Solving Fermat: Andrew Wiles

(pbs.org)

44 points | by 1970-01-01 20 hours ago

5 comments

  • albert_e 2 hours ago
    This was an excellent introduction to this topic:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem_(book) by Simon Singh

    But I am not sure if the book covers the mistake and later correction. It has been more than a decade since I read the book (and became a fan of the author).

    • WD-42 1 hour ago
      It does. That’s all part of the drama.

      One of the best books I’ve ever read.

      • placebo 1 hour ago
        Agreed. I bought it at the airport for a transatlantic flight the year it came out and started reading before lift off. Completed it before landing. Best flight ever.
      • stogot 1 hour ago
        Would it be good on audio?
        • WD-42 1 hour ago
          Maybe. Most of it is just good storytelling. There are some light equations and graphs occasionally.
    • tonyedgecombe 1 hour ago
      The BBC did an episode of Horizon on it.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0074rxx

    • chris_st 2 hours ago
      I'll check that out - I loved his "The Code Book: The Science of Secrecy from Ancient Egypt to Quantum Cryptography". Excellent introduction to cryptography.
    • clarkeni 2 hours ago
      It does! Very dramatic part of the book.
  • NiloCK 1 hour ago
    Recent LLM dingers like the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample have challenged the efficient mathematics hypothesis. The JC counterexample was so small in degree and coefficient. It should have been a "low fruit" in the scheme of things, but alas, unpicked for 50+ years with considerable attention from good mathematicians.

    With respect to FLT, my hopes have modestly increased that a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition does in fact exist, that Fermat actually had it, and that it may someday be recovered!

    edit: some emphasis on modest. But let me be romantic here!

    • clircle 22 minutes ago
      efficient mathematics hypothesis? What's that?
      • fancyfredbot 10 minutes ago
        It's a pun on "efficient markets hypothesis".

        The efficient markets hypothesis says the market prices incorporate all available information and there's no such thing as a cheap stock, so there's no easy money to be made by trading.

        The math equivalent is presumably that all easy problems have been solved and all open problems should be very very hard. This has turned out not to be the case as LLMs have found simple counterexamples to long held conjectures.

        • mathisfun123 5 minutes ago
          They're the same thing; knowledge markets are markets.
  • FeepingCreature 1 hour ago
    This is the most offensively-themed serious site I have ever seen.
    • energy123 13 minutes ago
      It's fast, legible, dense and ad-free. Can't get any better than this.
    • fnands 1 hour ago
      In their defense, this probably looked really cool in 2000, when this was published (or at least, last updated).

      But agreed, that lime green is horrendous.

    • jebarker 1 hour ago
      On purely aesthetic grounds I'll take this over another substack-like site any day of the week.
  • fnands 1 hour ago
    From 2000.

    Posting because he's retiring this year?

  • matthewfelgate 2 hours ago
    I have a truly marvellous comment on this, which this comment box is too small to contain.
    • HarHarVeryFunny 1 hour ago
      FWIW, it seems pretty clear that while Fermat briefly thought he had a proof, he fairly quickly realized it was flawed since he never mentioned this publicly and later went on to develop a proof just for the simple n=4 case.

      In 1847 Gabriel Lami presented a claimed (simple) general proof to the French Academy of Sciences, only for the flawed assumption in it to be pointed out immediately at the end of his presentation! This may have been the same proof that Fermat had in mind.