# Can anyone on tsr understand the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem?Watch

Announcements
#1
Title says all.
0
5 years ago
#2
Are you crazy?

It's so easy! Here's my proof, some guy stole it though, he just forgot to credit me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles&#39;_...s_Last_Theorem

But in all seriousness, if someone on TSR could prove it, I don't think it would have taken so many years for the crème dela crème of mathematicians to prove it, and Andrew's proof was out of the blue anyway. You're talking a whole new level, which, I'm pretty sure you won't be finding here.
0
#3
(Original post by Phichi)
Are you crazy?

It's so easy! Here's my proof, some guy stole it though, he just forgot to credit me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles&#39;_...s_Last_Theorem

But in all seriousness, if someone on TSR could prove it, I don't think it would have taken so many years for the creme dela crèmè of mathematicians to prove it, and Andrew's proof was out of the blue anyway.
I'm not saying they could prove it in a different way to Wiles. What I'm really asking is can anyone here understand the proof?
0
5 years ago
#4
Not a chance brother
0
5 years ago
#5
If anyone can DJ mayes can
3
5 years ago
#6
(Original post by amcor)
I'm not saying they could prove it in a different way to Wiles. What I'm really asking is can anyone here understand the proof?
Still no :3
0
#7
Maybe Wiles will stumble onto this thread you never know haha
0
5 years ago
#8
(Original post by amcor)
Maybe Wiles will stumble onto this thread you never know haha
One would hope he understands his own proof
0
5 years ago
#9
I understand it, but never in a trillion years could I have figured it out.

For example note that an early attempt was to factor the equation and because it's an exact power you'll get

Now solve for y and z

This attempt doesn't go much further than this though as solutions to these equations in rational numbers are no easier to find that solutions to the original equation. Btw I think the original proof is over 100 pages long.
0
5 years ago
#10
I know this sounds outrageous, but I think there should be a more elegant proof of Fermat's last theorem that everyone could understand.
0
5 years ago
#11
(Original post by platorepublic)
I know this sounds outrageous, but I think there should be a more elegant proof of Fermat's last theorem that everyone could understand.
You're right... that is outrageous. There are laymen proofs but they don't include any equations. The fact is that the proof is so difficult and long winded that there is no easy way. Even Einsteins proof of special relativity was only 26 pages long.

Fermat's last theorem is so complicated it's amazing he managed to keep track of his own work.
0
5 years ago
#12
If anyone can understand Fermat's Last Theorem, it's Dalek1099.
0
5 years ago
#13
(Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
You're right... that is outrageous. There are laymen proofs but they don't include any equations. The fact is that the proof is so difficult and long winded that there is no easy way. Even Einsteins proof of special relativity was only 26 pages long.

Fermat's last theorem is so complicated it's amazing he managed to keep track of his own work.
Do you really understand Wiles' proof?
0
5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Hodor)
Do you really understand Wiles' proof?
Yes. I understood it after reading through his paper about 6 or 7 times trying desperately to digest the contents lol. I think understand is a tricky word, I understand the overal proof but how he came to that proof still makes my brain fry.

It's easily the hardest thing in mathematics / physics I've ever looked at.
0
#15
It looks so simple though. In my head at least it doesn't seem like the proof should be any harder than any number of things that can be proved on th back of an envelope.
0
5 years ago
#16
As someone who has done the Cambridge maths course pretty successfully, I would say if I specifically studied it and the background material for say the next 5 years I could probably get a pretty good grasp of it. It's not really something you can pick up and read as there is a huge amount of assumed knowledge in it.
0
5 years ago
#17
(Original post by LightBlueSoldier)
It's not really something you can pick up and read as there is a huge amount of assumed knowledge in it.
0
5 years ago
#18
Yeah, it's quite simple.

His alqerithims are so perfectly engineer3d, if you use the gavifluoric method of substitution, you will soon find the lateral solution. Proffessor Dalek1099 taught me how it works, via pm. Best regards, definitely notpeterlloyd
0
5 years ago
#19
I heard an estimate from a university professor that less than 100 people living today fully understand the proof in its entirety.

The person in this thread who claimed they understand it... doesn't.
1
5 years ago
#20
(Original post by notpeterlloyd)
Yeah, it's quite simple.

His alqerithims are so perfectly engineer3d, if you use the gavifluoric method of substitution, you will soon find the lateral solution. Proffessor Dalek1099 taught me how it works, via pm. Best regards, definitely notpeterlloyd
0
X

new posts
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### University open days

• London Metropolitan University
Tue, 21 May '19
• Brunel University London
Wed, 22 May '19
• University of Roehampton
Wed, 22 May '19

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### How did your AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (201)
22.04%
The paper was reasonable (388)
42.54%
Not feeling great about that exam... (175)
19.19%
It was TERRIBLE (148)
16.23%