Timeline for Fermat's proof for $x^3-y^2=2$
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 3, 2019 at 12:27 | history | edited | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http --> https
|
| Jul 30, 2015 at 14:24 | comment | added | Joël | I think we are too quick to say that Fermat had no proof of his claim about his equation. If you read Fermat's correspondance, you see there was a reason he rarely wrote down his proof: essentially no one would read them. When he talks to Pascal, for example, Pascal is eager to talk about probability, physics, and other subjects but show little appetite for reading Fermat's complicated number-theory proofs. Fermat was simply too much in advance of his time. His best interlocutors would have been he Bernoulli and Euler, but they were born after his death. | |
| Oct 20, 2013 at 1:47 | comment | added | Kieren MacMillan | To be accurate, Fermat never claimed to have proven that $2^{2^n}+1$ is always prime — rather he said that after much research he believed it to be true, and [on several occasions] asked others to help him prove it. All of the theorems which he claimed to have actually proven were indeed verified by later mathematicians. | |
| Oct 4, 2013 at 15:54 | vote | accept | Konstantinos Gaitanas | ||
| Sep 28, 2013 at 11:42 | vote | accept | Konstantinos Gaitanas | ||
| Oct 4, 2013 at 15:54 | |||||
| Sep 16, 2013 at 10:38 | comment | added | Konstantinos Gaitanas | Yes you are right.Three times then. | |
| Sep 15, 2013 at 23:47 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | @KonstantinosGaitanas, Fermat didn't have a proof for his statement that $2^{2^n}+1$ is always prime. | |
| Sep 15, 2013 at 22:34 | comment | added | Konstantinos Gaitanas | Yes the fact that Fermat claimed to have a proof sounds familiar.(actually i have one too,but the comment space has too little characters to analyse it!)So, i supppose that all people mentioning that ''Fermat had always a proof for his statements except once'' (Fermat's Last Theorem) should say ''except twice''? | |
| Sep 15, 2013 at 20:32 | vote | accept | Konstantinos Gaitanas | ||
| Sep 15, 2013 at 20:32 | |||||
| Sep 15, 2013 at 19:52 | history | edited | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added link
|
| Sep 15, 2013 at 17:34 | history | edited | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
link
|
| Sep 15, 2013 at 16:05 | history | edited | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed book ref.
|
| Sep 15, 2013 at 15:29 | history | edited | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
citation
|
| Sep 15, 2013 at 15:14 | history | answered | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |