Talk:Beal conjecture/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Removed the crank proof of the conjecture

So sad to see wikipedia pages being vandalised by cranks who think they proved long standing conjectures, and think that the way to go about it is to vandalise the relevant wikipedia page instead of getting their "proof" peer reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.34.228 (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Change the name of the article

It should be seriously considered if the name of this Wikipedia article reflects a consensus in the number-theory community, or if it is another edifice in the monument a billionaire is trying to erect for himself. I propose links to pages like http://www.bealconjecture.com/ be removed, and all references to Mr. Beal other than the prize (that is notable) be removed as well. --Sigmundur (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

As is evident from talk section "Reason for revert", this monument-building has been going on for some while. Which is by no means unexpected, if we're dealing with a billionaire wishing to leave him name in the history books for the posterity. --Sigmundur (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

"this is the Tijdeman-Zagier conjecture, for whose solution Andrew Beal offers a $50,000 prize", source: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/2793857/Elkies%20-%20ABCs%20of%20Number%20Theory.pdf?sequence=2 Elkies, Noam D. 2007. The ABC's of number theory. The Harvard College Mathematics Review 1(1): 57-76

So I went ahead and did it, please comment below before reverting. So far the page presents no substantiation in form of source quotations why the name should be Beal instead of Tijdeman-Zagier. Adding sourcing to support both names would be very helpful. Thanks! --Sigmundur (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Mathoverflow.net discussion about the name and date of origin; to quote, "The sci.math discussions linked to above suggest that Andrew Granville suggested the problem in 1992 and that it was discussed as early as 1985" --Sigmundur (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Reason for revert

According to WP:Conflict of interest, Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. It is against Wikipedia's rules for people associated with Andrew Beal or with his bank to make any edits to this article. Furthermore, the cite in question does say that the math led the two other people to make the conjecture. That means their making the conjecture was independent. So the assertion of an independent conjecture stays. Furthermore, the fact that it has been referred to by another name is sourced and thus is demonstrably true; so that statement stays too.

Put a stop to these edits trying to purge part of the history. Whether you and Beal like it or not, the mentions of the other conjecturers and the other name stay. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article should at least touch on the slight controversy surrounding the name, which is also mentioned in MR 1488570. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wording

Is "anted up" considered proper style? --Whiteknox 12:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does is say "a(x) b(y) ..." and then have as an example: 3(3) and 6(3) I thought that since the exponent was x and y respectively there had to be different values for x and y otherwise it would just be x and x. Wikiiscool123 (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Already Disproved?

Is this already disproved and this fact should be added to the article? http://www.coolissues.com/mathematics/Beal/beal.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.199.129 (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not disproved. Constant is not a mathematician, and his proof is wrong. In particular, he implicitly assumes Beal's conjecture itself in step 1. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming Beal's conjecture and then disproving it is called proof by negation 72.87.171.201 (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The counter-examples in this Article prove nothing (not all lines are straight lines). Beal's conjecture (to be proven) asserts equality z^a = x^b + y^c for all numbers z,x,y and all numbers a,b,c>2. It is impossible to prove the equality for all numbers z,x,y with and without common factors, and the equality fails when a=b=c>2 (Fermat's Last Theorem). Not all numbers z,x,y have common factors and not all numbers a,b,c>2 are different. To assume that counter-examples in this Article (all with common factors and different a,b,c>2) suggest or constitute proof of BC falls short of the coolissues disproof of BC (for all numbers z,x,y and a,b,c>2). BC is disproved and this fact should be added to the Article. All that can be said of counter-examples in this Article is that they provide spurious solutions of BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.38.208 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Generalization??

Suppose we limit this conjecture to exponents all greater than 3 rather than 2. Are the bases going to require the same restriction or a further restriction?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This wouldn't have been a generalization, this would have been a more specific theorem. There's no way to know how the conditions could be relaxed when we don't know if the conjecture holds in the first place; indeed, I don't see how the condition that A, B, and C must have a common factor could be relaxed. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sinha Conjecture

Is that a joke, a typing mistake, or what? If X and Y have a common factor, then necessarily Z has the common factor too, and it can be taken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.27.210.130 (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Me again, after searching more on the web I found out this conjecture is a bullshit, and the foundation is fake. Their web page is gibberish too. Looking on the history of the article about Sinha conjecture, I ever doubt this Sinha exists, or is a sane person. From some old version of the wiki page: "first of all, Sinha tried to solve the Beal Conjecture and found the proof of Beal Conjecture, which immediately succeeded to gain two additional conjectures, more precisely, the Sinha Conjecture. This conjecture is more complex and challenging than Beal's earlier proposal. Sinha is never going to claim the Beal Conjecture Prize awarding money ever. He believes, if his proof leads us into a complicated conjecture then the Beal Conjecture, then other attempts to proof the Beal Conjecture must lead us into more deep inside of FLT in future. Money is priceless before the research and future developments of our knowledge, he believes". This guy is a either a fake or an idiot. I vote for removing any reference to Sinha conjecture from this page, as well as the article about Sinha conjecture, or better that article be substituted with some real story about this conjecture being a joke.

I totally agree that the section on Sinha's conjecture is gibberish. If X, Y, Z, a, b, c are specified positive integers, then the equation X^a+Y^b=Z^C has no variables. It's either true or false, and it makes no sense to ask whether it "has a solution." I was about to delete the section, but Wikipedia frowns on deletion of entire sections unless there is a consensus. Could others jump in here with their opinion, please? Ishboyfay (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I support deleting this junk. Maxal (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Sinha Conjecture Prize section was added on 4 November 2011 by a user identified only by the IP number 27.125.201.232, which apparently originates in West Bengal. I think maybe it's the same user as Sinhacon. Anyway, could the author of the section respond to the criticisms here, and explain why the section should not be deleted? Ishboyfay (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now deleted the entire section. Is anyone in favor of reinstatement? In my view, the related article on the Sinha conjecture should be likewise removed. Ishboyfay (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Single Page Disproof of Beal's Conjecture?

See at http://www.coolissues.com/mathematics/BealFermatPythagorasTriplets.htm Jamestmsn (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The author seems to say that there exist no such integers that x^a+y^b=z^c, for a>=3, b>=3, c>=3. This is complete nonsense; this very article gives counter-examples. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This very article referred to by Rosoft gives spurious solutions because they involve common factors (non co primes). When factored the resulting equations fall outside Beal's equation. See http://www.coolissues.com/mathematics/BealProblem/beal.htm . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.171.16 (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC) The one page proof shows that Beal's conjecture (BC),Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT), the Pythagorean theorem (PT) stand or fall together under Euclid's formulas for triplets (T). If one assumes "This is complete nonsense; this very article gives counter-examples." then one must assume that FLT, PT and T are disproved. In FLT and PT when non co prime factors are factored the resulting equations are look alike FLT or PT forms. The counter examples fail because when non co prime factors are factored the resulting equations no longer are look alike Beal forms. Before and after factoring, look alike forms must be unchanged. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.171.237 (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy?

The formulation currently in the article:

"... must have a common prime factor"

seems to be redundant ("prime" is unnecessary). --Stfg (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

All numbers have the common factor 1, so it is necessary either to say "a common prime factor", as the prize's webpage says, or to say (more wordily) "a common factor greater than 1." Duoduoduo (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Link with FLT

I restored a statement about being a generalisation of FLT, "Beal's conjecture is a generalization of Fermat's last theorem, which corresponds to the case $x=y=z$ ," which had been deleted with edit summary Deleted the statement that Beal's conjecture is a generalization of Fermat's last theorem. Fermat's theorem was proven to be right, so Beal's conjecture is not possible for x=y=z The summary doesn't seem to make sense -- that FLT is proven does not affect the fact that Beal's conjecture is a generalisation of it -- but this would be the place to discuss it. Deltahedron (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It should also be noted that as the Beal Conjecture is disproved, so falls Wiles, Ribet, Weil, T-S conjecture, and so many others. Ribet who is AMS President currently has oversight for the Beal Prize, who many see as having a major conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.207.98 (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim in first paragraph

For the claim in the first sentence: " similar conjecture was suggested independently at about the same time by Andrew Granville." there is no attribution, reference, link to verifiable third party to substantiate the statement. Does anyone out there have any impartial references or attribution for this? Best regards Casey Miller, Dallas, TX 21:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAMiller62 (talk • contribs)

Removing unsubstantiated claim in first paragraph

Editing out the unattributed content mentioned above. Best regards, Casey Miller, Dallas, TX 16:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAMiller62 (talk • contribs)

A=1 case

Is it known that the A=1 case is impossible? I think I vaguely recall that the only non-trivial solution to $1^{x}+B^{y}=C^{z}$ is $1^{x}+2^{3}=3^{2},$ in which z = 2.

Yes, it is. See Mihăilescu's theorem.

   Duoduoduo (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

l; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.222.242 (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

x = y = z does not return FLT

This sentence in the example section is false. Fermats last theorem is a statement about the existence of solutions where the beal conjecture proposes attributes of solutions or a generalized form of the infamous a^n+b^n=c^n equation. Thats something entirely different. I therefore deleted that part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.120.117 (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No: Beal's conjecture says there are no solutions with A, B, C coprime. Fermat's last theorem says there are no solutions, and hence no solutions with A, B, C coprime, in the special case x=y=z. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

numerical solution up to 1000

Either the sentence claiming that the Beal conjecture has been verified for all values of all six variables up to 1000 is wrong or the link No. 7 is outdated. The link demonstrates numerical verifications for a large set of numbers but not for all numbers up to 1000 and also not using modular arithmetic. Could the author of that part (I believe it is CRGreathouse) please be more specific about his source of information? Thawn (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

On a related topic, I (personally) have done a search that has proven that Beal's Conjecture has no solutions for all variables up to 1000, but haven't posted my code or a formal report of these searches anywhere online. I also found a report of someone having done the same searches at the link http://www.danvk.org/wp/beals-conjecture/index.html. Is there any way either contribution (probably Dan's) can be noted on this page (if anyone besides me thinks it would be useful)? Pieater3.14159265 (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong paragrph

The following paragraph is wrong: A variation of the conjecture where x, y, z (instead of A, B, C) must have a common prime factor is not true. A counterexample is $27^{4}+162^{3}=9^{7}.$ . Taking into consideration that 9 = 3² then 9⁷ = (3²)^⁷ = 3^2x7 = 3¹⁴ so 27⁴ + 162³ = 9⁷ = 3¹⁴, being 3 a prime factor.Sollet (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

x, y, and z in this example are 4, 3, and 7. The paragraph points out that 4, 3, and 7 have no common prime factor, and thus the paragraph is correct. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Answer the Question Ax+BY=CZ

Dear Beal's,

   Am REVATHI. I don't know is it correct or not. Just am trying to find out the answer.

My answer is,

        IF A,B,C ARE COMMON VALUES, THEN X,Y,Z ARE GREATER THEN 2 MEANS,
        A=B=C=1; THEN X=3, Y=5, Z=8
         
         AX+BY=CZ
         1(3)+1(5)=1(8)
               3+5=8
                 8=8  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.220.64.46 (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You've used multiplication of 1 by each of 3, 5, and 8. Beal's conjecture concerns raising A, B, and C to powers. Since

1^{3}+1^{5}\neq 1^{8}

, since the left side equals 2 and the right side equals 1, this is not a counterexample. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

The substantial number of recent edits to the "Related examples" section are unreferenced and thus give the appearance of being original research. Original research is against the rules of Wikipedia, because other editors cannot be expected to serve as referees: Refereeing is not what Wikipedia is for, rather that's what journals are for. Up until this last set of edits I've been refereeing them reluctantly, but I don't think this should continue. Since these examples are not examples of admissible solutions to the Beal equation, this section does not need to be complete -- the several examples already appearing there are enough to make the point that the equation can be solved in the absence of the Beal restriction. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Note - IP vandal reported here. - DVdm (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Note - ANI discussion here. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia talk page, not a forum

A Wikipedia talk page is for discussions relating to editing the corresponding Wikipedia article, not for publishing supposed proofs of theorems, for linking to such supposed proofs on other web sites, or anything similar. An editor from Vietnam has recently been using several talk pages of articles to publicise attempts at mathematical proofs. To that editor, please don't. There are plenty of internet forums, blogs, etc where the kind of thing you have been doing would be accepted, but a Wikipedia talk page is not one of them. Continuing in the same way may lead to the range of IP addresses that you use being blocked from editing. That would not be a disaster, since the majority of the other editing from that range is vandalism anyway, but it would be a pity, since there have occasionally been constructive edits from that range, and they would be blocked along with the unconstructive edits. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Bulletin of Mathematical Sciences and Applications

I agree with this: I would question the standards of the journal in question, which incidentally is not the well-established Springer Bulletin of Mathematical Sciences [1]. The "proof", incidentally, appears to be wrong. Deltahedron (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Disputing removal of passage

On 14 November 2014 the following passage was removed from the lead:

In the 1950s, L. Jesmanowicz and Chao Ko considered the same question with the added restriction that $A^{2}+B^{2}=C^{2}.$ [with reference Wacław Sierpiński, Pythagorean triangles, Dover, 2003, p. 55 (orig. Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University, 1962).]

with edit summary

remove sentence above one study of pythagorean triples, cause why? There have been many studies of that and not directly relevant to this.

The point of the sentence is not that it's a study of Pythagorean triples; it's that a particular class of potential solutions to the Beal equation were studied. Right now the article gives the false impression that the Beal equation was never studied before about 1993. That's not true. Loraof (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this information in the lead, this one sentence seems to stick out. There have been a lot of attempts to solve the equation over the years, and this feels like an odd way to introduce that aspect of the conjecture's history. Is it not also a bit of synthesis? Anyways, I'm wondering if it is a better fit in the "Partial results" section and perhaps that section could stand to be expanded further anyways. Or revise and fix up the "Fermat's Last Theorem" section of the "Pythagorean triple" article even? Beifong3 (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Returning to the discussion of how this information should be presented, I think including it in the partial results section is best for organization, but with the lack of prose there it's hard to assess how to integrate it in. Any ideas Loraof? Beifong3 (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It can't really go in the partial results section, since the 1950s researchers got no real results (as far as I know). The reason it is in the lead is that the lead talks about where the equation came from. Without mentioning the earlier attacks on the equation, the intro would be falsely implying that no one considered it until Beal and Tijdeman-Zagier. So I think it needs to be in the lead to avoid giving that false impression.

It's not synthesis since it does not combine what two or more different sources say to come to a new conclusion. And while you say that there have been a lot of attempts to solve the equation over the years, none of them antedate Beal and Tijdeman-Zagier except the ones in the 1950s. Loraof (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This issue and discussion is not necessarily about "solving the equation." The issue is the conjecture and the reasoned assertion that there are no solutions with coprime bases. The "Partial results" section feels appropriate for this sentence because many mathematicians have studied the equation involved in this conjecture and many closely related forms, but none asserted that coprime bases were impossible.

Page 55 of the book citing Jesmanowicz 1950s work goes on to point out a partial result – Jozefiak proved the elementary assertion that there are an infinite number of primitive Pythagorean triples that cannot satisfy the subject equation. Beifong3 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Counterexample of last section

It said that 27^4+162^3=9^7, but a clearer counterexample is 4^6+8^4=2^13, where gcd(6,4,13)=1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.8.115.219 (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the example in the article, with exponents (4, 3, 7), is a stronger example since these exponents are pairwise coprime. Loraof (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Partial results: Faltings' theorem

About Faltings theorem, isn't there two missing conditions: with x = y and x > 4 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.254.180 (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I wondered about that too. I've added a dubious tag to the statement pending someone else addressing this. Loraof (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I notice Faltings theorem is also mentioned in the article Fermat-Catalan conjecture. Judging by what is said there, I suspect what is missing is that "solution" in this statement means a solution with A coprime to B - in other words, that for a given x,y,z there will not be an infinitude of counter-examples to Beal's conjecture. Can anyone who understands Faltings theorem (which rules out me) clarify? Certainly as it stands now, the statement about Faltings theorem is at odds with the fourth formula in the earlier section "related examples", which explicitly states and demonstrates that for any given solution, "there are infinitely many solutions with the same set of exponents...". More generally I think throughout the "partial results" section of this article "solution" often means "coprime solution". -Wkcharlie

I've removed my "dubious" tag, and added a reference and clarification. The Elkies reference points out that it is very complicated going from Faltings' theorem to this result. Loraof (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have seen Beal's conjecture partial result, regarding the case (x,y,z)=(n,2n-1,n) at this link https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341098033_On_Beal's_Conjecture_the_Case_xyzn2n-1n

What do you think guys ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Kane (talk • contribs) 18:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Generalization doesn't correspond to example

The first section, "Related examples", starts by giving three examples, and then three generalizations which are supposed to correspond to the examples. The second generalization

$(a^{n}-1)^{2n}+(a^{n}-1)^{2n+1}=[a(a^{n}-1)^{2}]^{n}$

does not seem to correspond to the second example "7^{3}+7^{4}=14^{3}". In the generalization, the expressions for the exponents are 2n, 2n+1, and n. No choice for n will lead to the exponents 3, 4, 3. A more suitable formula would be

$(a^{n}-1)^{n}+(a^{n}-1)^{n+1}=[a(a^{n}-1)]^{n}$

where setting a=2, n=3 leads to the example involving 7 and 14. Alternatively the inconsistency could be fixed by replacing 2 by k in some of the exponent expressions:

$(a^{n}-1)^{kn}+(a^{n}-1)^{kn+1}=[a(a^{n}-1)^{k}]^{n}$

Jan 12 2016 I went ahead and changed the second generalization to use k instead of 2, since there appeared to be no objections and the original version was clearly inconsistent with 7^3+7^4=14^3. Wkcharlie

Wkcharlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkcharlie (talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on article title

Just saw that this article's name changed somewhat recently, have heard of it referred to as "Beal's conjecture" before, and looks like all the editors on here previously were referring to it that way, plus a majority of the sources also refer to it as Beal's, or a couple at least acknowledge that it is referred to it by another name. WP:Moving a page procedure says a change like this needs more input than this received. Beifong3 (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

R. Daniel Mauldin (1997). "A Generalization of Fermat's Last Theorem: The Beal Conjecture and Prize Problem" (PDF). Notices of the AMS 44 (11): 1436–1439.

^^Earliest publication (Dec. 1997) cites title as Beal's Conjecture. Mauldin and overwhelming number of used citations denote this title as well as reference the '97 publication of Mauldin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.22.149 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm rather inclined to agree. Whatever the priority, the only reason that non-mathematicians have likely hear of this is because of Beal's involvement. It may well be that he was neither the original discoverer, nor even the first to publish this idea (though the publication history is murky); however, his prize money did popularize this as the "Beal Conjecture" (or Beal's Conjecture). A thorough review of mentions in the popular sphere may be useful, but Google and Google News both show more uses for Beal than Tijdeman–Zagier. I am inclined to think that "Beal Conjecture" is more in line with WP:COMMONNAME even if "Tijdeman–Zagier conjecture" might be more common in the mathematical literature. Dragons flight (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Beal's does seem to be more common and further even, the lead of the article addresses the issues surrounding the name of the conjecture: "There is controversy about the name of the conjecture..."

WP:Moving a page says there needs to have consensus first and shouldn't be moved in the first place if controversial. Beifong3 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus to use Beal in the title and the proposed title is the preferred variant. Jenks24 (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Tijdeman–Zagier conjecture → Beal conjecture – To restore WP:COMMONNAME. Attempted to move myself but redirect already in place. – News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 17:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there are plausible arguments for both titles. This ought to have a formal move discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for listing this, EdJohnston. Stumbled via List of unsolved problems in mathematics, where referenced as "Beal's conjecture". What links here displays over a dozen other Wiki pages/Wikilinks referring to name as such. @Beifong3 and Dragons flight: from above discussion. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 01:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Support - I support moving the page to Beal's conjecture, as stated above, I think moving it to Tijdeman–Zagier conjecture was done prematurely and should have been discussed first so moving it to Beal's restores the article. The sources/Google search show that it is commonly referred to as Beal's, and the earliest source on the article refers to it as Beal's. Beifong3 (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Support - It isn't Wikipedia's job to decide what name something ought to have in the real world, but merely acknowledge what the common name already is. I am sympathetic to the notion that Beal may be grandstanding here, and it does appear that the mathematical literature has largely chosen to ignore him and allocated the naming priority to others. However, Beal efforts have brought this conjecture into the popular sphere (e.g. magazines, newspapers, websites, etc.), and in that domain that Beal Conjecture (or Beal's Conjecture) appears to me to be the runaway favorite. Even though we are talking about a bit of math, I don't think we can give preference to Tijdeman–Zagier just because that may be preferred by the specialist mathematicians. Ultimately, for good or ill, I think Beal Conjecture is the most common name. Dragons flight (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Support the 20 June 2016 requested move to Beal conjecture.

Elkies, Noam D. (2007). "The ABC's of Number Theory" (PDF). The Harvard College Mathematics Review 1 (1).

^^ Primary source used to claim Tijdeman–Zagier cites Mauldin '97 source for reference. Mauldin coined the common name Beal conjecture in the Notices of the AMS publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.22.149 (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Question. Should it be "Beal conjecture" or "Beal's conjecture"? I note it was at the latter title since creation until recently, but the proposal is for the former. Jenks24 (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, Jenks24. I proposed "Beal conjecture" as its the most frequently used WP:COMMONAME, also noted as such by Dragons flight above. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 21:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Counterexample removed

I removed:

On May 3, 2018, the following counterexample was found by Frank Vega:

$1054962892930838144552824032072744^{3}+2^{336}=3^{212}.$

I used Alpertron's integer factorization calculator and found out that the left side is a 102-digit number starting with 14115816386218374 and the right side is a 102-digit number starting with 14115816386218376 (they agree to 16 of 102 digits.) Georgia guy (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Plus, it asserts that two evens sum to an odd. Loraof (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no clear consensus to move the article at this time, per the discussion below. A WP:COMMONNAME analysis might be helpful in a future request but does not seem to be forthcoming at this time. Dekimasuよ! 22:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Beal conjecture → Beal's conjecture – This is a conjecture observed by Beal, so it makes sense to use the possessive form. "Beal's conjecture" had also been the article's title prior to 2016. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 00:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It "makes sense" to use either form; is there any reason to regard "Beal's" conjecture as "making more sense" than the "Beal" conjecture? In any case, nothing I have ever seen anywhere in Wikipedia's manual of style gives any priority to a name which Wikipedia editors regard as "making more sense", but it does give priority to the name most commonly used in English. In the last move discussion for this article it was stated that "Beal conjecture" was the commonest name. To check, I did some Google searches. For -"Beal conjecture" +"Beal's conjecture" I got 2,460 hits, and for -"Beal's conjecture" +"Beal conjecture" I got 26,500. That suggests that the present title is far more common than the suggested replacement title, in which case we should stick with the present one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the nominative form (of the inventor's or discoverer's name) is much more common than the possessive form in scientific naming, particularly mathematics and medicine: cf. Lagrange polynomials, Cauchy distribution, Down syndrome, or anything in Category:Conjectures or Category:Syndromes. No such user (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Do a WP:COMMONNAME analysis. WP:CONSISTENCY does not apply: both naming patterns are very common. So neither of the above pro/con arguments are compelling without actual data on what the majority usage in reliable sources is, especially across fields and across different media (do a news and book search, and a general journals one, not just journals in number theory). Pending such evidence, no move per the status quo ante principle (WP:TITLECHANGES: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.") — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Nom's rationale This is a conjecture observed by Beal, so it makes sense to use the possessive form if accepted as valid would require a tweak to WP:AT (perhaps even a new detailed article naming guideline) which would affect an enormous number of articles. I for one would not support its adoption and there seems some opposition and no support for it above. But I also note that both titles have some claim to stability, and see also Boyle's law and many others. Andrewa (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proving it is wrong.

2^6+4^3=2^7 Adarsh8513 (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The conjecture requires that each of the terms being raised to a power have no common factors. All of your terms are divisible by 2. Dragons flight (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)