Timeline for How do we know that Fermat wrote his famous note in 1637?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2017 at 15:57 | answer | added | Mikhail Katz | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 19, 2016 at 14:06 | history | protected | Lucia | ||
| Aug 22, 2016 at 19:19 | answer | added | Swedish Math Professor | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jul 27, 2010 at 6:45 | vote | accept | Angelo | ||
| Jul 26, 2010 at 21:56 | comment | added | Anweshi | (In the interest of full disclosure):- I was also part of the people who recently found fault with Andrew L; but my intention was merely to improve his typography. | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 21:49 | comment | added | Anweshi | @Angelo. Welcome to Mathoverflow. | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 21:48 | comment | added | Anweshi | For what it is worth, in view of the fact that Andrew L was recently suspended and that he is feeling cornered and isolated, it would have been better to leave him alone for a while. Now he seems to have left for good. Might I suggest that people overreacted with this double suspension and all? tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/554/… | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 16:28 | comment | added | Angelo | Wow. You guys should really lighten up. | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 9:25 | comment | added | Wadim Zudilin | @Andrew: Thanks for removing the comment; I followed you. But I am definitely serious: it's better to estimate theorems rather than people. | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 7:47 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | @Wadim I really hope you're not serious. How is my opinion of my teacher offensive?!? Seriously,I do not understand this place sometimes! I'm removing the comment to be safe.I can't believe this. | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 7:44 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | I'd like frankly to get John Stillwell's input at this thread-he's one of our resident experts at historical issues. | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 7:42 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | @Gerry Thank you for the spelling lesson. @Qiaochu I'm not,you're understandably overreacting given my history.I don't think Victor is even wrong. I'm just a little frustrated,is all. @Andy Calm down,take a deep breath.You made your point. I'm surprised foresic historians haven't made an empirical attempt to actually date the note,if it still exists.I'm certain laboratory methods exist that can accurately date it.The problem of course is whether or not a method exists that can date it without destroying it. | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 7:28 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | @Andrew L - the word you are looking for is "theorem". | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 5:44 | comment | added | Andy Putman | @Andrew L : I want to expand my comment in the hope that it will help you. What you posted is "wikipedia level knowledge". There are times when such general comments are helpful, especially if the post is obviously the work of a beginner. However, the current post is not asking for background and asks a very technical question : how do we know the date of Fermat's undated marginal note? The author of the question demonstrates enough knowledge that it is clearly unnecessary (and maybe a little insulting) to post background knowledge that most people who understand the question would know. | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 5:04 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | @Andrew, I really wish you would stop treating everyone as an enemy. Victor is pointing out that you have not addressed the actual question being asked. This is not a personal attack against you. | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 4:56 | comment | added | Andy Putman | @Andrew L : Is Victor's comment really that unfair? | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 4:34 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | @Victor Sigh,Can't win. | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 4:19 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | Andrew, I hope you won't be too offended if I remark that your answer/comments is, at best, tangential to the present question: $$\text{How do we date Fermat's famous note?}$$ | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 2:56 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | before/in case anyone downvotes this -- this seems more like a comment than an "answer". – Yemon Choi 8 mins ago @Yemon As you can see,I've deleted the post and added it to the first set of comments.Hope that preempts any new problems. | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 2:53 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | (continued)The magic of Fermat's last theorum-and why it's fascinated so many for over 3 centuries-is the remote possibility that he might have stumbled onto an actual proof using methods no one's ever thought of.Namely,that a 17th century mind would have been capable of what "more advanced" minds where incapable of for so long. It's also that a theorum so incredibly simple to state turned out to have a proof that required the development of entire regions of the structure of modern mathematics, such as elliptic curves and algebraic number theory. | |
| Jul 26, 2010 at 2:53 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | I think most number theorists-in light of the sheer ophistication of the methods used in solving the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture and Ribet's proof of the epsilon conjecture (both of which are necessary to prove the general Fermat theorum,from my nderstanding)-that Fermat couldn't have had a valid proof.He could have had a proof of a special case,several of which were already possible with the machinery available at the time-Fermat himself apparently proved in unpublished notes the case where n=4 by infinite descent. | |
| Jul 25, 2010 at 21:27 | answer | added | Bill Dubuque | timeline score: 15 | |
| Jul 25, 2010 at 16:16 | comment | added | Anweshi | There might be something of interest in Weil's historical book on number theory, from Hammurapi to Legendre.... | |
| Jul 25, 2010 at 16:09 | answer | added | Franz Lemmermeyer | timeline score: 103 | |
| Jul 25, 2010 at 15:38 | history | edited | Angelo |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 25, 2010 at 10:40 | answer | added | Nurdin Takenov | timeline score: 24 | |
| Jul 25, 2010 at 10:32 | comment | added | Wadim Zudilin | 1637 is prime and the next primes 1657 and 1663 (less than 1665) are too far from the dates he was working on the subject. :-) | |
| Jul 25, 2010 at 10:11 | history | asked | Angelo | CC BY-SA 2.5 |