11–20 of 46 posts
Aside: the AI summary of this attributes the wrong person. This is Andrew Wiles.
Mathematicians / folks knowledgeable on the subject - do you think Fermat had an error in his (lost) proof? Or that there exists a solution that perhaps is more straightforward than Wiles's?
My understanding is that Wiles had to use a ton of math (and invent some new math?) that had not yet been invented in Fermat's time.
(disclaimer: I haven't watched this yet) Mathematicians / folks knowledgeable on the subject - do you think Fermat had an error in his (lost) proof? Or that there exists a solution that perhaps is more straightforward than Wiles's? My understanding is that Wiles had to use a ton of math (and invent some new math?) that had not yet been invented in Fermat's time.
(disclaimer: I haven't watched this yet) Mathematicians / folks knowledgeable on the subject - do you think Fermat had an error in his (lost) proof? Or that there exists a solution that perhaps is more straightforward than Wiles's? My understanding is that Wiles had to use a ton of math (and invent some new math?) that had not yet been invented in Fermat's time.
My personal guess is he figured out later that his proof was broken or limited and never got around to fixing it.
(disclaimer: I haven't watched this yet) Mathematicians / folks knowledgeable on the subject - do you think Fermat had an error in his (lost) proof? Or that there exists a solution that perhaps is more straightforward than Wiles's? My understanding is that Wiles had to use a ton of math (and invent some new math?) that had not yet been invented in Fermat's time.
Consensus is that there's no way he had a correct, general proof. My personal guess is he figured out later that his proof was broken or limited and never got around to fixing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consensus is that there's no way he had a correct, general proof. My personal guess is he figured out later that his proof was broken or limited and never got around to fixing it.
We haven’t yet reached the era in which we’re allowed to know about the technique. The simple, intuitive proof will become available to us when the time is right.
(disclaimer: I haven't watched this yet) Mathematicians / folks knowledgeable on the subject - do you think Fermat had an error in his (lost) proof? Or that there exists a solution that perhaps is more straightforward than Wiles's? My understanding is that Wiles had to use a ton of math (and invent some new math?) that had not yet been invented in Fermat's time.
Consensus is that there's no way he had a correct, general proof. My personal guess is he figured out later that his proof was broken or limited and never got around to fixing it.
"Nothing I ever do again…" – and then, having barely held it together for the last 30 seconds, he has to stop. It brings me to tears every time I watch it.
A man realising the sheer magnitude of the thing he did. It's the most relevant part for humanity today.
Ah! Found it. This is a better clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaKyvr4ar1Q
(disclaimer: I haven't watched this yet) Mathematicians / folks knowledgeable on the subject - do you think Fermat had an error in his (lost) proof? Or that there exists a solution that perhaps is more straightforward than Wiles's? My understanding is that Wiles had to use a ton of math (and invent some new math?) that had not yet been invented in Fermat's time.
He wrote his note in his copy of Arithmetica around 1637.
He most likely wrote his proof for the case of n=4 in the 1640s.
He sent letters to other mathematicians in 1640, 1657 where he talks about the case of n=3 but writes in such a way that it seems like he does not have the answer.
Why would he write n=4 after? If he had a generalized proof?
Why would he tease other mathematicians with a special case in 1657 if he already had a generalized proof?