proof of fermat's last theorem found to be WRONG!!!! oh no!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2005/may/05/yehey/top_stories/20050505top4.html
OH NO!!!

― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Thursday, 12 May 2005 00:48 (twenty years ago)

heh. did the writer not notice anything funny about that?

― a banana (alanbanana), Thursday, 12 May 2005 01:02 (twenty years ago)

Yeah uh you proved my proof wrong by saying that some attributes of real numbers are not what we think! Let me talk to the guy who gave you a Ph.D! Great professor!

I can barely even grasp most of what he's talking about but at least I can read between, uh, lines.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 12 May 2005 01:05 (twenty years ago)

this is really funny

― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Thursday, 12 May 2005 01:17 (twenty years ago)

actually it's not very funny except i only read the headline at first and it's also in the MANILA TIMES.

― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Thursday, 12 May 2005 01:21 (twenty years ago)

now that i read the article i feel like biggest idiot! sorry ilx!

― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Thursday, 12 May 2005 01:25 (twenty years ago)

This guy is a lot of fun. Ridiculed by the mathematical community, ha!

― Rhodia (Rhodia), Thursday, 12 May 2005 01:47 (twenty years ago)

Dallas winning too. Hey, maybe the second round will have some games!

― Lukas (lukas), Thursday, 12 May 2005 02:27 (twenty years ago)

Ahem, oops. Uh: join me in the NBA thread! We need an actual mathematical proof that Shaq shoulda been MVP.

― Lukas (lukas), Thursday, 12 May 2005 02:28 (twenty years ago)

OH NO!!! OH NO!!! (Should I even read the article?) That renders my band name non-funny if it really is the case.

― The Square Root Of Negative Two (kate), Thursday, 12 May 2005 11:34 (twenty years ago)

Read it, its funny. FLT is wrong because ALL OF MAFFS IS WRONG!!! OMG!!!

― Pete (Pete), Thursday, 12 May 2005 12:10 (twenty years ago)

Yes you should Kate, it's hilarious. His own website is pretty funny too. Herein lieth madness.

― aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Thursday, 12 May 2005 12:12 (twenty years ago)

He leaves a comment! I hope this is really him.

http://mathforge.net/index.jsp?page=seeReplies&messageNum=1224

― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Thursday, 12 May 2005 12:27 (twenty years ago)

Proof that some mathematicians have no sense of humor, anyway.

― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Thursday, 12 May 2005 12:44 (twenty years ago)

the guy may be a goofball, or misapplying constructivist arguments, but intuitionism and constructivism that reject the excluded middle and other elements of ZF and ZFC are recognized critiques, and indeed most of mathematics (contrary to the goofs on the discussion board) can be reconstructed without them. if the fermat proof relies on them (fuck if i can follow it well enough to know!) then indeed it doesn't work in at least a few well-constructed mathematical domains. the constructivist/computability critique also isn't just word-mincing, but has some ramifications for how we can concieve of finite automata, computability, and other comp-sci related aspects of maths.

cld well be a Velikovsky type deal -- kook poorly dismissed by sloppy science.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 12 May 2005 13:21 (twenty years ago)

the banach-tarski paradox is really weird, also! i'm sick of math, though. this is all so stupid.

― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Thursday, 12 May 2005 13:26 (twenty years ago)

When Wiles made the announcement it was celebrated around the world. In Chicago, for instance, mathematicians marched on the streets in euphoric celebration.

― Madchen (Madchen), Thursday, 12 May 2005 13:33 (twenty years ago)

haha lucy i chortled at that too

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 12 May 2005 13:39 (twenty years ago)

watching the documentary on andrew wiles on the BBC made me kind of disappointed a few years ago in a maths lesson. the proof was supposed to be truly elegant, but this guy kind of sullied it with elliptic donuts and shit.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 12 May 2005 13:44 (twenty years ago)

Sullied By Shimura Curves!!!

My PhD was going to be all about non-infinitesimal proofs, so in my book Fermat's proof would not have worked. The hardcore platonism though used to justify this on his website is a bit much for even me to swallow though. And I don't think I would address my concerns with infinitesimal extrapolations in the same terms as him "Ha ha, I have proved Fermat's Last Theory proof to be rubbidge!"

― Pete (Pete), Thursday, 12 May 2005 13:47 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.