Re: Publication not so important in mathematics

From: Alan Morgan (amorgan_at_xenon.Stanford.EDU)
Date: 03/18/05 

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:49:56 +0000 (UTC)

In article <1111107314.415366.187480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
 <jstevh@msn.com> wrote:

>Well, like let's talk about Andrew Wiles. Newspapers around the world
>published that he proved Fermat's Last Theorem. Encyclopedias say he
>proved Fermat's Last Theorem.
>
>Those people who believe he proved Fermat's Last Theorem, probably
>believe that the publication process has something to do with that
>belief.
>
>Math people might disagree, claiming that all that scrutiny from around
>the world is really what it's about, as if he were wrong *someone*
>somewhere in the world would speak up and holler about the error.

Someone did. The original proof had a tiny, tiny hole in it. Thanks
to the help of some mathematicians the tiny hole turned into a huge,
gaping disaster. Wiles went away and tried to fix the hole. He failed.
He tried a different technique. That one appears to have worked (I
say "appears to" because I'm only marginally more competent to judge the
proof than you are).

>I say they wouldn't necessarily, as the system is broken.

Funny how this broken system works exactly the way you say it doesn't.

Alan 

-- 
Defendit numerus

Relevant Pages