Who was Fermat and Why Was His Last Theorem So Significant?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathshead
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Fermat's Last Theorem, its significance, and the historical context surrounding Fermat and his contributions to mathematics. Participants explore the theorem's implications, the proof by Andrew Wiles, and Fermat's other mathematical achievements.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests clarification on what Fermat's Last Theorem is and its significance.
  • Another participant explains that the theorem states there are no non-zero integer solutions to the equation x^n + y^n = z^n for n greater than 2, and mentions Wiles' proof in 1993.
  • Some participants express skepticism about Fermat's claim of having a proof, suggesting he may have lied due to the complexity of Wiles' proof.
  • One participant notes that while Fermat's Last Theorem itself may not be particularly special, it led to the development of entire branches of mathematics, particularly in relation to elliptic curves.
  • Another participant highlights Fermat's contributions to number theory and his early work related to calculus, mentioning his method of infinite descent and his proof of Snell's law.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on Fermat's honesty regarding his proof and the significance of his theorem. There is no consensus on whether Fermat truly had a proof or the relative importance of the theorem itself.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about Fermat's contributions and the implications of Wiles' proof depend on interpretations of historical context and mathematical development, which may not be universally agreed upon.

mathshead
can someone tell what fermat's last thearom is? who prove it in 1993, and why it was a such great things to prove?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The theorem says that;

The equation x^n + y^n = z^n has no solution for non-zero integers x, y, and z if n is an integer greater than 2.

Fermat said he had a proof for this in the 17th Century but died before ever showing the proof. A guy called Andrew Wiles finally fully prooved it in 1993 after spending much of his life on it.

You'll find much more on google.
 
Fermat probably lied, as Wiles' proof took mathematics it took hundreds of years to derive.
 
Originally posted by FZ+
Fermat probably lied, as Wiles' proof took mathematics it took hundreds of years to derive.
I have a proof that Fermat lied, alas, I haven't the time in this thread to demonstrate it.
 
*snicker*

Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT) itself isn't anything particularly special, it's just one of those "thorn in your side" type problems.

The reason why it's so great, though, is that entire branches of mathematics were invented in an attempt to prove it.

Wiles proof, in particular, is actually partial progress on one of the most fundamental conjectures in the study of elliptic curves, he proved that a certain type of "bad" elliptic curves cannot exist. It just so happens that a counterexample to FLT would allow one to construct one of those bad elliptic curves, so FLT is merely a rather minor corrolary to Wiles' theorem.

Hurkyl
 
Boulderhead
I have a proof that Fermat lied, alas, I haven't the time in this thread to demonstrate it.
You Bould me over with your Wiles.
 
can someone link me to page, that has a proof for it, what other famous did fermat have?
 
A lot of the theorems in basic number theory are by Fermat. He invented the method of infinite descent, a kind of induction in reverse. In his time he was regarded as the best number theorist around, and everybody was eager to read his work when it was published. It was in the form of notes on Bachet's translation of Diophantus. Diophantus was an ancient Greek number theorist.

He is also one of the pre-inventors of the calculus. He did (simple) derivatives and integrals, but didn't see the point that they are inverse operations. Using this pre-calculus he proved Snell's law that when a light beam is refracted by a change of medium, the sines of the angles of incidence and refraction are in constant ratio depending on the media.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
12K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K