Hacker News Reader

Something similar happened a few years later with Fermat's last theorem, except that time vos Savant was wrong. (She didn't believe Wiles's proof.)

View on HN

Which version? Because his first version of the proof had an error that he had to go back and fix.

She was claiming something more fundamental (and less sophisticated) than that. Nigel Boston and Andrew Granville wrote a review [1] of her book that distills some of the problems with her argument. A sample quote:

> In fact, her central theme is that non-Euclidean geometry, and indeed any mathematics related to non-Euclidean geometry, is nonsense.

[1]: http://www.dms.umontreal.ca/~andrew/PDF/VS.pdf

well thats not really similar, since in the first case, a large portion of the respondents turned out to be mansplaining (referencing her sex for example).

I don't think the situations are similar...

Also, her problem and solution are concise to verify, I have yet to see a mechanized version of Wiles' proof. (I am willing to believe it when I see that, but until then I too have a hard time accepting the proof... but of course if an oracle put a gun to my temple and I had to guess, I'd be with Wiles...)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com