 | d. Also, 55 | (c b) c3 + 2c2 b + 3cb2 + 4b3 (c b) + 5b4 for which 5 is a factor of both multiplicands. However, c3 + 2c2 b + 3cb2 + 4b3 = (c b) c2 + 3cb + 6b2 + 10b3 ; (c b) (c b) c2 + 3cb + 6b2 + 10b3 (c b) + 5b4 = a5 . Whence, the greatest common divisor of both multiplicands is 5; and 52 divides (c b) c2 + 3cb + 6b2 + 10b3 (c b) . But, since 52 5b4 , it follows that 54 | (c b) . And since no factor other than 51 exists that divides exactly into both multiplicands: 54 v 5 = (c b) : v {N} ; and 5vx = a; for which 5x5 = c3 + 2c2 b + 3cb2 + 4b3 (c b) + 5b4 . Consider too: (c a) c4 + c3 a + c2 a2 + ca3 + a4 = b5 ; (c a) c3 + 2c2 a + 3ca2 + 4a3 (c a) + 5a4 = b5 ; therefore, (c a) | b5 . It will now be proved that (c a) and c3 + 2c2 a + 3ca2 + 4a3 (c a) + 5a4 have no common factor. Firstly, 5 b 5 (c a) , thus 5 cannot be a common factor. Secondly, let q1 = 5 be a factor of (c a) q1 | b; hence, because gcd (a, b) = 1, it must follow that q1 5a4 . Therefore q1 is not a factor of c3 + 2c2 a + 3ca2 + 4a3 (c a) + 5a4 . Consequently, (c a) and c3 + 2c2 a + 3ca2 + 4a3 (c a) + 5a4 have no common factor greater than 1. But, since (c a) | b5 it must follow that (c a) = u5 : u {N} . From this, it may be concluded that since (a + b) = w5 and (a + b) | c5 , it must follow that w | c. And since (c a) = u5 and (c a) | b5 , it must also follow that u | b. Furthermore, since (c b) = 54 v 5 and (c b) | a5 , it must likewise follow that 5v | a; a5 = (5vx)5 . From these results, it can be shown that u, v, w, are pairwise relatively prime. Thus, consider, if gcd (u, v) > 1; then it must follow that the factor common to u and v, must also be common to b and a, contrary to denition. Alternatively, if gcd (u, w) > 1; then it must follow that the factor common to u and w, must also be common to b and c, contrary to denition. Similarly, if gcd (v, w) > 1; then it must follow that the factor common to v and w, must also be common to a and c, contrary to denition. Whence, u, v, w, are pairwise relatively prime. 1

In continuation of the results this far: since w | c and w5 = (c + d) , then w | d. And since u | b and u5 = (b d) , then u | d. And since 5v | a and 54 v 5 = (a d) , then 5v | d. Therefore, 5uvw | d. Whence, d = 5uvwm : m {N} . Now consider u5 + 54 v 5 = (b d) + (a d) = a + b 2d = w5 2d. That is: w5 u5 54 v 5 = 2d. Therefore, w5 u5 54 v 5 = 5uvw2m. Since u, v, w, are dened as positive integers, there must exist a positive integer k such that w u = k; that is: w = u + k; from which it follows that w5 = u5 + 5u4 k + 10u3 k 2 + 10u2 k 3 + 5uk 4 + k 5 . Therefore, w5 = u5 + 5u4 k + 5uk 4 + 10u3 k 2 + 10u2 k 3 + k 5 ; and w5 = u5 + 5uk u3 + k 3 + 10u2 k 2 (u + k) + k 5 . And again: w5 = u5 + 5uk (u + k) u2 uk + k 2 + 10u2 k 2 (u + k) + k 5 ; i.e. w5 u5 k 5 = 5uk (u + k) (u2 uk + k 2 + 2uk); and nally: w5 u5 k 5 = 5ukwr : r = u2 + uk + k 2 . Proceeding from this:
2vm kr

w5 u5 k5 kr

= 5uw, and multiplying both numerator and denominator by

2vm kr ,

we obtain:

5 5 4 5 u k ) = 5uw. But w u 5 v = 5uw. 2vm w5 u5 k 5 = w5 u5 54 v 5 . 2vm 2vm kr Thus, 2vm k5 + w5 u5 = 54 v 5 + w5 u5 . kr And 2vm k5 + (w u) w4 + w3 u + + wu3 + u4 = 54 v 5 + (w u) w4 + w3 u + + kr 2vm kr k 5 + k w4 + w3 u + + wu3 + u4 = 54 v 5 + k w4 + w3 u + + wu3 + u4 .

(w

wu3 + u4 ;

By retaining k w4 + w3 u + + wu3 + u4 as a constant, since it is common to both sides, 2vm k 5 = 54 v 5 . This establishes the exact same terms on both sides of the equation, which includes: kr 2vm 5 2vm 4 2vm 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 kr k = k. After multiplying both sides by k ; kr k = k , but, kr k = 5 v ; therefore, k = 5 v , and 5 5 5v 5 5k = (5v) ; from whence it follows that 5 = k ; fromwhich it follows that v is irrational, since, w, u, k, are dened as positive integers. But in the equations a5 + b5 = c5 and a + b = c + d, v is a factor of a and d. Therefore, a and d are two irrational numbers. Hence, a5 is the fth power of an irrational number. This completes the proof that
a5 + b5 c5 {N} .

Post-Proof Analysis
The equation w5 u5 54 v 5 = 5uvw2m, derived from a5 + b5 = c5 conceals the fact that v and m are actually irrational numbers, but with a product that has a positive integer value. Thus 2mv = 5 54 vr = kr. This 5 permits w5 = (u + k)5 to be equivalent to w5 = u + 5 54 v . Thus, after expanding and factoring:
5 w5 = u5 + 5ukwr + k 5 = u5 + 5uvw 54 r + 54 v 5 = u5 + 5uvw2m + 54 v 5 .

N.B. It will be apparent to persons studying this proof that, in the case where 5 divides a, b, or c, the same argument is applicable for prime exponents greater than 5. In short, the argument generalizes to cover all prime numbers greater than 3. However, the part of the proof given for the Cubic and the Quintic, where the prime exponent (3 or 5) does not divide exactly a, b, or c, does not lend itself to a generalization. Nevertheless, a generalization involving the mathematics known to Fermat does exist, and this has been proved. It is omitted from public view at present, pending ongoing, external considerations. David L Roper

2011