Timeline for Fermat's proof for $x^3-y^2=2$
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 25, 2021 at 19:20 | comment | added | Kieren MacMillan | Fermat “would not have used” negative numbers? What an odd (and, I think, indefensible) claim… He used them all the time — in fact, he explicitly described how to get around situations where solutions gave negative numbers (adequality, etc.).And the “complex numbers” in that proof are very easily replaced by equivalent algebra in the real numbers. | |
| Feb 25, 2021 at 15:54 | comment | added | Franz Lemmermeyer | @Gerry: I disagree. If you remove everything from the proof that Fermat would not have used (complex numbers, negative numbers, extensive algebraic manipulations) you end up with something that is very difficult to follow. The algebra contained in the proofs Fermat has left is much less advanced. Of course we can also write this up using only Euclidean mathematics - but this does not prove anything. | |
| Feb 25, 2021 at 2:28 | history | edited | Kieren MacMillan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Feb 25, 2021 at 2:28 | comment | added | Kieren MacMillan | @GerryMyerson: That’s what I meant. =) Edited. | |
| Feb 25, 2021 at 1:54 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | "I personally believe this finally puts to rest any questions of whether Fermat had a proof of these two claims." Well, it sure puts to rest any questions of whether Fermat could have had a proof of the two claims. | |
| Feb 24, 2021 at 15:17 | history | edited | Kieren MacMillan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2021 at 15:07 | history | answered | Kieren MacMillan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |