3 ms·

I can't help but wonder if the qualitative difference in the problems -- graph isomorphism is an important, active area of applied mathematical research in sear

I can't help but wonder if the qualitative difference in the problems -- graph isomorphism is an important, active area of applied mathematical research in search of a better algorithm, FLT was a multi-century abstract mathematical puzzler -- makes for a difference in the groups of people working on the problems and their attitudes.

Jweb_Guru 10y ago
Graph isomorphism isn't that important practically (subgraph isomorphism is, but it's NP-complete and, IIRC, APX-hard as well) and the hard graph cases don't come up much in practice (despite being a relatively large percentage of random graphs, AFAIK). I think it reflects a difference in how mathematics is done; the quasipolynomial result was first presented at a conference, not in a paper, which definitely wouldn't have been the case 20 years ago.
- mafribe 10y ago
  Wiles' original FLT result was first presented at a workshop in Cambridge, although he didn't explicitly state that he had succeeded (sans the gap) in proving FLT, he left that for the audience to infer.
  - tacomonstrous 10y ago
    And that doesn't even make it unusual. Most mathematical results are first presented at conferences or workshops, sometimes long before publication.
  - moomin 10y ago
    I was around at the time. I remember the buzz after day one of his two day workshop. Everyone knew where he was going.
JCzynski 10y ago
Wiles was weird at the time. Math is done in public, he just really wanted to be the one to have the final valid proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.
- jacobolus 10y ago
  Saying you’re working on FLT in the late 20th century is a good way to make everyone think you’ve gone nuts and are wasting your time. It makes some sense to make sure you have something solid before you mention it.
  - bonzini 10y ago
    Technically he was working on the Taniyama conjecture (now known as the modularity theorem), not on Fermat's last theorem.
  - digler999 10y ago
    or conversely, if they believe you, they could try to sniff your approach and take the credit for it. given the fame of FLT I dont blame him for doing it undercover.

Jweb_Guru 10y ago

Graph isomorphism isn't that important practically (subgraph isomorphism is, but it's NP-complete and, IIRC, APX-hard as well) and the hard graph cases don't come up much in practice (despite being a relatively large percentage of random graphs, AFAIK). I think it reflects a difference in how mathematics is done; the quasipolynomial result was first presented at a conference, not in a paper, which definitely wouldn't have been the case 20 years ago.

mafribe 10y ago
Wiles' original FLT result was first presented at a workshop in Cambridge, although he didn't explicitly state that he had succeeded (sans the gap) in proving FLT, he left that for the audience to infer.
- tacomonstrous 10y ago
  And that doesn't even make it unusual. Most mathematical results are first presented at conferences or workshops, sometimes long before publication.
- moomin 10y ago
  I was around at the time. I remember the buzz after day one of his two day workshop. Everyone knew where he was going.

JCzynski 10y ago

Wiles was weird at the time. Math is done in public, he just really wanted to be the one to have the final valid proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.

jacobolus 10y ago
Saying you’re working on FLT in the late 20th century is a good way to make everyone think you’ve gone nuts and are wasting your time. It makes some sense to make sure you have something solid before you mention it.
- bonzini 10y ago
  Technically he was working on the Taniyama conjecture (now known as the modularity theorem), not on Fermat's last theorem.
- digler999 10y ago
  or conversely, if they believe you, they could try to sniff your approach and take the credit for it. given the fame of FLT I dont blame him for doing it undercover.