Did somebody solve the proof for Fermat's Last Theorem? If so who?
464439
Yes, Andrew Wiles proved it a few years ago. He won the Wolf Prize in 1995-96.
699025
Fermats little theorem tells us x^65536 = 1 modulo 65537 for all x.\nThus, for x^65535 to also be 1 modulo 65537, we need x^65536 = x^65535 (mod 65537).\nNow, thats true for x=0, but x=0 doesn't work in the original. If x is not 0, we can divide both sides by x^65535, since that is coprime with 65537. That tells us that x = 1 (mod 65537), so there is only one possible value for x.
8996
Well, I agree with Rosie. You can do proofs really fast if you have a very clear understanding of all the required theorems & formulae. But for this you need to really really practice - and the time won't be far away when the only time that will be required will be the time you take to write the proof! I was very poor in this subject - but I was so determined that I would sit long hours and try to prove it on my own. Believe it or not I would spent 2 or 3 hours for trying to prove certain problems  i.e without taking anybody's help. It was very tough initially - sometimes i was not able to do it - i would go to sleep at night with the problem in mind - honestly i would always get it right the next morning. With gradual practice i could do it in a jiffy! But my dear don't forget H.W.Longfellow - "The heights of great men reached and kept, Were not obtained by sudden flight, But they, while their companions slept Were toiling upward in the night."
652164
This theorem has an amazing number of proofs but this theorem(like many other mathematical concepts) as you said was known way before pythogorean times but only to INDIANS who didnt share it on the global scale!!
454578
mrniceguy's answer is correct, but he has one little eror in the work.  i^7 = -i
460848
no there doesnt. If you solve the congruences one at a time and use your solution for the previous congruence in the next one, you will eventually get the colution 1 congruent to 0 (mod7) which is obviously impossible
1156966
I can see two different interpretations of your question.\n\nInterpretation 1:  You are asking that if you have a right triangle with sides of length a and b, and hypotenuse of length c, then a^2 + b^2 = c^2.  No other powers work.\n\nInterpretation 2:  You are asking if there are solutions to a^n + b^n = c^n for n other than 2.  In this case, for n > 2 there are no nontrivial RATIONAL solutions.  This is the content of what is known as "Fermat's Last Theorem".
959197
I have factored it please refer to.\n\nFrom this solution can be found
811242
The first person to find the general formula for all sums of i ^ k, k > 0 was Johann Faulhaber in 1631. I don't know when that particular formula that you just mentioned was first developed though.
461297
One question in number theory most likely :\n\nfor  all integers a, b, c and n,\n\nprove that :  \n\na^n + b^ n does not equal c^n for n > =3
580657
Fermat's Last Theorem states that, for an integer n > 2, there are no non-zero integers x,y,z such that x^n + y^n = z^n.  What you wrote above does not prove this.  Yes, we know that 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, but there are no integers such that x^3 + y^3 = z^3.  If you still think your explanation actually proves this, please explain more.\n\n"There lies a commmon factor between a,b,c when a=b+c".  For your example, 9+16=25, the common factor is 1.  This does not, in any way, prove FLT.  You cannot just end a proof with a vague statement and not show how it proves what you're trying to prove.  How do the two facts 9+16=25 and "common factor when a=b+c" relate to prove FLT?\n\nUpdate:  I think you are confused as to what FLT is.  I stated it correctly above and the link below has a great explanation.  I believe you're trying to prove that there are an infinite number of integers x,y,z such that x^2 = y^2 + z^2.  Of course this is true, and has been known for a long time.  They're called Pythagorean triples.  FLT excludes the case n=2.  Read the link below for more information.
271648
boy we carry those text books along with us\nif u want us to prove then provide the theorem plz
32720
The theorem (that every real integer can be written as the sum of four squares) was first stated (or enunciated) by Diophatus, the "father of algebra", around 1,800 years ago.  It may have been solved by Pierre de Fermet in 1638, but the first known, published proof was that of Joseph Lagrange in 1770.
255722
It is discovered by Yang Hui, and there is no mistake.  It is identical to Pascal's triangle, except discovered 400 years earlier.
467967
this is probably not a perfect answer but this site may give you some clues.\n\nhttp://www.gomath.com/Questions/question.php?question=4751\n\naltrnatively type 'prove v*v = 2gr*r/s+v0*v0-2gr' into a search engine and see what comes up.
826199
Pierre de fermat because of his intelligent works including his last theorem.
930926
- The solution to the cubic (as well as the quartic) was published by Gerolamo Cardano (1501-1576) in his treatise Ars Magna. However, Cardano was not the original discoverer of either of these results. The hint for the cubic had been provided by Niccolò Tartaglia, while the quartic had been solved by Ludovico Ferrari. However, Tartaglia himself had probably caught wind of the solution from another source. The solution was apparently first arrived at by a little-remembered professor of mathematics at the University of Bologna by the name of Scipione del Ferro (ca. 1465-1526). While del Ferro did not publish his solution, he disclosed it to his student Antonio Maria Fior. This is apparently where Tartaglia  learned of the solution around 1541.