vasudev@druxt.UUCP (BhandarkarVK) (07/10/84)
A few months ago, National Public Radio reported that a British mathematician had claimed to have solved Fermat's last Theorem. (Statement: x^n = y^n + z^n has no solutions for n >= 3, and x, y, z, n integers) They interviewed two professors from Cambridge who said that they had seen this mathematician's work and the proof seemed to be correct. Considering that this theorem had been unsolved since Fermat's death about two centuries ago (Fermat himself only stated the theorem and wrote in his diary margin that the proof was simple), I expected that there would be several followup news items on this historic discovery. However, no followup seems to be forthcoming. The theorem has profound implications in computing, particularly in the field of cryptography. But no computer magazine that I have seen seems to think that this item is newsworthy. Did anyone else on the net hear about this news item? Maybe our net-friends across the Atlantic can shed some light on this? -vasudev -ihnp4!drux2!druxt!vasudev
csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (07/10/84)
This topic was discussed on the net before (net.math). In brief a man with
the improbable name of Arnold Arnold claimed to have solved Fermat's last
theorem. Naturally all the vicious nasty establishment mathematicians
wouldn't listen to him. He also claimed to be able to factor any number
in reasonable time! His claims were taken seriously by the science editors
of the Manchester Guardian and they published an article praising Arnold,
attacking establishment mathematicians, making dire predictions that Britain's
military codes were now insecure and presenting a summary of some of Arnold's
results, including a large number Arnold claimed was prime. The media around
the world reprinted the story, usually getting it wrong or embellishing it
(no Cambrige mathematicians supported the proof!) and nobody bothered to check
with a mathematician!
Arnold's "proof" is nonsense! It is almost incomprehensible. Either Arnold
does not understand the statement of Fermat's last theorem and has proven
something trivial (the sympathetic view) or he is completely up a tree.
Also rather embarrasing for Mr. Arnold is the number he claimed was prime
was immediately factored (by rather elemetary methods). Mr Arnold has not
demonstated the ability to factor large numbers.
The British mathematical community replied to the Guardian article with a
large number of letters, varying from the enraged to the sardonic. The
science editors of Guardian withdrew their claims (though with rather
poor grace). Arnold still claims to have solved Fermat's last theorem
(naturally to understand his proof you have to read his complete paper).
He does admit that there are a few bugs in his algorithm for checking
large primes.
New Scientist (a non-technical, British, science magazine) published a
"rebuttal" of Arnold's claims. Unfortunately the math in their article
was almost as bad as Arnold's. (Their presentation was clearer though
so the mistakes were easier to see!)
The moral. Don't believe everything you read in the popular press about
mathematics. Even moderately prestigous publications like the Guardian
and New Scientist can make idiotic mistakes.
William Hughescbspt002@abnjh.UUCP (Marc E. Kenig ) (07/10/84)
<> I heard about this too. The story was that the guy is a greedy shit and wants to 'sell it to the highest bidder'. Apparently there are results which impact on areas of NP-completeness, factoring primes (another BIG result of his work), etc. M. Kenig ...abnjh!cbspt002
mag@whuxle.UUCP (Gray Mike) (07/10/84)
> >I heard about this too. The story was that the guy is a greedy shit and >wants to 'sell it to the highest bidder'. Apparently there are results >which impact on areas of NP-completeness, factoring primes (another BIG >result of his work), etc. > >M. Kenig >...abnjh!cbspt002 Why do you characterize someone who likes to be remunerated for his effort as a "greedy shit?" Mike Gray AT&T Bell Labs Whippany, N.J.
dm@ncsu.UUCP (David McLin) (07/11/84)
xxxx Organization: N.C. State University, Raleigh Lines: 8 I seem to remember a discussion of this discovery in net.math several months ago. I think the general consensus was that the proof was faulty. Dave McLin (decvax!mcnc!ncsu!dm)
gurr@west44.UUCP (Dave Gurr) (07/24/84)
< force of habit ... > Surely one of the main reasons why Arnold Arnold's proof could not be correct is, due to the relevance of it to military codes etc., he would either have been paid to keep his mouth shut (very rich) or be made to keep it shit permanently (very dead). I'm sure that there are many organisations who , if they thought that this guy could crack their codes, would react in this sort of way. mcvax "You can't clean the \ toilet Neil, real students ukc!west44!gurr don't do that!" / vax135 Dave Gurr, Westfield College, Univ. of London, England.