# FLT from Mochizuki's proof of abc [closed]

If Mochizuki's proof of abc is correct, why would this provide a new proof of FLT?

Edit: In proof of asymptotic FLT, does Mochizuki claim a specific value of n and if so what is this value?

## closed as too localized by Igor Rivin, Andrés E. Caicedo, Lee Mosher, Vidit Nanda, Steven GubkinSep 27 '12 at 19:34

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• Enough with Mochizuki + abc, already! If the proof is accepted, then we will all celebrate. Until then, this is fairly pointless. – Igor Rivin Sep 27 '12 at 19:21
• I downvoted this because it took about 30 seconds to find the answer, starting from the Wikipedia page on the abc conjecture. – user5117 Sep 27 '12 at 19:28
• but unknown yahoos want to know! – Joel Dodge Sep 27 '12 at 19:30
• Igor, while I am sure many of us are getting fed up with the rampant speculatory questions regarding Mochizuki and ABC, maybe the people asking are not regular enough on MO (or meta-MO) to be familiar with the ongoing debates about acceptability of such questions. This is not a crime. My impression is that this question is independent of Mochizuki's work and simply asks for why ABC implies FLT. Since this information is easily available on the internet, the question should be closed for not being research level rather than in annoyance at other recent ABC questions. – Vidit Nanda Sep 27 '12 at 19:30
• @Vel: I did answer, though (a) this particular @unknown is obviously not a complete MO novice (judging by reputation) and (b) I do agree re the easy availability of the info. – Igor Rivin Sep 27 '12 at 19:58

The two answers of J.H.S and Igor Rivin don't really answer the question : they prove FLT only for an exposant $n$ large enough. Since Mochizuki's version of ABC is effective, one could certainly find an effective bound for $n$, and maybe prove by hand the remaining $n$. But as they stand, they are incomplete.
Let us suppose that $x^{n}+y^{n}= z^{n}$ with $x, y,$ and $z$ relatively prime. By the abc-conjecture, $|x^{n}|\ll |xyz|^{1+\epsilon}$, $|y^{n}|\ll |xyz|^{1+\epsilon}$ and $|z^{n}|\ll |xyz|^{1+\epsilon}$. Therefore, $|xyz|^{n}\ll |xyz|^{3+\epsilon}$ which implies that, for $|xyz|>1$, $n$ is bounded. Unfortunately, this establishes only an asymptotic version of FLT. Nevertheless, if we had explicit information regarding the implied constant in the abc-conjecture, we could in principle determine explicit upper bounds for those $n$'s for which the abc-conjecture doesn't settle FLT.