Using the general formula

where all terms are positive integers,
Fermat’s Last Theorem can be written “if

, then

”.
Considering other values of

appears interesting. For example,

proves that, for

, there exist

,

,

and

such that

.
Because

, we know that there exist

s and

for

for any

. It appears possible for

to be much smaller than

in many cases, for example

and

for

and

, and

for

and
The best my clunky initial searches have managed for

is

, proven by
Lots of questions come to mind, such as
- Is there always a solution such that
? (proven above for 1, 2 and 3, but not 4, 5, or 6)
- If not, is there some other function
for all
?
- Is there any
such that and
? Fermat’s Last Theorem states that there is not for
. Is there some
for which a “generalized FLT” is false? Edit: Yes – see “one question answered”.
- Is there a computationally efficient way to generate examples for a given
and
?
- Is there an elementary proof of [1], [2], or [3]? (The only known valid proof or FLT is not elementary)
I’m working on a less clunky approach to [4], and frankly intimidated by [5], and invite you number-crunch and proof-aholics out there to try answering some of these questions, or proposing new ones related to this FMT generalization.
Also, if anyone knows of any literature on this generalization, please share it. Though it seems much too obvious a generalization to be so new, the only mention of it I’ve found is
this 2005 arXiv preprint, a 1-page invitation similar to but even briefer than this post.
----------------
Moderator: Computers and Technology; Medical Science; Science Projects and Homework; Philosophy of Science; Physics and Mathematics; Environmental Studies
