Fermat's Last Theorem was the last equation in a book written by Pierre de Fermat's that was the last to be solved. The equation was x^n+y^n=z^n. Pierre said that he had proof that this equation could never be proven if n was larger than 2.
He wrote this in 1637 and it hasn't been proven until 1993(1995 for perfected) by Andrew Wiles. Andrew proved this after working on the equation for 7 years. Solving it was a dream of his since he was a young boy. Andrew received worldwide recognition for his proof. Andrew solved this by also proving the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture, which states that every elliptic curve is also modular. Andrew solved this by turning the elliptic curves into Galois representations and turning the equation into a class number formula. Many had tried before Andrew but none succeeded for 300 years.
Many doubt if Fermat had any real proof but it was still a mathematical marvel of a challenge and we can hope another such equation will pop up.
He wrote this in 1637 and it hasn't been proven until 1993(1995 for perfected) by Andrew Wiles. Andrew proved this after working on the equation for 7 years. Solving it was a dream of his since he was a young boy. Andrew received worldwide recognition for his proof. Andrew solved this by also proving the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture, which states that every elliptic curve is also modular. Andrew solved this by turning the elliptic curves into Galois representations and turning the equation into a class number formula. Many had tried before Andrew but none succeeded for 300 years.
Many doubt if Fermat had any real proof but it was still a mathematical marvel of a challenge and we can hope another such equation will pop up.
"It is impossible for a cube to be the sum of two cubes, a fourth power to be the sum of two fourth powers, or in general for any number that is a power greater than the second to be the sum of two like powers. I have discovered a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition that this margin is too narrow to contain." - Pierre de Fermat
Every mathematician hates and loves Andrew Wiles for his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
Every mathematician hates and loves Andrew Wiles for his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
by Bacon In the Soap January 02, 2012
The fundamental theorem of arithmetic states that {n: n is an element of N > 1} (the set of natural numbers, or positive integers, except the number 1) can be represented uniquely apart from rearrangement as the product of one or more prime numbers (a positive integer that's divisible only by 1 and itself). This theorem is also called the unique factorization theorem and is a corollary to Euclid's first theorem, or Euclid's principle, which states that if p is a prime number and p/ab is given (a does not equal 0; b does not equal 0), then p is divisible by a or p is divisible by b.
Proof: First prove that every integer n > 1 can be written as a product of primes by using inductive reasoning. Let n = 2. Since 2 is prime, n is a product of primes. Suppose n > 2, and the above proposition is true for N < n. If n is prime, then n is a product of primes. If n is composite, then n = ab, where a < n and b < n. Therefore, a and b are products of primes. Hence, n = ab is also a product of primes. Since that has been established, we can now prove that such a product is unique (except for order). Suppose n = p sub1 * p sub2 * ... * p subk = q sub1 * q sub2 * ... * q subr, where the p's and q's are primes. If so, then p sub1 is divisible by (q sub1 * ... * q subr) by Euclid's first theorem. What is the relationship between p sub1 and one of the q's? If the r in q subr equals 1, then p sub1 = q sub1 since the only divisors of q are + or - 1 and + or - q and p > 1, making p = q. What about the other factors in the divisor? If p does not divide q, then the greatest common denominator of p and q is 1 since the only divisors of p are + or - 1 and + or - p. Thus there are integers m and n so that 1 = am + bn. Multiplying by q subr yieds q subr = amq subr + bnq subr. Since we are saying that p is divisible by q, let's say the q sub1 * q subr = cp. Then q subr = amq subr + bnq subr = amq subr + bcm = m(aq subr + bc). Therefore, p is divisible by q sub1 of q sub2 * ... * q subr. If p sub1 is divisible by q sub1, then p sub1 = q sub 1. If this does not work the first time, then repeat the argument until you find an equality. Therefore, one of the p's must equal one of the q's. In any case, rearrange the q's so that p sub1 = q sub1, then p sub1 * p sub2 * ... * p subk= p sub1 * q sub2 * ... * q subr and p sub2 * ... * p subk = q sub2 * ... * q subr, and so on. By the same argument, we can rearrange the remaining q's so that p sub2 = q sub2. Thus n can be expressed uniquely as a product of primes regardless of order, making the fundamental theorem of arithmetic true.
by some punk kid August 15, 2005
A mathematical theorem stating that any given number may equal any other number. This theorem can also be used on itself, meaning it may be used in anything imaginable. this theorem cannot be proven or disproven because in either case, the Identity Theft theorem can be used to prove just the opposite.
Examples in math:
3+3=8
1=487
38=58
Example in an argument:
Two people are arguing which is better, Mario or Zelda. Person A believes Mario is better because of the massive amount of games he has starred in. But person B uses the Identity Theft Theorem to prove that Mario IS Zelda. When person A says that that makes no sense, person B may say that by using the Identity Theft Theorem, he has proven that nonsense in itself is now sensible. But since person A may also use the Identity Theft Theorem, there can never be any true winner, unless the Identity Theft Theorem on the outcome as well.
3+3=8
1=487
38=58
Example in an argument:
Two people are arguing which is better, Mario or Zelda. Person A believes Mario is better because of the massive amount of games he has starred in. But person B uses the Identity Theft Theorem to prove that Mario IS Zelda. When person A says that that makes no sense, person B may say that by using the Identity Theft Theorem, he has proven that nonsense in itself is now sensible. But since person A may also use the Identity Theft Theorem, there can never be any true winner, unless the Identity Theft Theorem on the outcome as well.
by TranceDjAelita February 09, 2006
by RandomDying August 21, 2009
asinum lingent = Latin for "ass lick"
A theorem which states that one who eats ass, will ultimately become an ass. Typically applies to the more 'sophisticated' douchebag who brags to his friends about all the ass he eats.
A theorem which states that one who eats ass, will ultimately become an ass. Typically applies to the more 'sophisticated' douchebag who brags to his friends about all the ass he eats.
Douche: Yeah bro last night I was all up in Bonqueshia's booty. I was eatin that ass like groceries, shit was so cash.
Friend: That's great man. Have you heard of the Asinum Lingent Theorem?
Friend: That's great man. Have you heard of the Asinum Lingent Theorem?
by Flipper-KS April 03, 2016
The Bed Pussy Theorem dictates that a bed is exactly like a pussy whereas the pillow is the clitoris, the mattress is the entire vagina, the blankets are the labia, and you are the newborn.
by CoochPunter July 28, 2019
Out of all possible combinations of events there will always be at least one that will make it possible for someone to be on the Joe Rogan podcast within the space of a week.
by guldan November 11, 2021