4 ms·

Well, true, we cannot be 100% certain, but if he published the proof to n=4, we can say it's most likely he did not find the general proof.

by prerok 1y ago

DoctorOetker 1y ago
why does that make it more likely?
- tslater2006 1y ago
  Because if he had the general proof he wouldn't need to go out of his way to prove n=4, since it would be covered already by the general proof
  - DoctorOetker 1y ago
    It is simply an obvious fault line in the nature of the problem statement: you can crack the problem in 2 parts: the x^4+y^4=z^4 part, and the part that claims x^p+y^p=z^p with p a prime. Suppose Fermat solved the proof by using this natural fault line -its just how this cookie crumbles- solved the n=4 case, and then smashed his head a thousand times against the problem and finally found the prime n proof. He challenges the community, and since they don't take up the challenge, "encourages" them in a manner that may be described as trollish, by showing how to do the n=4 case. (knowing full well the prime power case proof looks totally different)
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - prerok 1y ago
      That's an interesting take but I think it's unlikely for two reasons: 1. In any case you view it, it's not trivial, which was the statement in the note. If it were, the effort to publish just for n=4 would be silly, because it would take equal effort to just publish for general case. That he withheld the proof just to mess with people is highly unlikely. 2. I definitely do not make private notes in my books just so that maybe somebody later on would pick up that book and wonder whether I had indeed discovered the secrets of the universe. I definitely do not write "challenges to the community" there.
      - DoctorOetker 1y ago
        In what note by whom was it stated that FLT is trivial?
        prerok 1y ago
        https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FermatsLastTheorem.html https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FermatsLastTheorem.html
        DoctorOetker 1y ago
        That URL does not substantiate any claim by anyone that FLT was trivial to prove.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]

Well, true, we cannot be 100% certain, but if he published the proof to n=4, we can say it's most likely he did not find the general proof.

by prerok 1y ago

Well, true, we cannot be 100% certain, but if he published the proof to n=4, we can say it's most likely he did not find the general proof.

DoctorOetker 1y ago

why does that make it more likely?

tslater2006 1y ago
Because if he had the general proof he wouldn't need to go out of his way to prove n=4, since it would be covered already by the general proof
- DoctorOetker 1y ago
  It is simply an obvious fault line in the nature of the problem statement: you can crack the problem in 2 parts: the x^4+y^4=z^4 part, and the part that claims x^p+y^p=z^p with p a prime. Suppose Fermat solved the proof by using this natural fault line -its just how this cookie crumbles- solved the n=4 case, and then smashed his head a thousand times against the problem and finally found the prime n proof. He challenges the community, and since they don't take up the challenge, "encourages" them in a manner that may be described as trollish, by showing how to do the n=4 case. (knowing full well the prime power case proof looks totally different)
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - prerok 1y ago
    That's an interesting take but I think it's unlikely for two reasons: 1. In any case you view it, it's not trivial, which was the statement in the note. If it were, the effort to publish just for n=4 would be silly, because it would take equal effort to just publish for general case. That he withheld the proof just to mess with people is highly unlikely. 2. I definitely do not make private notes in my books just so that maybe somebody later on would pick up that book and wonder whether I had indeed discovered the secrets of the universe. I definitely do not write "challenges to the community" there.
    - DoctorOetker 1y ago
      In what note by whom was it stated that FLT is trivial?
      - prerok 1y ago
        https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FermatsLastTheorem.html https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FermatsLastTheorem.html
        DoctorOetker 1y ago
        That URL does not substantiate any claim by anyone that FLT was trivial to prove.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]