## Andrew Wiles proved wrong?

What do you guys think of this? I haven't been able to find any sort of verification from reputable sites.

"Edgar Escultura, a professor of mathematics at the University of the Philippines, proved that Andrew Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s last theorem is false."

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/...50505top4.html
 PhysOrg.com science news on PhysOrg.com >> Leading 3-D printer firms to merge in $403M deal (Update)>> LA to give every student an iPad;$30M order>> CIA faulted for choosing Amazon over IBM on cloud contract

Haha. The letter "written" by Andrew Wiles is classic:
 Quote by 'Andrew Wiles' Dear Sir, Your work is incredible, I read all of it just yesterday and let me tell you I respect you. I am going to review all my ‘proof’ which I am sure is wrong (thanks to you!). Would you like to collaborate with me in this work? I have noticed some imperfections in your perfect proof (that sounds like you), and I’d like to create a perfect proof with you, great professor. Also I’d like to have the address of the guy who let you get a PhD 30 years ago. I’d like to discuss few things with him. . . Very respectfully, A. Wiles
Yep. That sounds like a letter an intelligent person would write: "And let me tell you" ... come on. Further, I can't tell if the second paragraph is sarcasm or not.

The article also states:
 Escultura went on to overhaul the real number system and reconstructed it without these false axioms using only three simple axioms instead of 12. The result is a new real number system that is free from defects and contradictions, finite and enriched with new numbers that have important applications for physics.
Note the bolded text ( by me ). It's richer, but it's also finite? Nice. So are the natural numbers finite? Certainly, this will have far reaching applications towards the Frivolous Theorem of Arithmetic ! Good stuff I say!

However, the letter written by Escultura is quite disturbing, namely these 2 parts:
 Quote by E.E.Escultura 2) I also noted a flaw in the use of the universal or existential quantifiers on infinite set. [....] Based on these findings I constructed the new real number system on three simple axioms.
This brings back some memories of futile arguments, and smacking my head against my keyboard.
 Is manilatimes.net another onion? It looks like this Escultura guy has written other articles for them including some junk about 0.999...=1 and how that's a topic of real discussion. Is it possible that this guy is real and he's actually convinced a legitimate news paper that he is to be taken seriously? He seems to show up on the Math Genealogy but that doesn't mean much. I don't have access to mathscinet from home. Is anybody else interested in checking if he shows up there? Even if he does I guess there is no guarantee that this isn't some guy capitalizing on the fact that he shares a name with a serious mathematician. In case I'm not being clear I don't believe anything in the article including that letter which is supposed to be attributed to Wiles. Steven

Recognitions:
Homework Help

## Andrew Wiles proved wrong?

E E is infamous on usenet and is a total crackpot, crank etc. You could, for instance even try locating him at the University of the Philipines, which is apparently quite tricky to do. He has in the past claimed to find a counter example to FLT, though he's never been able to produce the numbers of this counter example.
 Recognitions: Homework Help Science Advisor The whole thing is unbelievably stupid. What more is there to say?

This thing sounds like something straight from TheOnion.com. Especially "Wiles's" letter.

 Quote by 'Andrew Wiles' Also I’d like to have the address of the guy who let you get a PhD 30 years ago. I’d like to discuss few things with him. . .
Haha.

Maybe it's not written by the Andrew Wiles, just a Andrew Wiles.

People here should read the Manila Times article: it will have them in hysterics. For example:

 When Wiles made the announcement it was celebrated around the world. In Chicago, for instance, mathematicians marched on the streets in euphoric celebration.
I know the Escultura type. They avoid -- and are avoided by -- real professionals. Their language of discourse is gobbledygook, reminiscent of much of "postmodernist" writing. They publish their rubbish in "journals" that aren't peer-reviewed; if they are "peer-reviewed", the peers are just more crackpots. Take a look at an abstract from one of Escultura's "papers":

 The main contribution of the paper is the critique of J.M. Henle's Nonnonstandard analysis [The Mathematical Intelligencer 21 (1) (1999) 67]. The principal criticism of Henle's work is the failure to do away with the axiom of choice as he claims he would. Therefore, it suffers from the same flaw that Robinson's Nonstandard Analysis has [Nonstandard Analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1966]. However, the paper also summarizes the new mathematics and physics generated by the resolution of Fermat's last theorem [Nonlinear Studies 5 (2) (1998) 227] and the solution of the gravitational n- body problem [Nonlinear Analysis 30 (8) (1997) 5021], respectively, including the resolution of the problems, paradoxes, contradictions and unanswered questions of mathematics and physics except the Bieberbach's conjecture and the Riemann hypothesis. Highlighted in the paper are astonishing results coming from the new real line (i.e., the reconstructed real line) as well as the proof of Goldbach's conjecture and the natural ordering of the new real line (which does not exist in the real line).
(This can be found at: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=639152)
 I thought everyone already knew that FLT had already been disproved. I posted about it in the General Discussion long ago, here is the link: http://home.mindspring.com/~jbshand/ferm.html And, to ask the question again, is that a real and creditable newspaper?

Recognitions:
Homework Help
 Quote by theCandyman I thought everyone already knew that FLT had already been disproved. I posted about it in the General Discussion long ago, here is the link: http://home.mindspring.com/~jbshand/ferm.html And, to ask the question again, is that a real and creditable newspaper?
What a load of rubbish, all that says is sometimes |an + bn - cn| = 1 or 2. I don't trust any website that abuses the equal sign like so:

"54 cubed + 161 cubed = 163 cubed"

I love the line " Holy Grail of Mathematics: Fermat's Last Theorem" I think that is somewhat abusing the context of the theorem, difficult to prove maybe but in terms of usefulness to mathematics, not so much I think you'll find.
 Recognitions: Homework Help Science Advisor I'm guessing that it's a joke page, the author is an I. Savant The Manilla times appears real, but I question their journalistic integrity with that letter supposedly from Wiles (does Wiles have a cruel sense of humour? I dunno). Also notice that Escultura is a former employee of this paper.
 I guess news editors can't differentiate between good and bad credibility when it comes to a topic as esoteric as elliptic curves and modular forms.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Homework Help
 Quote by shmoe I'm guessing that it's a joke page, the author is an I. Savant
Also, he calls his result an "idiotheorem"..

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 That Escultura guy looks like a real crackpot. I was meserised at his tripe about $$1\neq0.99\ldots$$ Even if one takes his babble at face value, and take the reals to be constructable infinite sequences of naturals, ordered lexicographically, how does he avoid the standard reasoning of $$0.99\ldots = 1$$? You know the drill... Let $$x=0.99\ldots$$. $$10x = 9.99\ldots$$ $$9x = 10x - x = 9.99\ldots - 0.99\ldots = 9$$ and therefore $$x=1$$. Certainly, this reasoning hold true in his constructivist number system... He then says that lexicographical ordering gives $$0.99\ldots <_{lex}1$$ but that is tautological - it doesn't mean that $$0.99\ldots < 1$$ for the normal ordering of the reals. The above gives that then $$<_{lex}$$ must be reflexive. If he changes the equality sign to a lexicographical version $$=_{lex}$$, the above reasoning just shows that the equivalence classes defined by $$=_{lex}$$ are not singletons. The irony is that his new infinitesimal, the so called dark number $$d*=1-0.99\ldots$$ truly is well-defined, but he fails to appreciate that it absolutely must be, even lexicographically, equal to 0. In other words, he has discovered that lexicographical ordering is not quite the same order type as normal ordering for infinitely long decimal expansions of reals, because - shocker! - some numbers have more that one decimal expansion. Give that man the Nobel prize.