Timeline for Does any lower bound on proofs of FLT improve Shepherdson 1965?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 16, 2013 at 17:53 | vote | accept | Colin McLarty | ||
| Apr 16, 2013 at 15:37 | history | edited | Ryan Reich | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
insert connecting words to decrease humorous ambiguity
|
| Apr 16, 2013 at 13:46 | answer | added | Emil Jeřábek | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 16, 2013 at 12:44 | comment | added | Colin McLarty | Last. I had never seen FLT used to mean Fermat's Little Theorem until you put me on the track of it and I found a cryptography oriented website acunix.wheatonma.edu/bbloch/crypto/… using it that way. | |
| Apr 16, 2013 at 11:59 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | The L in FLT means Little or Last? | |
| Apr 14, 2013 at 11:22 | comment | added | Colin McLarty | I'll mention Hajek and Pudlak in Metamathematics of First-Order Arithmetic (1998) discuss Shepherdson's result without saying his independence results in 1965 extend to any larger fragment. Rather, they say Shepherdson's technique here is so different from the techniques for stronger fragments that they will not go into it. | |
| Apr 13, 2013 at 12:34 | history | asked | Colin McLarty | CC BY-SA 3.0 |