Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
A mathematician puts Fermat's Last Theorem on an axiomatic diet
A+ A- Text Size

Fermat’s Last Theorem is so simple to state, but so hard to prove. Though the 350-year-old claim is a straightforward one about integers, the proof that University of Oxford mathematician Andrew Wiles finally created for it nearly two decades ago required almost unimaginably complex theoretical machinery. The proof was a dazzling demonstration of that machinery’s value, but one aspect of it troubled mathematicians: It relied on stronger axioms than mathematics normally requires, and ones far more complex than are needed to state the problem. Surely, many mathematicians thought, it was possible to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem while assuming less.

Proof — the demonstration of logical consequences arising from a set of axioms — is at the heart of mathematics. But the particular axioms that underlie mathematics aren’t universally agreed upon. The most commonly used axioms are called set theory. But for some theorems, mathematicians assume additional axioms as well. Fewer axioms suffice for others, because set theory involves concepts like infinity that aren’t always needed.

Fermat’s Last Theorem seems too simple to require the full apparatus of set theory, much less even more axioms. Around 1630, Pierre de Fermat noted in the margin of a book that he had discovered a “truly marvelous demonstration” that there are no integers a, b and c that make the equation an + bn = cn true if n is a whole number greater than 2. Unfortunately, he said, the margin was too small for his proof.

When Wiles finally proved the theorem in 1994, he used a deep connection between Fermat’s Last Theorem and algebraic geometry, a field in its infancy in Fermat’s time. Modern algebraic geometry was built using extraordinarily powerful tools developed in the mid-20th century by the mathematician Alexander Grothendieck that rely on an extra axiom in addition to those of standard mathematics — so Wiles’ proof did too.

Grothendieck introduced the axiom to deal with a pesky logical problem. His tools got much of their power through being extremely abstract.  For example, instead of just considering the set of all whole numbers, Grothendieck also included the spaces defined by equations of whole numbers. (Think, for example, of the circles and parabolas and ellipses defined by equations in two variables). Then he threw in the set of all functions between such spaces, and so on, with one set building on another.

Set theory (that is, the standard axioms of mathematics) puts limits on how far this process can go. For example, there is no set of all sets, because a set of all sets would lead to logical difficulties like the famous Russell paradox: Imagine the set whose elements are precisely those sets that don’t contain themselves. Does it contain itself? Prepare yourself for some brain-twisting here: The answer can’t be yes, because then by its own definition it’s a set that doesn’t contain itself. But the answer can’t be no, either: If the set doesn’t contain itself, then it satisfies its own definition, so it does contain itself. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t!

With his sets built on sets built on sets, Grothendieck wanted to go into territory perilously close to this. So he created a new axiom that would allow him to use these very large sets of sets of sets while still keeping clear of paradox. This axiom posited the existence of a larger type of set called a “universe.” Grothendieck’s approach was fabulously successful, allowing him to prove one major theorem after another and laying the groundwork for modern algebraic geometry, among other fields — all leading to the remarkable success of the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem. But all this work relies on the axiom of universes. “Everyone sees that this is a quick and dirty fix,” says Colin McLarty of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. “But it works.”

Intuitively, many mathematicians thought Grothendieck didn’t need his fancy universes. Ordinary set theory seemed like it should suffice — or even less. In particular, set theory involves axioms about infinity that seem unnecessary for something like Fermat’s Last Theorem, which involves only finite whole numbers. But no one had proved it until now. McLarty recently showed that Fermat’s Last Theorem can be proven using the ordinary axioms of mathematics, and even a bit less. He presented his results at the Joint Mathematics Meetings in San Diego in January.

“This justifies a feeling that lots of people had and I had too,” McLarty says. McLarty showed that a subset of set theory called finite-order arithmetic, which assumes less about the concept of infinity, is sufficient to undergird Grothendieck’s work.

“This is a well-done, major, clarifying first step,” says Harvey Friedman of Ohio State University. Friedman believes the work could be extended to show that Fermat’s Last Theorem requires only axioms relevant to arithmetic, with no use of infinity at all.

Comment

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

• Sledgehammers must not be used to kill flies when there are flyswatters around. If only Fermat could have brought himself to lay out that extra penny to buy a sheaf of paper.
Valour
Feb. 26, 2013 at 9:25am
• Fermat didn't need the math of today all he did was observe the fact that x,y accelerated at an integer/fraction speed above the ^3 while z always accelerates at the same constant integer speed above ^3 thus it would be impossible for the two to be the same.
e.g.{ x=3^3=27+y=4^3=64 x+y=91}{z=5^3=125)to the power of 4 x+y=337 and z=625 now divide x+y from the power of 3 into x+y to the the power of 4(337/91=3.703296)and z from the power of 3 into z to the power of 4(625/125=5)I would think that is the way he worked it out. z always accelerates at the exact same whole integer speed while not only does x+y accelerate at a fractional speed but it's variable.
Donald Cavanagh
May. 6, 2013 at 1:15pm
• First, i'm no mathematician. But, it seems to me that the problem is faulted from the premise. Looking at the exponents as dimensions, it appears to me that a number is missing. a^2+b^2=c^2 makes sense. Two dimensions, thus, two sides added arrives at the third. So, with the exponent 3, wouldn't a^3+b^3+c^3=d^3 make more sense? Why would you expect to get the answer only using part of the information? For example, 3^3+4^3+5^3=6^3. Like i said, this is certainly out of my element. And i know that i'm arguing with the problem and not at all attempting to prove it. It just seems like the kid trying to shove the square block through the circular hole.
JRP
Jun. 8, 2013 at 1:27pm
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.