Proofs of Fermat's Theorem On Sums of Two Squares - Zagier's "one-sentence Proof"

Zagier's "one-sentence Proof"

If p = 4k + 1 is prime, then the set S = {(x, y, z) ∈ N3: x2 + 4yz = p} is finite and has two involutions: an obvious one (x, y, z) → (x, z, y), whose fixed points correspond to representations of p as a sum of two squares, and a more complicated one,

(x,y,z)\mapsto \begin{cases} (x+2z, z, y-x-z),\quad \textrm{if}\,\,\, x < y-z \\ (2y-x, y, x-y+z),\quad \textrm{if}\,\,\, y-z < x < 2y\\ (x-2y, x-y+z, y),\quad \textrm{if}\,\,\, x > 2y \end{cases}

which has exactly one fixed point, (1, 1, k); however, the number of fixed points of an involution of a finite set S has the same parity as the cardinality of S, so this number is odd for the first involution as well, proving that p is a sum of two squares.

This proof, due to Zagier, is a simplification of an earlier proof by Heath-Brown, which in turn was inspired by a proof of Liouville. The technique of the proof is a combinatorial analogue of the topological principle that the Euler characteristics of a topological space with an involution and of its fixed point set have the same parity and is reminiscent of the use of sign-reversing involutions in the proofs of combinatorial bijections.

Read more about this topic:  Proofs Of Fermat's Theorem On Sums Of Two Squares

Famous quotes containing the word proof:

    “If we view our children as stupid, naughty, disturbed, or guilty of their misdeeds, they will learn to behold themselves as foolish, faulty, or shameful specimens of humanity. They will regard us as judges from whom they wish to hide, and they will interpret everything we say as further proof of their unworthiness. If we view them as innocent, or at least merely ignorant, they will gain understanding from their experiences, and they will continue to regard us as wise partners.”
    —Polly Berrien Berends (20th century)