3 ms·
Something similar happened a few years later with Fermat's last theorem, except that time vos Savant was wrong. (She didn't believe Wiles's proof.)
by ameliaquining 8y ago
Something similar happened a few years later with Fermat's last theorem, except that time vos Savant was wrong. (She didn't believe Wiles's proof.)
- mmusson 8y agoWhich version? Because his first version of the proof had an error that he had to go back and fix.
- beder 8y agoShe was claiming something more fundamental (and less sophisticated) than that. Nigel Boston and Andrew Granville wrote a review [1] of her book that distills some of the problems with her argument. A sample quote: > In fact, her central theme is that non-Euclidean geometry, and indeed any mathematics related to non-Euclidean geometry, is nonsense. [1]: http://www.dms.umontreal.ca/~andrew/PDF/VS.pdf http://www.dms.umontreal.ca/~andrew/PDF/VS.pdf
- DoctorOetker 8y agowell thats not really similar, since in the first case, a large portion of the respondents turned out to be mansplaining (referencing her sex for example). I don't think the situations are similar... Also, her problem and solution are concise to verify, I have yet to see a mechanized version of Wiles' proof. (I am willing to believe it when I see that, but until then I too have a hard time accepting the proof... but of course if an oracle put a gun to my temple and I had to guess, I'd be with Wiles...)