Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <6RWg9.101$Fc5.email@example.com> <3D85ED08.24C32B25@nospam.com>
Subject: Re: Alan Blumlein site
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 16:40:46 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 16:41:05 BST
"Fred Bloggs" wrote in message
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > For example, arguable the dude that solved Fermats last theorem is a
> > 1000's of people for over 300 years all tried, and failed. This guy
> > showed a *rare* and great ability that *no* one else, in the *same*
> > circumstances, could achieve.
> Maybe you should read up on that because your perspective could not be
> more wrong.
I am aware of the background on this. Yes I have read up on it.
>It was a group effort and the original proof was in error
> and later corrected.
Not according to the man himself.
AW: Yes. Nobody had any idea how to approach Taniyama-Shimura but at
least it was mainstream mathematics. I could try and prove results,
which, even if they didn't get the whole thing, would be worthwhile
mathematics. So the romance of Fermat, which had held me all my life,
was now combined with a problem that was professionally acceptable.
NOVA: At this point you decided to work in complete isolation. You told
nobody that you were embarking on a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Why
This proof is an example of mathematical structure
> evolving to the point where the original problem is made equivalent to
> second problem which can be solved, and in this case it concerned
> semistable elliptic curves with rational coefficients, modular
> functions, and deriving a contradiction from an assumed solution to
> Fermat's equation for n>2. There was no direct number theoretic proof
> you would expect using the known mathematics from Fermat's era- which
> you seem to imply. If anything this particular triumph is a humbling
> example of the limitations of exceptionally true genius compared to
> advantages of time, the methodical construction of complex theory, and
> the cooperation of talented contributors. As you might expect, this
> of thing is more the rule these days due to the fact that discoveries
> the edge are ever more a strong function of the pertinent cumulative
> knowledge. The days of the geniuses contributing a major discontinuous
> leap in the progression of mankind's understanding of whatever are for
> practical purposes over.
I am fully aware of all of this, and none of this is really relevant.
The reality is no one could it but Andrew Wiles. Sure, he used results
from elsewhere, we all do that, but he was exceptional because he put it
all together, no one else could. It was so difficult, everyone else had
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.