You've put that far more succinctly than I could!
(
thecrapgatsby isn't listening LALALALALALA,
Wed 17 Aug 2011, 10:12,
archived)
I'm not sure I didn't steal it from someone else :(But if they don't pop up to claim it I'm happy to take all credit.
It's impossible for Fermat to have had anything similar to the actual proof of the theorem, since it relies on maths developed in the 20th century. At this point, Stephen Fry (prompted by a researcher who's been reading Wikipedia in the back room) would doubtless say that it seems likely an elementary proof could be found (due to Friedman's Grand Conjecture, of which I've never heretofore heard), but it would be insanely long.
/just been reading Wikipedia blog
Also, clicks to both images, since I've been insanely rude :)
(It's impossible for Fermat to have had anything similar to the actual proof of the theorem, since it relies on maths developed in the 20th century. At this point, Stephen Fry (prompted by a researcher who's been reading Wikipedia in the back room) would doubtless say that it seems likely an elementary proof could be found (due to Friedman's Grand Conjecture, of which I've never heretofore heard), but it would be insanely long.
/just been reading Wikipedia blog
Also, clicks to both images, since I've been insanely rude :)
boris the spider,
Wed 17 Aug 2011, 10:17,
archived)
I like the romantic notion that he really did have a proof that everyone has since overlooked (cos he was a great big genius), but Simon Singh's book (which is fantastic) makes the point that he probably had a flawed proof along the lines of some of the later attempts.
( thecrapgatsby isn't listening LALALALALALA,
Wed 17 Aug 2011, 10:25,
archived)
I much prefer the idea that he was trolling everyoneI like to think that mathematicians back in them olden days weren't as po-faced and serious as we all believe and instead liked to arse around like the rest of us.
( boris the spider,
Wed 17 Aug 2011, 10:46,
archived)