Re: A theorem can't be wrong

In article
<MkLce.674043$w62.341447@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"N. Silver" <mathelp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> JSH wrote:
>
> > It seems odd that I need to remind that a theorem cannot be
> > wrong.

But not everything called a theorem (in the sense implied) actually is a
theorem (in that sense).

JSH has himself occasionally proclaimed the theoremhood of things that
turned out not to be. Why should this be different?


> >So the surrogate factoring theorem (SFT) cannot be
> > wrong.

Then we need incontrovertable proof that it is actualy a theorem, and
not just a misnamed conjecture.

For example "Fermat's Last Theorem" was not actually known to be a
theorem for about 350 years after it was written down. Until Wiles
proof, it was really only properly called a conjecture.
.