Jurist (Math Hobbyist) Finds 3 Pg Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem!

[The idea]

Coincidentally, the jurist in question has a media presence, but the media presence is associated with the jurist's law-related activities and not with the jurist's mathematical hobby.

The jurist has been unable to find a media organization staffed by people who can understand the proof. Naturally, media organizations don't want to publish something that might turn out to be a hoax designed to make them look ignorant and foolish.

The obvious first step for the jurist would be to contact a department of mathematics at a college or university. However, mathematics departments can no longer afford to waste time examining alleged proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem. They now require that anyone who wants a math department to spend time studying an alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem must first establish a media presence in regard to his or her alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.

Isn't it ironic that the two people who famously claimed to have produced cold fusion were doing the right thing? Instead of following scientific protocol, they went to the media. Instead of submitting results to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, they established a media presence.

Reference:
12. This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions: First, he/she must have a “media presence,” which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person’s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified.


(The above is Rule 12 of The Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.)

[ReligionStudent]

Coincidentally, the jurist in question has a media presence, but the media presence is associated with the jurist's law-related activities and not with the jurist's mathematical hobby.

The jurist has been unable to find a media organization staffed by people who can understand the proof. Naturally, media organizations don't want to publish something that might turn out to be a hoax designed to make them look ignorant and foolish.

The obvious first step for the jurist would be to contact a department of mathematics at a college or university. However, mathematics departments can no longer afford to waste time examining alleged proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem. They now require that anyone who wants a math department to spend time studying an alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem must first establish a media presence in regard to his or her alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.

Isn't it ironic that the two people who famously claimed to have produced cold fusion were doing the right thing? Instead of following scientific protocol, they went to the media. Instead of submitting results to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, they established a media presence.



(The above is Rule 12 of The Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.)


I believe peer reviewed journals would satisfy the published part of the definition of media presence you give, and actually fit within the current model of scholarly work.

[Ziggurat]

Was it behind the sofa? Because I could swear that's where I lost it.

[Dr Adequate]

Can I see it?

[andyandy]

Can I see it?

here you are

x^n + y^n = z^n

has no non-zero integer solutions for x, y and z when n > 2


:D

[Gord_in_Toronto]

here you are

x^n + y^n = z^n

has no non-zero integer solutions for x, y and z when n > 2


:D

Won't fit my margins. Can you write it smaller?
;)

[196]

However, mathematics departments can no longer afford to waste time examining alleged proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem.Mathematics departments no longer need to waste time studying three-page "proofs" of Fermat's Last Theorem because such a proof is an extraordinary claim. It would be up to the claimant to publish their work in a peer reviewed journal. Wiles presented his results to his peers before he published. This is a cautious approach that led to his claim being accepted. His proof wasn't three pages long and we wasn't a candidate for the JREF Million Dollar Prize.

Isn't it ironic that the two people who famously claimed to have produced cold fusion were doing the right thing?In my opinion Fleischmann and Pons used the wrong approach to introduce a new scientific discovery. Peer-review is an important safety process, and they skipped that step. Fleischmann and Pons claimed that cold fusion was a previously unknown chemical reaction, not something outside of the realm of science. It was an ordinary claim that could be studied. I believe their motivation was to quickly get people studying cold fusion. They were not applying for the JREF Million Dollar Prize.

[TX50]

Why is the "Million Dollar prize" being dragged into this? Since when has maths been paranormal?

[Schneibster]

Errrmmmm, a British mathematician (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Wiles.html) named Andrew John Wiles discovered a proof, currently under review (because such things take a long time to check over and it's only been 14 years- I said a long time), of Fermat's Last Theorem in 1993; the proof was incomplete, but by October of 1994, it was in a final form, after a breakthrough and several simplifications suggested by various mathematicians who reviewed the proof.

Fermat was a jurist; is that the reason for the confusion here? Because this guy is a mathematician, not a hobbyist. Could you provide a link to the "jurist" who you claim showed this proof? Or of any of the other claims made here regarding being ignored by the mathematics community? Or association of proof criteria to the Million Dollar Challenge? Or basically anything actually relevant to what you're talking about?

[John Hewitt]

Errrmmmm, a British mathematician (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/Mathematicians/Wiles.html) named Andrew John Wiles discovered a proof, currently under review (because such things take a long time to check over and it's only been 14 years- I said a long time), of Fermat's Last Theorem in 1993; the proof was incomplete, but by October of 1994, it was in a final form, after a breakthrough and several simplifications suggested by various mathematicians who reviewed the proof.

Fermat was a jurist; is that the reason for the confusion here? Because this guy is a mathematician, not a hobbyist. Could you provide a link to the "jurist" who you claim showed this proof? Or of any of the other claims made here regarding being ignored by the mathematics community? Or association of proof criteria to the Million Dollar Challenge? Or basically anything actually relevant to what you're talking about?
I cannot pretend to understand it at all but the result must be quite well known. There was a TV programme about Wiles proof (might have been Horizon) and I have distinct memories of it being mentioned on "Star Trek - The Next Generation."

[Schneibster]

The result is well-known; my point was, the discoverer is not a math "hobbyist," was not denied access to other mathematicians, and is not a candidate for the Million Dollar Challenge prize, though he has won many prizes in mathematics for his proof, such as the Shaw Prize, the Wolf Prize, the Fermat Prize, and several others.

[Schneibster]

Oh, and last but not least: this is almost certainly not Fermat's proof. Three pages is not "elegant," and not particularly "marvelous." It's a major slog through about three or four pieces of industrial-strength math that were by and large unknown in Fermat's time.

[qayak]

Errrmmmm, a British mathematician (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Wiles.html) named Andrew John Wiles discovered a proof, currently under review (because such things take a long time to check over and it's only been 14 years- I said a long time), of Fermat's Last Theorem in 1993; the proof was incomplete, but by October of 1994, it was in a final form, after a breakthrough and several simplifications suggested by various mathematicians who reviewed the proof.

Wiles' proof has been accepted.

[Schneibster]

Wiles' proof has been accepted.Thanks, I was probably referring to old (as in, from 2000 or so) information.

[geni]

Coincidentally, the jurist in question has a media presence, but the media presence is associated with the jurist's law-related activities and not with the jurist's mathematical hobby.

The jurist has been unable to find a media organization staffed by people who can understand the proof. Naturally, media organizations don't want to publish something that might turn out to be a hoax designed to make them look ignorant and foolish.



So post it online.

[ReligionStudent]

So post it online.

That is a very good point, I am sure someone with a mathamatical background would look at it, certainly the author should expect at least one person at some university to look at it, and were it true word would spread.

[geni]

That is a very good point, I am sure someone with a mathamatical background would look at it, certainly the author should expect at least one person at some university to look at it, and were it true word would spread.

Nah after several years of being snowed under most are fed up of dealwith with cranks. Best bet are probably maths students and the like.

[athon]

Errrmmmm, a British mathematician (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Wiles.html) named Andrew John Wiles discovered a proof, currently under review (because such things take a long time to check over and it's only been 14 years- I said a long time), of Fermat's Last Theorem in 1993; the proof was incomplete, but by October of 1994, it was in a final form, after a breakthrough and several simplifications suggested by various mathematicians who reviewed the proof.

Fermat was a jurist; is that the reason for the confusion here? Because this guy is a mathematician, not a hobbyist. Could you provide a link to the "jurist" who you claim showed this proof? Or of any of the other claims made here regarding being ignored by the mathematics community? Or association of proof criteria to the Million Dollar Challenge? Or basically anything actually relevant to what you're talking about?

I was going to say the same thing. What's new here?

Athon

[ReligionStudent]

Nah after several years of being snowed under most are fed up of dealwith with cranks. Best bet are probably maths students and the like.

You would be suprised, but professors do occaisionally go around and read the nutty stuff.

[TobiasTheViking]

I was going to say the same thing. What's new here?

Athon

what's now is that this is only 3 pages... i think...

[andyandy]

what's now is that this is only 3 pages... i think...

quite - the proof that Wiles provided is almost certainly not that which Fermat was thinking of - as it requires use of a whole branch of maths that wasn't around in the 17th century.....

so it's a little unsatisfactory - either Fermat got it wrong, and hadn't really proved it, or there's a much more concise and neater proof out there....

maybe this it it.....though probably unlikely :D

[qayak]

quite - the proof that Wiles provided is almost certainly not that which Fermat was thinking of - as it requires use of a whole branch of maths that wasn't around in the 17th century.....

so it's a little unsatisfactory - either Fermat got it wrong, and hadn't really proved it, or there's a much more concise and neater proof out there....

maybe this it it.....though probably unlikely :D

I think Wiles proof was over 100 pages.

Fermat had to be wrong and my reasoning goes like this:

1- Every other proof Fermat claimed, turned out to be true.

2- This was his last theorum.

3- Nobody is perfect.

Conclusion: Fermat was wrong. :D

[athon]

what's now is that this is only 3 pages... i think...

Ah, I see.

Well, my maths proof doesn't go much further beyond pythagorus. I'll trust the experts on this one.

Thing is, do those three pages include Gary Larsen cartoons?

Athon

[mijopaalmc]

So post it online.

Does arXiv require that stuff be peer-reviewed before it is posted?

[PixyMisa]

Naturally, media organizations don't want to publish something that might turn out to be a hoax designed to make them look ignorant and foolish.
What media organisations are these? I would like to subscribe.

[Dr Adequate]

That is a very good point, I am sure someone with a mathamatical background would look at it, certainly the author should expect at least one person at some university to look at it, and were it true word would spread. My PhD is in mathematics, I'll be happy to have a look at it.

[alfaniner]

I think the OP was just an allegory, rather than a claim.

[juryjone]

I think the OP was just an allegory, rather than a claim.

That's what I was going to say, except say bs instead of allegory. Yours is more elegant.

Naturally, media organizations don't want to publish something that might turn out to be a hoax designed to make them look ignorant and foolish.

...

They now require that anyone who wants a math department to spend time studying an alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem must first establish a media presence in regard to his or her alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.


These are the two sentences that set off my bs detector, since it is a trivial matter to prove them wrong. It's obvious the OP has an ax to grind with the new MDC rules, and decided to post a poor example in another field for comparison.

[Yllanes]

Does arXiv require that stuff be peer-reviewed before it is posted?

No, although you need an 'endorser' (http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement) if it is the first time you upload a paper. There are plenty of papers there that have never been published in a peer reviewd journal (Perelman's proof (http://aps.arxiv.org/find/grp_math/1/au:+Perelman_Grisha/0/1/0/all/0/1) of the Poincaré conjecture, for example). You can find a few crackpottish writings there.

[Schneibster]

These are the two sentences that set off my bs detector, since it is a trivial matter to prove them wrong. It's obvious the OP has an ax to grind with the new MDC rules, and decided to post a poor example in another field for comparison.It isn't even a poor example; it appears to be a completely imaginary one.

[3point14]

After reading the book Fermat's Last Theorem (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fermats-Last-Theorem-Simon-Singh/dp/1841157910/ref=pd_bowtega_2/202-7087555-5827040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181647896&sr=1-2)I was left with a greater understanding of how these things happen from a process point of view. It also includes the first page of Wiles' proof, which is 100% incomprehensible unless you are both very, very clever and very educated in the field of mathematics. (At least that's what it seemed to me, could have been a flapjack recipe for all I could tell.)

I'm pretty sure that there's a discussion in the book concerning the troubles that university departments have had with all sorts of amateur mathematicians sending in random (and mostly useless) proofs of Fermat. The problem was solved in part by writing back to each budding mathematical genius putting them in touch with someone who had put in a lot of work in the area. Then, of course, putting them in touch with the person who submitted the 'proof' before theirs. They said it worked quite well.

[boooeee]

After reading the book Fermat's Last Theorem (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fermats-Last-Theorem-Simon-Singh/dp/1841157910/ref=pd_bowtega_2/202-7087555-5827040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181647896&sr=1-2)I was left with a greater understanding of how these things happen from a process point of view. It also includes the first page of Wiles' proof, which is 100% incomprehensible unless you are both very, very clever and very educated in the field of mathematics. (At least that's what it seemed to me, could have been a flapjack recipe for all I could tell.)

I'm pretty sure that there's a discussion in the book concerning the troubles that university departments have had with all sorts of amateur mathematicians sending in random (and mostly useless) proofs of Fermat. The problem was solved in part by writing back to each budding mathematical genius putting them in touch with someone who had put in a lot of work in the area. Then, of course, putting them in touch with the person who submitted the 'proof' before theirs. They said it worked quite well.


I liked Edmund Landau's approach. He had a form letter that went like this:

""Dear Sir/Madam: Your proof of Fermat's Last Theorem has been received. The first mistake is on page _____, line _____."

He would have his students fill in the blanks.

[andyandy]

It also includes the first page of Wiles' proof, which is 100% incomprehensible unless you are both very, very clever and very educated in the field of mathematics. (At least that's what it seemed to me, could have been a flapjack recipe for all I could tell.

You can find the whole 109 page proof here (http://math.stanford.edu/~lekheng/flt/wiles.pdf)

....warning, will make you feel very stupid :(

[Big Al]

Wiles' proof didn't just contain one branch of mathematics not available in Fermat's time: it threw the kitchen sink of 18th, 19th and 20th century maths at the problem. Galois groups, Selmer bounds, Euler Systems, modular forms, Horizontal Iwasawa Theory... you name it.

If Fermat had discovered even one of these, he wouldn't be known as "The Prince of Amateurs" - his name would be up there with the greatest, like Euler, Gauss and Erdos.

[Lothian]

The jurist has been unable to find a media organization staffed by people who can understand the proof. Naturally, media organizations don't want to publish something that might turn out to be a hoax designed to make them look ignorant and foolish.
Certainly newspapers would not be interested. I can not believe, however, that mathematical journals would not be interested in a new 3 page proof. They would arrange for it to be peer reviewed.

I think therefore that you have made this up and are trying to make a point. If you just make your point you might get an answer quicker.

[Soapy Sam]

Is it likely to reduce my electricity bill?

[Molinaro]

You can find the whole 109 page proof here (http://math.stanford.edu/~lekheng/flt/wiles.pdf)

....warning, will make you feel very stupid :(

Ok, my 1st question pops up on page 13, section 1. The first sentence is:

Let p be an odd prime.

So, why the need to specify that it is an odd prime? Why exclude 2?

[Lothian]

So, why the need to specify that it is an odd prime? Why exclude 2?Because Fermat is for cases that are greater than 2.

If you have any more queries about the proof, I would be more than happy to blag a reply.

[3point14]

You can find the whole 109 page proof here (http://math.stanford.edu/~lekheng/flt/wiles.pdf)

....warning, will make you feel very stupid :(

Very stupider. At least that's my feeling.

[Lothian]

Very stupider. At least that's my feeling.I started reading it but had to give up even before getting to the introduction. It was incomprehensible. It was like reading a dead foreign language.......

[Jorghnassen]

So, why the need to specify that it is an odd prime? Why exclude 2?

Because x^2+y^2 = z^2 has tons of non-trivial integer solutions...

[Fredrik]

There was a TV programme about Wiles proof (might have been Horizon) and I have distinct memories of it being mentioned on "Star Trek - The Next Generation."
The way I remember it, the theorem was mentioned on Star Trek: The Next Generation, but what Picard said was that it still hadn't been proved, after 900(?) years. I think that episode is a few years older than Wiles's proof.

[Big Al]

The really important result wasn't the proof of FLT, but the partial proof of the Shimura-Taniyama-Weil Conjecture that implied and was implied by the proof of FLT. Some people thought that would be even harder than proving Fermat.

A huge number of authors with hypotheses based on assuming the STW Conjecture to be true must have breathed a collective sigh of relief and been able to upgrade their hypotheses to theories.

[malbui]

The way I remember it, the theorem was mentioned on Star Trek: The Next Generation, but what Picard said was that it still hadn't been proved, after 900(?) years. I think that episode is a few years older than Wiles's proof.


My memory of the episode, which I haven't seen in years, is that one of the officers had attempted a new proof of the theorem (because, of course, serving Starfleet officers have plenty of spare time to do research mathematics) and Picard commented that it was the most innovative approach since the Wiles proof of the 1990s. I don't recall any comment as to whether the Wiles proof was valid or not.

[Jorghnassen]

My memory of the episode, which I haven't seen in years, is that one of the officers had attempted a new proof of the theorem (because, of course, serving Starfleet officers have plenty of spare time to do research mathematics) and Picard commented that it was the most innovative approach since the Wiles proof of the 1990s. I don't recall any comment as to whether the Wiles proof was valid or not.

Actually, Picard in the season 2 episode The Royale (before Wiles's proof) stated it was still unsolved 800 years after being conjectured. Then, after the proof was well publicized, in DS9, it is mentioned that one of Dax's previous host had come up with the "most imaginative proof since Wiles'" or something like that, as a subtle correction to Picard's prior statement.

[andyandy]

Actually, Picard in the season 2 episode The Royale (before Wiles's proof) stated it was still unsolved 800 years after being conjectured. Then, after the proof was well publicized, in DS9, it is mentioned that one of Dax's previous host had come up with the "most imaginative proof since Wiles'" or something like that, as a subtle correction to Picard's prior statement.

uh oh....the Trekkers are arguing....

:D

as an aside, has anyone ever found a convincing reason for the correlation between mathsy types and Star Trek? Or Mathsy types and goth music for that matter [less strong than the trekker correlation but still noticable]?

just wondering :)

[Fnord]

... media organizations don't want to publish something that might turn out to be a hoax designed to make them look ignorant and foolish.

Since when?

[Jorghnassen]

uh oh....the Trekkers are arguing....

:D

as an aside, has anyone ever found a convincing reason for the correlation between mathsy types and Star Trek? Or Mathsy types and goth music for that matter [less strong than the trekker correlation but still noticable]?

just wondering :)

Mathsy types and nerds have a strong correlation. But goth music??? Shouldn't it be Bach? There's huge difference between music composed by a genius, and noise assortments produced by self-pitying wimps with no fashion sense and a propensity to write crappy unimaginative poetry, you know...

/snobby elitist internet tough guy

[andyandy]

Mathsy types and nerds have a strong correlation. But goth music??? Shouldn't it be Bach? There's huge difference between music composed by a genius, and noise assortments produced by self-pitying wimps with no fashion sense and a propensity to write crappy unimaginative poetry, you know...

/snobby elitist internet tough guy

lol actually thinking about it, most goths at our school/6th form were the intellectual arty types...but there was certainly some cross-over between the two groups :)

Why do you think that maths/Star Trek has a strong correlation? Is it just conforming to group subculture, or something more innate [perhaps an attraction to facts and figures? A greater need for escapism?]

i've wondered about this for a while :)

[Cuddles]

Mathsy types and nerds have a strong correlation. But goth music??? Shouldn't it be Bach? There's huge difference between music composed by a genius, and noise assortments produced by self-pitying wimps with no fashion sense and a propensity to write crappy unimaginative poetry, you know...

/snobby elitist internet tough guy

That's not goth, that's emo. Not that goth music is any good, but nothing deserves to be compared with emo.

[Jorghnassen]

That's not goth, that's emo. Not that goth music is any good, but nothing deserves to be compared with emo.

Goths and emos are the bloody same thing, except that the former are more necrofetishist while the latter care more about their hairdo.

[ReligionStudent]

Goths and emos are the bloody same thing, except that the former are more necrofetishist while the latter care more about their hairdo.

They are not the same thing, they like different music, and origionally Emo was way different. Besides Goth dress in black with piercing Emo looks just like Buddy Holly.

[Fnord]

Goths and Emos are poseurs -- otherwise, each one is a normal person who just want to be noticed, and then validated for being unique (just like every other one of their kind.)

Ignore them, and they'll go away.