Andrew Wiles on proving Fermat’s Last Theorem (1995) [video]
youtube.com
Full documentary: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074rxx
youtube.com
So I rang the ABC and asked to speak to the Science Desk. This was at around 7am by this time. I was connected immediately to Robyn Williams, the premier science communicator at the ABC, despite having no name, no evident back story or trust. He was absolutely delightful to talk to, agreed with a laugh that he often got excited calls about people squaring the circle or finding repeat patterns in PI digits and was used to crank callers, listened to me, probably did some checks and then said he'd contact somebody at Cambridge and see what the gen was. My memory is he called me back a little while later saying they'd confirmed a room was booked for a significant public announcement seminar, and thanked me for the tip. This was a long time ago, it's equally likely I misremembered and he gave me a name to check with in the UK and I did the leg work. The point is, I wasn't just told to bugger off.
Nowadays it would be all over twitter. John was a bit old school and liked phone calls. They had internet emails in 92 of course I think he just liked the physicality of a call.
"Nothing I ever do again…" – and then, having barely held it together for the last 30 seconds, he has to stop. It brings me to tears every time I watch it.
A man realising the sheer magnitude of the thing he did. It's the most relevant part for humanity today.
Ah! Found it. This is a better clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaKyvr4ar1Q
Bob Dylan reflecting on his early work https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Fh3pAJf-vdU
I wish to live my life so I can say one day 'Nothing I ever do again will.."
Mathematicians / folks knowledgeable on the subject - do you think Fermat had an error in his (lost) proof? Or that there exists a solution that perhaps is more straightforward than Wiles's?
My understanding is that Wiles had to use a ton of math (and invent some new math?) that had not yet been invented in Fermat's time.
My personal guess is he figured out later that his proof was broken or limited and never got around to fixing it.
I think you have an odd definition of "responsible". Many (most?) theorems start out as conjectures, and I would strongly disagree that just because someone first formulated a problem that they're "responsible" for the eventual solution.
That's not true. Even early on, most mathematicians doubted he had a proof. But I'd check out the history of the problem as described on Wikipedia. There was considerable research into the problem before Fermat, and general research into Diophantine equations had gone on for over a thousand years before Fermat. I have no doubt there would have been significant interest into solving the problem even if Fermat had never written his "I have a proof but it's too big to fit in the margin" note.
But yes had him not pointed it out maybe it would have been relegated to a mathematical curiosity or something
I think there's a deeper (but simpler) reason for it, besides the way Wiles proved it
He wrote his note in his copy of Arithmetica around 1637.
He most likely wrote his proof for the case of n=4 in the 1640s.
He sent letters to other mathematicians in 1640, 1657 where he talks about the case of n=3 but writes in such a way that it seems like he does not have the answer.
Why would he write n=4 after? If he had a generalized proof?
Why would he tease other mathematicians with a special case in 1657 if he already had a generalized proof?
For one thing, Fermat wasn’t actually a “professional” mathematician. He was a lawyer and judge and was known for having remarkable intuition but not really troubling himself too much with details of proofs etc. For example Descartes famously called him a “deficient mathematician”[1] in an angry exchange of letters over a technique that Fermat had discovered to geometrically construct a tangent to a particularly problematic curve called Descartes’ Folia using a technique we would now recognise as being the definition of the derivative as the limit of the difference quotient.
[1] Explained entertainingly here https://youtu.be/xKfEmbWBgvM?is=qLnPvPXGDqgJCDC3
Descartes was himself a lawyer (by training) then there were Leibnitz, Cayley, Viete. If you include Physics you will get a bigger list.
Descartes and Fermat ran a mutual admiration society, don't read to much into it.
Both had independently come up with coordinate geometry, linking algebra and geometry
I agree Fermat probably had a wrong proof but curb your condescension towards lawyers making contributions in mathematics.
Yes, with million-to-one odds. Though I'd say "error or equivalent shortcoming, for the general case".
> that perhaps is more straightforward than Wiles's?
I don't recall a mathematical definition of "straightforward", but yes. Ignoring minor improvements, I'd guess there's a much better proof...though that might require a century of new developments in related parts of mathematics, before we'll have the necessary tools to write it down.
One interesting thing of FLT is Wiles is on record as saying it opened the door (I think. This is from memory) to Langlands Program, a series of mathematical connections
Harder problems of course exist, Riemann Hypothesis et al but FLT still took hundreds of years to solve
In fact the Langlands programme began with Langlands writing his ideas in a letter which he wrote to Andre Weil because of his association with the TSW conjecture.
I enjoyed this explanation https://youtu.be/4dyytPboqvE?is=VFFjLHSk7vgosN54 by Ed Frenkel.
Q.E.D. we agree and we all shout hurra
as he confirms what Fermat
jotted down on that margin
which could have used some enlarging
Feeling the finality
Of his greatest achievement
He couldn't believe it
But it's true, now he's feelin' blue
So between me and you:
Think twice before you do
its phenomenology porn