Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site talcott.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!gjk
From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: "Proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem
Message-ID: <219@talcott.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 18:03:03 EST
Article-I.D.: talcott.219
Posted: Tue Jan  8 18:03:03 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jan-85 07:22:30 EST
References: <8197@watarts.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Harvard
Lines: 22

> Is this for real?  What was the source of the abstract again?
> Come on guys, it's too early in the year for April Fool's Day.
> Or is it?
> --
> Kevyn Collins-Thompson    University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, CANADA !!
>       ....{allegra|clyde|utzoo|ihnp4|decvax}!watmath!watarts!kevyn

Believe it or not, the thousands of mathematicians who have worked on
Fermat's Last Theorem didn't just sit and stare at a blank chalkboard.
There happens to be a great deal of complex and wonderful mathematics
behind the old a^n+b^n?=c^n.  Solving it with a "simple and beautiful" proof
would be like building a space shuttle in your garage.  It amazes me how
some people would rather see 300 years of mathematics turn out to be a
waste of time rather than risk the thought that some nobody has lost his
marbles.

Of course, the odds are greater than zero that the proof of Fermat's Last
Theorem does not require powerful tools of number theory.  But not much
greater than zero.
---
			Greg Kuperberg
		     harvard!talcott!gjk