kevyn@watarts.UUCP (KCT) (01/08/85)
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!kevyncsc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (01/08/85)
The announcement is not a hoax. The abstract was in fact submitted
to the American Mathematical Society, and the paper is due to be
submitted at the Annual Meeting.
However, don't hold your breath waiting for this wonderful proof.
This is not the first announcement of a "Proof" of Fermat's
Last Theorem, and it probably won't be the last. It
is not unusual for extraordinary claims to be made in the AMS
abstracts. I am told that these talks are quite popular
with "lots of professors there, giggling".
People around here (University of Waterloo) are somewhat
sceptical of the claims made. The claim that one case
is impossible, while the other is nonexistent, seems
strange (what is the difference). Also there is good
reason to suppose that an elementary proof does not
exist.
I will try to get more details after the meeting.
William Hughesgjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (01/09/85)
> 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
al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) (01/15/85)
We did not get the beginning of this discussion, so pardon me if this is
repetitious. Those interested in published proofs of Fermats Last Theorem
should see:
Yahya, Q. "Fermat's Last Theorem- A Topological Verification",
Portugaliae Mathematica, 26 (1977) p.25
Yahya, Q. "On General Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem-- Epilogue",
Portugaliae Mathematica, 35 (1976) p.9
Yahya, Q. "On General Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem",
Portugaliae Mathematica, 32 (1973) p.157
Q. A. M. M. Yahya is with the "Defence Science Organization", Dacca, Bangladesh.
Someone at the Arizona State University Math Dept found this publication
and pointed out that the author's methods allow one to prove as well that
certain cubic equations have no solutions!
--------------------------------
Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A
{allegra | ihnp4 } ! sftig ! mot ! al
{seismo | ihnp4 } ! ut-sally ! oakhill ! mot ! al
--------------------------------
Plunk your magic twanger, froggy.gary@arizona.UUCP (Gary Marc Levin) (01/15/85)
I attended the MAA part of the joint AMS/MAA meeting where the paper was to be presented. (I am a faculty member of the Institute for Retraining in Computer Science and had a couple of presentations to make.) I arrived too late to hear the presentation, but the mathematicians that I knew said that it was a very uncomfortable situation. The author suffers from some condition that has left him unable to speak or walk. His wife, who apparently spoke little English and knew no mathematics, was presenting the paper. She read the abstract and that was it. On being asked if there was a pre-print available, she said ``No.'' My guess is that the problem is still open. -- Gary Levin / Dept of CS / U of AZ / Tucson, AZ 85721 / (602) 621-4231