Timeline for What do I need to understand Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 1, 2013 at 20:09 | comment | added | Dmitri Panov | Dear hx, unfortunately, I am not a number theorist so I can not help you with your question. On the other hand I was studying number theory lately just for fun. I found quite nice the website on Milne. He proposes several learning path related to number theory. Here is the website: jmilne.org/math/index.html . In each course that Milne proposes he gives the prerequisits. I like a lot this course : jmilne.org/math/CourseNotes/ft.html . I wish you good luck with your studies. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 5:38 | comment | added | user18717 | I don't know which question is appropriate in this forum. Anyway, thanks all of you who want to help me. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 5:37 | comment | added | user18717 | Thanks all of you, I find there is some arguing on my post and I have some to say. I'm really interested in math and want to appreciate the proof of those great theorems. Last year I hope I could understand Poincare conjecture's proof but after almost half a year's effort I found it is quite complicated to learn by myself. Meanwhile, I noticed an article on FLT and find number theory beautiful and seems easier than geometry and believe I can handle it. But I'm just a year 3 math student and I don't know how to start. So I asked this post. | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 21:46 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @Dmitri: I think a look at the OP's previous questions and comments may clarify my stance. | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 18:19 | comment | added | Theo Buehler | I believe this would be the relevant meta thread. tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1327/closing-questions-as-spam | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 15:51 | comment | added | user9072 | @Dimitri: If you would like to discuss this further, please, open a thread on meta. The way you do this here is, in my opinion, rather counter-productive. | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 15:07 | comment | added | Dmitri Panov | Dear Todd and quid, I don't argue the fact that this question is not good for this website in the form it is phrased (of course weather a question is good or not depends very much on an answer that is given). But I definately think that there should be more tolerance here. | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 14:03 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Dmitri: maybe it's not precisely "spam", but to me the question is only slightly more focused than, "Hi, I want to learn some higher mathematics, can anyone suggest some books?" No visible effort has gone into the question, and one cannot remotely gauge the seriousness of the question. Martin's suggestions are really about the best one can do to answer it. Moving on... | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 14:00 | comment | added | user9072 | @Dimitri: Personally I would not vote to close this a 'spam' but then you are long enough on this site to know that these reasons are a bit random and rather meaningless, and I think very little positive is achieved by insisting on this possibly slightly unfortunate reason. In any case, as Martin points out it seems like a duplicate. So, should be closed for a reason or other. | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 12:51 | comment | added | Martin | My Favorite Search Engine gave me these links: Knowledge needed to understand Fermat's last theorem: math.stackexchange.com/q/170142 A recommended roadmap to FLT: mathoverflow.net/questions/97820 Minimal prerequisites to reading Wiles's proof of FLT: mathoverflow.net/questions/54612 | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 12:41 | comment | added | Dmitri Panov | wccanarad, there is a difference between "willing to know" and know. Of course you understand it. | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 12:37 | comment | added | Dmitri Panov | Dear friends who closed the question, I think you definately make a mistake to say that this is a "spam question". Do you really think that it is "spam" to be willing to know the prerequisits for Fermat Last Theorem? And, again, Yemon Choi, you see people can have different interests in their live. One year is a long time (the question on Poincare was asked one year ago), maybe the person who asked the question is looking for a topiс to study... A couple of month ago I was trying to look into some ideas of the proof of FLT. What is so "spam" with this? | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 12:30 | comment | added | user30035 | Dmitri: I am not sure there's a single mathematician in the world who could honestly claim that they "knew" both proofs. It depends on the definition of "know" of course. Even people who have read Wiles' paper do not "know" a proof of FLT because Wiles' paper is very much on the algebraic side of things, but it crucially relies on Langlands' cyclic base, which needs a lot of of analysis (dealing with the trace formula in a non-compact case). | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 12:06 | history | closed |
Yemon Choi Chandan Singh Dalawat Daniel Moskovich Fernando Muro Anthony Quas |
general reference | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 12:04 | comment | added | Dmitri Panov | I don't see a problem in willing to know both a proof of Fermat last theorem and Poincare conjecture. I would be happy to know both proofs. | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 9:38 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Besides, given your previous question mathoverflow.net/questions/89748/… I would have thought that you might need to spend more time understanding the resolution of the Poincare conjecture... | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 9:37 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | How about understanding Dirichlet's proof that there are infinitely many primes in an AP whose step size is coprime to the starting entry? | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 9:07 | history | asked | user18717 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |