15 ms·
Proof Checking: Not Line by Line
- hliyan 6y agoNot an expert by any stretch of the imagination (took higher math only as part of an undergraduate engineering curriculum), but as I understand, this still applies to Andrew Wiles proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem: > A proof that only has many small steps but no global picture is hard to motivate. Wiles' proof is considered a 'modern proof' in that some of the constructs he used int he proof (modular elliptic curves I believe) did not exist in the time of Fermat. A proof involving them while certainly not fitting the margins where Fermat scribbled his famous claim, would also not meet his criteria of 'elegant'. I wonder the search for his version of the proof still continues?
- ameliaquining 6y agoAFAIK, not really, because most historians of mathematics consider it highly unlikely that Fermat's purported proof (if it existed at all) was correct. In fact, in all likelihood it has been "rediscovered" many times by the hordes of people who put forth incorrect proofs during the three and a half centuries before Wiles finally cracked it.