What I as a math student dont get is: Fermat said he had been able to prove this theorem in the 16/1700's, however, mathematics wasn't even nearly as 'advanced' as it is now, to me it might make sense to say a talented first year math students would be able to construct a prove using only 17/18th century IF it existed. However, since none has been able to do so and the only prove, 350± years later, uses sophisticated recent math concepts/proof, I wonder if Fermat was at all capable of proving it
@hanzwan well he was not as they say in the end of the documentary. my theory is he just realised how hard this problem was and wrote that note to be remembered...t hats what I would have done. Plus that one entry seemed more like a diary entry than a note. I mean who talks to themselves in their notes? "I have a brilliant proof but this margin is too small to contain it" Plus you dont write "this margin is too small" in a small margin.
@hanzwan There have been a number of examples when a person's intelligence exceeds his time. Even if it wasn't as "advanced" doesn't mean it isn't as true. There were astronomers that had sun disk with detailed and extremely accurate descriptions of the night sky that showed a meteor that might've crashed into the sun. It is very possible that Fermat had an answer. Of course it is also possible he didn't and made this question just to stun mathematicians for as long as possible, like a jerk.
@kiy1999 thank you for your reply. I Agree with most of what you say. I recently found out which error Fermat probably made. In his proof he probably used the unique factorization of Q (the rationals) It was only later that mathematicians, surprisingly, disproved the unique factorization of the Ring Q (Sqn (N) ) .
I am somewhat math illiterate so I have a general question. Is it reasonable to say that theoretically there could be several different proofs to this theorem?
@jbrown677 Yes, it is quite reasonable to say that! Your question is a nice entry point into the aesthetic and creative beauty of mathematics. It's not unreasonable to say that some future genius will find a more elegant (and shorter) proof. However, because a proof exists, I doubt that anyone would devote his or her precious time to improving upon it, but I could be wrong.
I'm so happy for him, fulfilling his lifelong dream; must be SUCH a great feeling to know that you've done something you've been working for 7 whole years //
It's fabulous to see how patiently, precisely and cautiosly this mathematicians are answering the questions. There's no gibberish, just inspiring explanations and just the right amount of personal memories. Wonderful!
This video makes me realise how much I have to learn... problem is you'd have to study for about 30 years just to understand 1 part of this proof, let alone how the parts all fit together!
@mcshadypies The even more epic part is that he spent 7 years on trying to prove something that no other mathematicians could solve for a couple centuries. Not knowing if he will ever be able to, but he persevered and did it.
@mcshadypies If you take some mathematical proof classes you might be able to pick apart the logic in the argument. Number theory is hard, and the addition of all these other topics doesn't make it any easier. Still, you have the ability to learn anything, all you need is the drive.
Keep learning, things will fall into place faster than you think.
This makes so many things seem so much easier.
richardcadbury 4 months ago
What I as a math student dont get is: Fermat said he had been able to prove this theorem in the 16/1700's, however, mathematics wasn't even nearly as 'advanced' as it is now, to me it might make sense to say a talented first year math students would be able to construct a prove using only 17/18th century IF it existed. However, since none has been able to do so and the only prove, 350± years later, uses sophisticated recent math concepts/proof, I wonder if Fermat was at all capable of proving it
hanzwan 7 months ago 2
@hanzwan well he was not as they say in the end of the documentary. my theory is he just realised how hard this problem was and wrote that note to be remembered...t hats what I would have done. Plus that one entry seemed more like a diary entry than a note. I mean who talks to themselves in their notes? "I have a brilliant proof but this margin is too small to contain it" Plus you dont write "this margin is too small" in a small margin.
Just my thoughts
h0wud0in2 4 months ago
@hanzwan There have been a number of examples when a person's intelligence exceeds his time. Even if it wasn't as "advanced" doesn't mean it isn't as true. There were astronomers that had sun disk with detailed and extremely accurate descriptions of the night sky that showed a meteor that might've crashed into the sun. It is very possible that Fermat had an answer. Of course it is also possible he didn't and made this question just to stun mathematicians for as long as possible, like a jerk.
kiy1999 2 months ago
@kiy1999 thank you for your reply. I Agree with most of what you say. I recently found out which error Fermat probably made. In his proof he probably used the unique factorization of Q (the rationals) It was only later that mathematicians, surprisingly, disproved the unique factorization of the Ring Q (Sqn (N) ) .
hanzwan 2 months ago
one thumb down!? Fermat wathed this?
fuckoffplan 7 months ago 3
I am somewhat math illiterate so I have a general question. Is it reasonable to say that theoretically there could be several different proofs to this theorem?
jbrown677 7 months ago
@jbrown677 Yes, it is quite reasonable to say that! Your question is a nice entry point into the aesthetic and creative beauty of mathematics. It's not unreasonable to say that some future genius will find a more elegant (and shorter) proof. However, because a proof exists, I doubt that anyone would devote his or her precious time to improving upon it, but I could be wrong.
raskolnikov1873 7 months ago 3
I'm so happy for him, fulfilling his lifelong dream; must be SUCH a great feeling to know that you've done something you've been working for 7 whole years //
Lightn0x 11 months ago
Just when you think you're smart... someone makes you look like you know nothing.
lg123xyz 1 year ago 11
@lg123xyz be patient. everybody gets a shot
h0wud0in2 4 months ago
I liked the trying to place a carpet in a room analogy
Zootallure 1 year ago
@Zootallure i did not hear that. where?
TheSonjaxfactor 1 year ago
@TheSonjaxfactor it occurs at approximately 7:53 and the analogy is made by Peter Sarnack.
Zootallure 1 year ago
It's fabulous to see how patiently, precisely and cautiosly this mathematicians are answering the questions. There's no gibberish, just inspiring explanations and just the right amount of personal memories. Wonderful!
Hartmutundich 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
pepicanable 1 year ago
This video makes me realise how much I have to learn... problem is you'd have to study for about 30 years just to understand 1 part of this proof, let alone how the parts all fit together!
mcshadypies 1 year ago 14
@mcshadypies The even more epic part is that he spent 7 years on trying to prove something that no other mathematicians could solve for a couple centuries. Not knowing if he will ever be able to, but he persevered and did it.
poopdude 1 year ago
@mcshadypies If you take some mathematical proof classes you might be able to pick apart the logic in the argument. Number theory is hard, and the addition of all these other topics doesn't make it any easier. Still, you have the ability to learn anything, all you need is the drive.
Keep learning, things will fall into place faster than you think.
aesrp 1 year ago 5
so... was the answer 7?
looloopklop 1 year ago