5 ms·

Were Mathematicians generally convinced that a proof did exist and it was just a matter of time? Or was there a not-insignificant belief that it could be false?

ColinWright 13y ago
The mathematicians I know and who had expressed an opinion generally believed it was almost certain to be true, but that the techniques and machinery were not yet available to tackle the problem. There was genuine astonishment when Wiles produced his proof, but no real disbelief, as might be expected had people felt it not to be true. It should be noted that it had been proven true for a very wide collection of possible exponents. You can read about the piece-wise progress here: http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Fermat%27s_last_theorem.html http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Fermat%27s_la... As a piece of trivia, in the Horizon program[0] mentioned elsewhere there's a point where J.H.Conway[1] (inventor of the game of "Life[2]" (don't ever ask him about it!)) is being interviewed, and he uses the word "prime." The editors dubbed the word "number" over the top, feeling that the audience might be put off, and knowing that "number" was accurate enough for the purpose. I don't know if Conway was ever told - I'll try to remember to ask him next time I see him. [0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FnXgprKgSE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FnXgprKgSE (roughly the 8 minute mark) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Horton_Conway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Horton_Conway [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
- mhartl 13y ago
  N.B. If you click on "Share" at YouTube, it includes a box and a field with the time in the current video. If you check the box, it gives you a direct link to that time. (The format is just http://youtu.be/7FnXgprKgSE?t=9m13s http://youtu.be/7FnXgprKgSE?t=9m13s, so you can also do it directly.) I'd link to the time in question myself in the present case, except that I listened from 7:00 to 9:00 and didn't find the thing you mentioned.
  - ColinWright 13y ago
    It's between 8m03s or 8m04s, and it's very hard to tell - it's very well done. If Simon Singh hadn't told me I would never have known. Here's the section: http://youtu.be/7FnXgprKgSE#t=7m55s http://youtu.be/7FnXgprKgSE#t=7m55s I didn't put the time marker on it because I wasn't able to check for sure, but I've confirmed it now.

ColinWright 13y ago

The mathematicians I know and who had expressed an opinion generally believed it was almost certain to be true, but that the techniques and machinery were not yet available to tackle the problem. There was genuine astonishment when Wiles produced his proof, but no real disbelief, as might be expected had people felt it not to be true. It should be noted that it had been proven true for a very wide collection of possible exponents. You can read about the piece-wise progress here: http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Fermat%27s_last_theorem.html http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Fermat%27s_la... As a piece of trivia, in the Horizon program[0] mentioned elsewhere there's a point where J.H.Conway[1] (inventor of the game of "Life[2]" (don't ever ask him about it!)) is being interviewed, and he uses the word "prime." The editors dubbed the word "number" over the top, feeling that the audience might be put off, and knowing that "number" was accurate enough for the purpose. I don't know if Conway was ever told - I'll try to remember to ask him next time I see him. [0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FnXgprKgSE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FnXgprKgSE (roughly the 8 minute mark) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Horton_Conway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Horton_Conway [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

mhartl 13y ago
N.B. If you click on "Share" at YouTube, it includes a box and a field with the time in the current video. If you check the box, it gives you a direct link to that time. (The format is just http://youtu.be/7FnXgprKgSE?t=9m13s http://youtu.be/7FnXgprKgSE?t=9m13s, so you can also do it directly.) I'd link to the time in question myself in the present case, except that I listened from 7:00 to 9:00 and didn't find the thing you mentioned.
- ColinWright 13y ago
  It's between 8m03s or 8m04s, and it's very hard to tell - it's very well done. If Simon Singh hadn't told me I would never have known. Here's the section: http://youtu.be/7FnXgprKgSE#t=7m55s http://youtu.be/7FnXgprKgSE#t=7m55s I didn't put the time marker on it because I wasn't able to check for sure, but I've confirmed it now.