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