Re: Fermat's Last Theorem simple proof impossible?

On Nov 1, 5:58 pm, "*** T. Winter" <***.Win...@xxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1193955986.702563.187...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Proginoskes <CCHeck...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Nov 1, 3:12 pm, mike3 <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 6:56 pm, "*** T. Winter" <***.Win...@xxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > > He did not claim such a thing. When he claimed something he wrote
> > > letters to others that they did show something for which he claimed
> > > to have a proof (this clearly shows his background, i.e. not
> > > mathematics, he was just an amateur).
> >
> > Why does one need to be something other than an "amateur" to have
> > a "background" (ie. knowledge, experience) in mathematics?

Well, he was an amateur (just like me BTW). And you do not need to be
something else, but he just was something else.

> Knowing what other people have tried is important, so you don't end up
> "reinventing the wheel".

Not publicising what you have found before you can safely tell what you
have found (so that recognition comes to the proper place) seems to be
quite common in law circles. He has always been very secretive about his
proofs (although he did reveal the methods he did use, like infinite
descent).

Also, back in Fermat's day, mathematicians tended to work alone, the
job was competitive, and lots of problems could be solved using a few
basic ideas. In that sort of environment, you don't give away your
best tricks, especially if they're easy to do.

--- Christopher Heckman

.

Quantcast