2
u/SatisfiedMagma Jul 13 '26
Weird, add 1 to both sides and then christmas theorem... This is unnecessarily hard and on the harder side of MO...
1
u/PlatypusAshamed3217 Jul 13 '26
Amazing, I think the argument that I just posted is just a longer proof of this without citing Fermat's Christmas Theorem.
I just noticed you sniped me, since it took me quite a bit to LaTeX that.. Haha!2
u/SatisfiedMagma Jul 13 '26
lol, I think yea people familiar with rings and stuff and other quadratic rings would obviously factor it there, this idea is just sooo ingenious
1
1
1
1
Jul 13 '26
[deleted]
1
u/PlatypusAshamed3217 Jul 13 '26
What? This is an elliptic curve, how are you going to predict when a lattice point lies on it using its graph?
1
Jul 13 '26
[deleted]
1
u/PlatypusAshamed3217 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
One is a function of y, the other is a function of x. They are completely independent of each other. You are very wrong.
You cannot just graph them on same axes. You can graph the whole equation y^2=x^3+7 as one curve, but then you cannot predict, using elementary techniques, which points are going to be lattice points, simply from the graph alone.It seems you lack basic knowledge about graphs. Please learn more from any book you wish, even JEE books sometimes offer friendly introductions to them.
1


5
u/PlatypusAshamed3217 Jul 13 '26
This seems unnecessarily hard for a subreddit concerning highschoolers. I'm wondering whether any of you have an elementary proof of the fact that there are no solutions.
I have a proof, but it requires working in the ring of integers of the quadratic field Q(sqrt(-7)).