Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 16, 2018 at 3:03 comment added Christopher King Possible Duplicate
Jul 6, 2011 at 5:33 comment added Kaveh Your question is equivalent to whether FLT is provable in PA or not.
Jul 6, 2011 at 5:32 comment added Kaveh @Martin, "justifies proof in N" doesn't make sense, N is not a theory. In any case, as far as I know, there are people who think that FLT is provable in PA and trying to show that the prove goes can be formalized in PA, and no one has come up with a model of PA that would not satisfy FLT.
Jan 20, 2011 at 9:03 comment added Hans-Peter Stricker Is there any news about Macintyre's proof?
Sep 20, 2010 at 23:02 comment added Sergei Tropanets Some related thing: <<To my mind, the highlight of this period of building recursive models for the purposes of independence results was the results of the early 1960s by Shepherdson, who, using algebraic methods, produced beautiful nonstandard models of quantifier-free arithmetic in which he showed number theoretic results such as the infinitude of primes and Fermat's Last Theorem (in fact, for exponent 3) are false.>> The quote is from Kaye's paper "Tennenbaum's theorem for models of arithmetic". – Sergei Tropanets 0 secs ago
Sep 19, 2010 at 8:46 comment added Martin Brandenburg @Joel: Yes I saw this discussion, but I think it touches only the subject of inaccessible cardinals, and justufies the proof in $\mathbb{N}$. But of course, I have no idea about the details of Wiles' proof.
Sep 18, 2010 at 19:34 history edited Martin Brandenburg CC BY-SA 2.5
added 67 characters in body
Sep 18, 2010 at 19:30 comment added Joel David Hamkins There is relevent discussion at mathoverflow.net/questions/35746/… on what Wiles' proof uses.
Sep 18, 2010 at 19:29 comment added François G. Dorais I think this is still an open problem. I heard that Angus Macintyre has a draft proof of FLT in PA, but I don't know the current status of the draft.
Sep 18, 2010 at 19:16 history asked Martin Brandenburg CC BY-SA 2.5