Timeline for Recent developments in the proof of Fermat's last theorem
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2023 at 23:56 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @D.R. I think asking a new, focused question on the form "Is Serre's paper+proof of Serre's conjecture (and all prerequisites) simpler than the proof of FLT via Wiles+Taylor–Wiles (and all prerequisites)?" is worthwhile. Link back to this question if you do. | |
| Sep 1, 2023 at 7:33 | comment | added | D.R. | @DavidRoberts I would also like to see an answer along the lines of what you suggested. Do you think starting a bounty would help? Or essentially copy-pasting the current question into another post in hopes of getting a better response? | |
| Jan 23, 2022 at 19:36 | history | protected | Noah Schweber | ||
| May 31, 2020 at 22:16 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @GH sure, but what goes into the proof of Serre's conjecture is the point. How simpler is Serre's paper+proof of Serre's conjecture vs Wiles+Taylor–Wiles? | |
| May 31, 2020 at 15:15 | comment | added | GH from MO | @DavidRoberts: Serre's 1987 Duke paper contains a proof that Serre's conjecture implies Fermat's last theorem. So if you accept Serre's conjecture, then you don't need anything beyond Serre's 1987 Duke paper. Of course the proof of Serre's conjecture relies on the original ideas of Taylor and Wiles. | |
| S May 31, 2020 at 5:55 | history | suggested | J. W. Tanner | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
corrected English/spelling
|
| May 31, 2020 at 3:34 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 31, 2020 at 5:55 | |||||
| May 30, 2020 at 10:39 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | What I'd like to see is a serious technical discussion about how exactly newer approaches make things simpler. What is no longer needed if Serre's conjecture is used instead? Etc. Ribet's talk was for a general mathematical audience, not for people who want gory details. | |
| May 30, 2020 at 9:37 | comment | added | user779120 | @auspicious99 Most of that video was a summary of Wiles's proof, not a simplification in proof. However, the answer to the question might be two results an alternate proof of faltings's theorem and a Serre Conjecture(If there's nothing else.). | |
| S May 30, 2020 at 9:31 | history | suggested | auspicious99 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
grammar corrections
|
| May 30, 2020 at 7:52 | comment | added | naf | The proof via Serre's conjecture allows one to avoid difficult results of Ribet and Langlands-Tunnel but requires other non-trivial input so it is not clear that it is really a simplification. But the proof is indeed conceptually simpler. | |
| May 30, 2020 at 7:51 | comment | added | auspicious99 | So maybe based on what you saw in the video, you might like to add an answer to your own question, for the benefit of those who have not watched it? | |
| May 30, 2020 at 7:49 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 30, 2020 at 9:31 | |||||
| May 30, 2020 at 4:13 | comment | added | user779120 | I watched that video right away. The video of Ribet explaining it was exciting. About 50 minutes into that video, Ribet was talking about Khare-Wintenberger's proof of Serre's Conjecture. | |
| May 30, 2020 at 2:51 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | Ken Ribet at the 2020 JMM in Denver, CO, "A 2020 View of Fermat's Last Theorem": youtube.com/watch?v=mq9BS6S2E2k | |
| May 30, 2020 at 2:42 | review | First posts | |||
| May 30, 2020 at 2:52 | |||||
| May 30, 2020 at 2:39 | history | asked | user779120 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |