The Wonders of Arithmetic from Pierre Simon de Fermat

But how could such an amazing phenomenon appear in the history of science when a man, who was not even a professional scientist, became so famous? To see here only an accidental combination of circumstances, would be clearly unwise. It is much more logical to proceed from the fact that at some stage in his life, Fermat began to realize that if his plans for publishing his research were carried out, the fate of Diophantus, which was already then almost forgotten, awaits him at best. If about Fermat anyone will also remember, then only against the background of derogatory and even caricature opinions of the “experts”.

In fact, it is all happened just so, but the effect was the opposite. No one could have imagined that thanks to Fermat a fascination with mathematics would take on such a mass character. The more his opponents sought to belittle him, the more popular his name became. Even the feats of D'Artagnan, which were fictional by A. Dumas, were simply childish pranks compared to what his fellow countryman Toulousean Senator Pierre de Fermat did in reality. And yet, how could this provincial judicial official be able to achieve such an amazing result?

It is very simple since he was a lawyer, he did everything exclusively and only legally, therefore he has left to himself all the works, in which his opponents could see recordings of “heretical content”. In addition, he was not only an outstanding mind with a lot of life experience, but also a Gascon. And it is well known that people of this type even the very serious doings can present in such an unpretentious and humorous wrapper: Yes, sometimes I'm reading Diophantus' “Arithmetic” at leisure and made notes with some ideas following the example of the esteemed and Right Honorable Claude Bachet who performed not only the Latin translation during the preparation of this book in 1621, but also added his own remarks.

Fermat did exactly the same i.e. had prepared for publication, as if were not his own works, but the same “Arithmetic” of Diophantus (see Pic. 96 in Appendix VI) with the same remarks of Bachet and has added to them the 48 his remarks. Everything was prepared so that any claims to this book or to him the Honorable Senator Pierre de Fermat simply could not be. But when the book was published, then unlike its previous editions, it stirred up the entire scientific world! Those comments made allegedly in passing on the margins of Diophantus’ book, turned out to be so valuable that they allowed scientists to develop science very noticeably using Fermat's new ideas for hundreds of years! And everything would be just perfect if it were not this his Last Theorem not amenable to any comprehension in scientific circles.

It would seem, what might be unusual here? Such unresolved problems in science are simply cannot be counted. But the fact of the matter is that the author of the theorem himself announced that he had the "truly amazing proof", but science cannot get although any for 350 years!!! It is only in the mass consciousness the author of the theorem is a real triumphant, but for science it’s like a bone in the throat. Here are already present obvious signs of illness. What kind of science is this, which for hundreds of years cannot to solve the school task? It would be OK if only one this task, but science cannot also recognize the obvious fact that it does not have the basic knowledge necessary for this, which Fermat discovered yet in those distant times.

Science lost not only the ability to comprehend, but also to orient in the events around it. How is it so that we have no knowledge, there are a whole mountain of them! This is for sure, “knowledge” was accumulated so many that to understand and assimilate all this wealth has become beyond human strength and capabilities. But in fact, everything is just the opposite. There is a very noticeable lack of real knowledge and the most part of all what has been accumulated, is empty grinding of many problems, which either have no solutions at all or else worse when dubious ideas are taken as the initial ones, on which mind-blowing theories are built, what naturally generating all sorts of paradoxes and contradictions. Then scientists are trying with all their might to overcome them, but for some reason if something works out for them that only with the help of even more mind-blowing theories.

Such an unusual character of our perceptions concerning to science, can cause a very negative reaction. But here we can confess that we had very good reasons for this because we managed to look in those very “heretical recordings” of Fermat. For greater persuasiveness we directly here will show one of the examples of our capabilities and accurately reproduce the real text of the most intriguing recording of the Fermat's Last theorem in the margins of Diophantus' "Arithmetic", which instance did belong to the author and disappeared unknown whither. So, in this place (see Pic. 5), we gain sight of several notes to the task under the number VIII made in Latin at different times. In translation they look like this:

1st entry: However, it is impossible to decompose C into two other C or QQ into two other QQ. Both proof by the descent method.

2nd entry: The second case is impossible because the number 2aabb is not a square.

3rd entry: New solution to the Pythagorean equation AB=2Q.

4th record: It may be computed as many numbers aa+bb–cc=a+b–c as you like.

5th entry: And in general, it is impossible to decompose any power greater than 2 into two powers with the same index. Proof by a key formula method.

6th entry: However, you can calculate as many numbers C+QQ=CQ as you like.

Now this restored text in margins of book can be compared with the text published in the edition "Arithmetic" by Diophantus with Fermat’s comments in 1670 (see Pic. 3 and at the end of Pt. 4.2):

However, it is impossible to decompose a cube into two cubes or a biquadrate into two biquadrates and generally any power greater than two, into two powers with the same index. I have discovered truly amazing proof of this, but these margins are too narrow to put it here.

But then it turns out the recovered text is not at all the same that was published. Well, of course not that one! It's clear, if you publish the real text of the remarks made in the margins of the book, then no one will understand anything because that who writes them, does it not for someone, but only for himself. On the other hand, it is obvious that the content of the recordings in the margins is so that they could not be made in the course of reading the book and are the result of a very voluminous and many years of work that was done separately. It is obvious that in addition to these short notes there is yet a whole bunch of papers in draft and finishing versions with brief or detailed explanations. These papers have not always been prepared for printing and they still need to be brought to the desired state. Hence it is clear why the text was edited accordingly for publication in 1670. From the real notes all was removed that reveals the method of proof and the sequence of solving individual tasks, which have eventually led to the discovery of the FLT.

The restored remarks follow in chronological order and may diverge in time over years. The margins' records of the book were made after they were prepared separately, but it was not intended that they be published in the same view. On the contrary, in the final formulation of the FLT everything that could be concealed from the history and components of this brilliant scientific discovery, was completely removed. Only the final result has been remained, which turned out to be beyond the powers of all subsequent science right up to the beginning of the XXI century!

If this reconstruction of the original FLT recording on the margins of the book appeared 30 years earlier, it would have caused a quite stir in the scientific world since the sixth entry develops (!!!) this theorem to the general case with the different of power's indexes! However, this stir did nevertheless take place 25 years ago, and again it was caused not by a professional, but by an amateur interested in FLT with his conjecture corresponding to the restored sixth entry. Of course, to believe in all this is not easily, but also to invent such a thing is also hardly possible. Now we have to explain in more detail these restored entries in the margins and this will be done in the next points of our work and the same senator who started this whole story, will help us in this.

2. The History of Delusions

An unprecedented succession of failures, wrecks of secret hopes and defeats in the protracted for centuries storming of an impregnable fortress under name the Fermat's Last Theorem, turned into a such nightmare for science that even its very existence have been questioned. Like the fierce plague epidemic, the FLT not only deprived the minds of numerous amateur fermatists, scientists and unrecognized geniuses, but also very much contributed to the fact that the whole science was plunged into the abyss of uncontrollable chaos.

Pic. 12. Andrew Wiles

Already three and a half centuries have passed since the first publication of the FLT and twenty-five years after it was announced that in 1995 this problem was allegedly solved by Professor Princeton University USA Andrew Wiles.[6 - It was a truly grandiose mystification, organized by Princeton University in 1995 after publishing in its own commercial edition "Annals of Mathematics" the “proof” of FLT by A. Wiles and the most powerful campaign in the media. It would seem that such a sensational scientific achievement should have been released in large numbers all over the world. But no! Understanding of this text is available only to specialists with appropriate training. Wow, now even that, which cannot be understood, may be considered as proof! However, for fairness it should be recognized that even such an overtly cynical mockery of science, presented as the greatest "scientific achievement" of the luminaries of Princeton University, cannot be even near to the brilliant swindle of their countrymen from the National Space Administration NASA, which resulted that the entire civilized world for half a century haven’t any doubt that the American astronauts actually traveled to the moon!] However, once again it turned out this “epochal” event has nothing to do with the FLT![7 - The “proof”, which A. Wiles prepared for seven years of hard work and published on whole 130 (!!!) journal pages, exceeded all reasonable limits of scientific creativity and of course, him was awaiting inevitable bitter disappointment because such an impressive amount of casuistry understandable only to its author, neither in form nor in content is in any way suitable to present this as proof. But here the real wonder happened. Suddenly, the almighty unholy himself was appeared! Immediately there were influential people who picked up the "brilliant ideas" and launched a stormy PR campaign. And here is your world fame, please, many titles and awards! The doors to the most prestigious institutions are open! But such a wonder even for the enemy not to be wish because sooner or later the swindle will open anyway.] “The proof” of Wiles rests solely on the idea proposed by the German mathematician Gerhard Frey. This idea was rated as brilliant, but apparently only because that it was an elementary and even very common error!!!

Pic. 13. Gerhard Frey

Instead of proving the impossibility of the Fermat equation a

+b

=c

in integers for n>2 here is proven only its incompatibility in the system with the equation y

=x(x?a

)(x+b

). In a similar way any nonsense can be proven. If the same work would be presented by one of the students, any of the professors would quickly bring him to clean water pointing to the obvious substitution of the subject of proof. Nevertheless, this super sensational news with great fanfare was noted in the world's leading media. The most influential newspaper of the USA “The New York Times” has been reported this right on the front page … in whole 2 years before the appearance of the “proof” itself!!! Andrew Wiles as the author of the "proof" became a member of the French Academy of Sciences and the laureate of as many as 18 of the most prestigious awards!!! To cover this momentous event, the British broadcaster BBC released an enthusiastic film and also it was invited the writer Simon Singh who published a book in 1997 titled “The Fermat's Last Theorem. The story of a riddle that confounded the world's greatest minds for 358 years”.

Pic. 15. Simon Singh

Pic. 14. “The New York Times” of 06/24/1993 with an Article About Solving the FLT Problem

If Singh independently was preparing this book, then he would have so many questions that he would not have them managed for 20 years. Of course, he was helped in every way by the very heroes-professors having glorified in the BBC film, therefore the book became a success and it is really interesting to read it even to those who know about mathematics only by hearsay. The first thing that immediately catches your eye, is the fact that in the book it was made an arithmetic error (!) and not somewhere, but in its very name! Indeed, it is well known that “the greatest minds” could not know anything about the FLT before 1670 when its wording first appeared in a book published by Fermat’s son Clеment Samuel “Arithmetic” by Diophantus with comments by K. Bachet and P. Fermat (see Appendix VI Pic. 96).[8 - If this book was published during the life of Fermat, then he would simply be torn to pieces because in his 48 remarks he did not give a proof of any one of his theorems. But in 1670 i.e. 5 years after his death, there was no one to punish with and venerable mathematicians themselves had to look for solutions to the problems proposed by him. But with this they obviously had not managed and of course, many of them could not forgive Fermat of such insolence. They were also not forgotten that during his lifetime he twice arranged the challenges to English mathematicians, which they evidently could not cope with, despite his generous recognition of them as worthy rivals in the letters they received from Fermat. Only 68 years after the first publication of Diophantus' "Arithmetic" with Fermat's remarks, did the situation at last get off the ground when the greatest science genius Leonard Euler had proven a special case of FLT for n=4, using the descent method in exact accordance with Fermat's recommendations (see Appendix II). Later thanks to Euler, there was received solutions also of the other tasks, but the FLT had so not obeyed to anyone.] But then it should be not 358 but 325 years and it turns out that Singh simply did not notice the error?

However, don't rush to conclusions! This is not the book's author error and not at all accidental. These same professors vividly told Singh that supposedly back in 1637 [9 - In pt. 2-30 of the letter Fermat to Mersenne, the task is set:“Find two quadrate-quadrate, the sum of which is equal to a quadrate-quadrate or two cubes, the sum of which is a cube” [9, 36]. The dating of this letter in the edition by Tannery is doubtful since it was written after the letters with a later dating. Therefore, it was most likely written in 1638. From this it is concluded that the FLT is appeared in 1637??? But have the FLT really such a wording? Even if these two tasks are special cases of the FLT, how it can be attributed to Fermat what about he could hardly even have guessed at that time? In addition, the Arabic mathematician Abu Mohammed al Khujandi first pointed to the insolubility of the problem of decomposing a cube into a sum of two cubes as early else the 10th century [36]. But the insolvability of the same problem with biquadrates is a consequence of the solution of the problem from pt. 2-10 of the same letter: "Find a right triangle in numbers whose area would be equal to a square." The way of proving Fermat gives in his 45th remark to Diophantus' “Arithmetic”, which begins like this: “If the area of the triangle were a square then two quadrate-quadrates would be given, the difference of which would be a square.” Thus, at that time, the wording of this problem and the approach to its solution were very different even from the particular case of FLT.] Fermat himself had noticed an error in his proof, but simply forgot to strike out recording of this theorem in the margins of the book. Who had invented this tale is unknown, but many scientists perceived it as a known fact and repeated time after time in their works. One can understand them because otherwise we could believe that Fermat turned out to be smarter than all of them! When Andrew Wiles said (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/andrew-wiles-fermat/ (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/andrew-wiles-fermat/)):

“I don't believe Fermat had a proof” – this opinion was not new at all because many reputable scientists have repeated this many time. However, this is clearly against logic. It turns out that Fermat somehow managed to formulate an absolutely not obvious theorem without any reason whatsoever.[10 - In order no doubts to appear, attempts were made to somehow “substantiate” the fact that Fermat could not have the proof mentioned in the original of FLT text. See for example, https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/node26.html (https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/node26.html) (Did Fermat prove this theorem?). Such an "argument" to any of the sensible people related to science, it would never come to mind because it cannot be convincing even in principle since in this way any drivel can be attributed to Fermat. But the initiators of such stuffing clearly did not take into account that this is exactly evidence of an organized and directed information campaign on the part of those who were interested in promoting Wiles’ “proof”.]

Another contradiction in Singh’s book is a clear discrepancy between the documentary facts and the assessments of Fermat as a scientist by consultants. It is necessary to pay tribute to Singh in that he is in good faith (although not fully) outlined that part of the Fermat's works, which relates to his contribution to science and is confirmed documental. Especially it should be noted that arithmetic is called in his book "the most fundamental of all mathematical disciplines". Only one listing of Fermat's achievements in science is enough to be sure that there were only a few scientists of such a level in the entire history of science.

But if this is so, then why was it necessary to think out something that is not confirmed by any facts and only distorts the real picture? This is very similar to the desire to convince everyone that Fermat could not prove the FLT since this is allegedly confirmed by historians. But historians received information from those mathematicians who did not cope with the Fermat’s tasks and could in this way express their discontent. Hence, it's clear how appear all the arguments taken from nowhere that Fermat was an amateur scientist, arithmetic attracted him only with puzzles, which he “invented”, FLT also was by him “invented” looking at the Pythagorean equation, and his proofs he did not want to publish because fear of criticism of colleagues.

That's what they really meant! Instead of the greatest scientist and founder of number theory as well as combinatorics (along with Leibniz), analytical geometry (along with Descartes), probability theory (along with B. Pascal), wave optics theory (along with Huygens), differential calculus (along with Leibniz and Newton), whose heritage was used by the greatest scientists in the course of centuries, suddenly a “lover” of puzzles appear, who only enjoyed the fact that no one could solve them. And since arithmetic is puzzles then this most fundamental of all sciences is relegated to the level of crosswords. Such a “logic” is clearly sewn with white threads and to be convinced of this, it is enough just to point out some well-known facts.

History has not retained any evidence that during the period life and activity of P. Fermat, someone has solved at least one of his tasks.[11 - An exception is one of the greatest English mathematicians John Wallis (see pt. 3.4.3).] This fact became the basis for opponents else in those times to compose all kinds of tales about him. In the surviving letters, he reported that he had already sent proofs to his respondents three times. But none of these proofs reached us because Fermat's letters recipients in eyes of posterity of course, did not want to look like they could not cope with simple tasks. Another indisputable fact is that the Fermat's personal copy of the book “Arithmetic” by Diophantus edited in 1621 with his handwritten comments in the margins, none of the eyewitnesses have ever seen!!! Well, now just a most curious picture turns out. Fermat’s critics seriously believe a witty Gascon joke that the Honorable Senator (apparently because of his lack of paper!) writes accurate and verified text of thirty-six Latin words in the book's margins, but are absolutely don't believe that he (the greatest scientist!) indeed had “truly amazing proof” of his own theorem.[12 - Obviously, if it come only about the wording of the FLT, it would be very unwise to write it in the margins of the book. But Fermat’s excuses about narrow fields are repeated in other remarks for example, in the 45

, at the end of which he adds: “Full proof and extensive explanations cannot fit in the margins because of their narrowness” [36]. But only one this remark takes the whole printed page! Of course, he had no doubt that his Gascon humor would be appreciated. When his son, Clement Samuel who naturally found a discrepancy in the notes prepared for publication, was not at all surprised by this since it was obvious to him that right after reading the book it was absolutely impossible to give exact wording of tasks and theorems. The fact that this copy of Diophantus’ “Arithmetic” with Fermat's handwritten notes didn’t come to us suggests that even then this book was an extremely valuable rarity, so it could have been bought by another owner for a very high price. And he was of course not so stupid to trumpet about it to the whole world at least for his own safety.]

It is even difficult to imagine how these critics would have been amazed to find out that in fact Fermat had never dealt with the search for this proof since at that time he could not know what exactly is to be proven. But namely in the last sentence of the FLT wording, which had so much outraged them, there is a keyword directly indicated how he have solved this problem. It so happened that for centuries the science world vainly tormented itself in search of the FLT proof, but Fermat himself was never looked for it and simply had declared that he had it discovered![13 - The text of the last FLT phrase: “I have discovered a truly amazing proof to this, but these margins are too narrow to put it here”, obviously does not belong to the essence of the theorem, but for many mathematicians it looks so defiant that they tried in every way to show that it's just empty a Gascon boasting. At the same time, they did not notice neither humor about the margins nor the keyword “discovered”, which is clearly not appropriate here. More appropriated words here could be, say, “obtained” or “founded”. If Fermat’s opponents paid attention to this, it would become clear to them that the word “discovered” indicates that he received the proof unexpectedly by solving the Diophantus' task, to which a remark was written called the FLT. Thus, mathematicians have unsuccessfully searched during the centuries for FLT proof instead of looking for a solution to the Diophantus' task of decomposing a square into the sum of two square. It seemed to them that the of Diophantus' task was clearly not worth their attention. But for Fermat it became perhaps the most difficult of all with it he has worked on, and when he did cope with it, then received the discovery of the FLT proof as a reward.]

It is possible also to remind to opponents ingeminating about Fermat’s deliberate refusal to publish his works that for example, Descartes had received permission to publishing from Most Reverend cardinal Richelieu himself. It was impossible for Fermat and there is even a written (!!!) testimony about it (see text on P. Fermat’s tombstone: “Vir ostentationis expers … – He was deprived the possibility of publication …”. See Appendix VI Pic. 93 – 94). Nevertheless, even being in such conditions, he had prepared the publication of Diophantus’ “Arithmetic” with the addition of his 48 comments, one of which got a name the “Fermat’s Last Theorem”.

The publication was supposed to appear in honor of the historically significant event – the foundation of the French Academy of Sciences, in which preparation Fermat himself participated through the correspondence with his long-time colleague from the Toulouse parliament Pierre de Carcavy who became the royal librarian. The royal decree of the creation of the French Academy of Sciences was prepared by Carcavy and the all-powerful Finance Minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert submitting it to the signing by Louis XIV. However, the Academy of Sciences was established only in 1666 i.e. a year after the Fermat's death.

Mathematicians are very famous for how they are strict pedants, formalists and quibblers, but as soon as it comes to the FLT, all these qualities immediately disappear somewhere. Fermat's opponents ignoring well-known facts, called him either a hermit (this is a senator from Toulouse!) or a prince of amateurs (this is one of the founders of the French Academy of Sciences!), and this despite his contribution to science comparable to its importance only with a couple or triple of the most prominent scientists in the history of science!

They also did not fail sarcastically to point out that no one would have known about Fermat if the greatest mathematician of all times and peoples Leonhard Euler had not become interested in his tasks. But just this magic name has played a cruel joke with them. Their boundless belief in Euler's innovatory researches was too blind to notice that it was namely thanks to him science received such a powerful blow, from which it cannot recover up to now!

Mathematicians not only have believed Euler, but also warmly supported him that algebra is the main mathematical science, while arithmetic is only one of its elementary sections.[14 - It is curious that the Russian-language edition this fundamental work of Euler was published in 1768 under the title "Universal Arithmetic" although the original name "Vollst?ndige Anleitung zur Algebra" should be translated as the Complete Introduction to Algebra. Apparently, translators (students Peter Inokhodtsev and Ivan Yudin) reasonably believed that the equations are studied here mainly from the point of view of their solutions in integers or rational numbers i.e. by arithmetic methods. For today's reader this 2-volume edition is presented as a Chinese literacy because along with the highly outdated Russian language and spelling, there is simply an incredible number of typos. It is unlikely that today's RAS as the heiress of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, which published this work, understands its true value, otherwise it would have been reprinted a long time ago in a modern and accessible form.] Euler's idea was really excellent because his algebra, which gained new possibilities through the use of "complex numbers" was to be a most powerful scientific breakthrough that would allow not only to expand the range of numbers from the number axis to the number plane, but also to reduce the most of all calculations to solving algebraic equations. [15 - Here there is an analogy between algebra and the analytic geometry of Descartes and Fermat, which looks more universal than the Euclidean geometry. Nevertheless, Euclidean arithmetic and geometry are the only the foundations, on which algebra and analytical geometry can appear. In this sense, the idea of Euler to consider all calculations through the prism of algebra is knowingly flawed. But his logic was completely different. He understood that if science develops only by increasing the variety of equations, which it is capable to solve, then sooner or later it will reach a dead end. And in this sense, his research was of great value for science. Another thing is that their algebraic form was perceived as the main way of development, and this later led to devastating consequences.]

The need for "complex numbers" mathematicians explained very simply. To solve absolutely any algebraic equations, you need (not so much!) to make the equation x

+ 1 = 0 become solvable. [16 - Just here is the concept of a “number plane” appears, where real numbers are located along the x axis, and imaginary numbers along the y axis i.e. the same real, only multiplied by the “number” i = ?-1. But along that come a contradiction between these axes – on the real axis, the factor 1

is neutral, but on the imaginary axis no, however this does not agree with the basic properties of numbers. If the “number” i is already entered, then it must be present on both axes, but then there is no sense in introducing the second axis. So, it turns out that from the point of view of the basic properties of numbers, the ephemeral creation in the form of a number plane is a complete nonsense.] In Russian this is called: "Don’t sew the tail to a mare"! This equation is not at all harmless since it has nothing to do with practical tasks, but undermines the fundamentals of science very substantially. Nevertheless, the devilish temptation to create something very spectacular on empty place turned out to be stronger than common sense and Euler decided to demonstrate the new mathematical possibilities in practice.

Pic. 16. Leonhard Euler