Timeline for Minimal prerequisite to reading Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 9, 2011 at 4:25 | comment | added | Kevin O'Bryant | How odd. I thought Fermat's Last Theorem was proved by Wiles and Taylor. Poor Taylor, already forgotten... | |
| Feb 9, 2011 at 4:05 | answer | added | Lalit Jain | timeline score: 8 | |
| Feb 9, 2011 at 3:32 | answer | added | Aeryk | timeline score: 8 | |
| Feb 9, 2011 at 3:29 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | I wonder if someone could answer this as though the OP were at least a grad student in number theory. The answer may be that the proof is simply not accessible to the OP and wouldn't be without devoting a substantial amount of time to mathematics (years and years), but since there are participants here at all levels, would someone mind giving an overview of how an NT grad student should prepare for reading the proof? I also watched a talk online where Ken Ribet noted that a theorem implying FLT (Serre's conjecture on 2d Galois reps) was proved in 2008. Is that proof perhaps more accessible? | |
| Feb 8, 2011 at 15:30 | answer | added | Franz Lemmermeyer | timeline score: 11 | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 16:51 | answer | added | awllower | timeline score: 7 | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 12:00 | vote | accept | Anonymous | ||
| Feb 7, 2011 at 11:32 | answer | added | Gerry Myerson | timeline score: 12 | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 9:05 | comment | added | Lloyd Smith | Replace Witten with Wiles here, and you get the general idea: abstrusegoose.com/272 | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 8:22 | answer | added | Daniel Parry | timeline score: 25 | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 8:12 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Well if Angus Macintyre succeeds in his program (rjlipton.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/…), one will only need to know Peano Arithmetic to prove FLT. But it will be a looong proof. | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 8:10 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | "paper"... I mean "book". | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 8:09 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | At the risk of being cheeky, you can download the paper from the Annals website and start looking for key words. You will get stuck in the first few pages. Then read the paper that J.C. Ottem recommends. If you are looking for a deep understanding, then I'm afraid it's a steep mountain to climb. Many many mathematicians would be completely lost with Wiles' proof (me included!), and it is no shame. | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 8:07 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Galois representations, modular forms, L-functions, elliptic curves,... | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 8:07 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | You can find a brief explanation in the introduction to Cornell-Silverman-Stevens. | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 8:07 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | What is meant by "primary"? Presumably you are looking for something deeper or more precise than the various "popular maths" accounts that have been published... | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 8:06 | comment | added | Anonymous | May I ask what the primary topics / areas used to prove the theorem are? | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 7:58 | comment | added | J.C. Ottem | Wiles proof is extremely long and difficult, and you probably won't find the prerequsites in a text-book. However, if you want to understand the idea of the proof there are several good books e.g., "Modular forms and Fermat's last theorem" By Cornell, Silverman, Stevens. | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 7:52 | history | asked | Anonymous | CC BY-SA 2.5 |