Brady, it's time for Dr. Wiles to finally appear on Numberphile!

@tahatariq2424

3 жыл бұрын

It’s my dream to meet Sir Andrew Wiles

@UsuallyOff

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah idk why he hasn’t been on numberphile yet ! 😩

@JobBouwman

2 жыл бұрын

He guards his time meticulously.

@topdog5252

Жыл бұрын

It is about time!

42:14: "When you are young, you really need somebody who likes and cares about mathematics to teach you in your first steps"

@nowtronix8996

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for pointing this out!

@samiazaman5240

4 жыл бұрын

@@nowtronix8996You are welcome!

@tombain

3 жыл бұрын

"and unfortunately, it's quite rare to (at least it was in America) have maths teachers (before you reach the age of 10 or 11) who are actually trained to teach mathematics or wanted to be teaching mathematics, I think what happens is that mathematics is a very useful subject and the people go off and do many other things with it there weren't enough left as teachers so the teachers tended to be recruited from other subjects or even from sports or something like that, and they didn't care about mathematics and that got passed on."

(9:45) Sir Andrew Wiles (36:40) Sir Andrew Wiles with Hannah Fry

@michaelnovak9412

5 жыл бұрын

thanx

“We learn how to adapt to that struggle”. Thank You, Professor.

Fantastic interview by Hannah Fry. Wiles, as usual, is wonderful to listen to. He's not necessarily a very charismatic speaker, but he's careful and quite humble and that comes across in a very positive and engaging way.

Just finished Simon sing's book, Fermat's last theorem This guy is awesome

@adrianwright8685

3 жыл бұрын

Singh !

@Ometecuhtli

2 жыл бұрын

sigh ....

Thank you very much for posting this. Truly enjoyed watching it!

Great talk and Q&A. I really enjoy listening to him talk about math.

I think this is absolutely unique the way Hannah explores the question of becoming stuck and possibly frustrated, and Andrew examines his own ultimately successful experience. Bravo tutti!

Andrew is the most honest person, academic, I have heard and a perfect gentleman. I agree with all the general questions and points he answered. This question of beauty; its when do a proof by yourself, even if its a standard proof and you cannot find it in a book, so you try it yourself and succeed. Another example is when you apply maths to an engineering problem - and it works "beautifully". Hence I know what people mean when they talk about "beauty" in mathematics.

I found the Q & A to truly enjoyable, love his approach to answering the questions, the framing made it so revelant to life in general. Thank you!

Absolutely well done and definitely keep it up!!! 👍👍👍👍👍

Mind Blowing, simply mind blowing

Not only was this interesting, but it made me feel slightly better about being constantly stuck while my colleagues appear to be flying past me.

This guy's awesome! (Just watched the Q&A though)

What a fantastic talk

9:47 for those that want to skip the intro and get straight into Andrew's lecture.

@parvdize3968

11 ай бұрын

Thank You！！！

When it comes to learning maths, Andrew Wiles is at the extreme end of a spectrum.

Wiles is so wonderful.

What a nice introduction by Mary Archer. I wish that her pace of delivery and diction was emulated by others.

1:02:36 Epic question and response about the square root of a positive number discussed with Professor Doctor Sir Wiles!

one of the most accessible and somehow romantic talk by and with Wiles thanks for this SM! what a beutiful black shirt of hers, by the way

It is inspiring what humans can achieve when they set their mind to it. The trick is, working on the right problems.

@tensevo

3 жыл бұрын

@rwalser I often think, we are better served by spending more time thinking more about where to direct our efforts, framing the problem is key. Once a problem is properly framed, it can be easier solved.

@sonicmaths8285

3 ай бұрын

@@tensevoWhich is something I believe Polya said in his book “How to solve it”, which is very recommendable for actually anyone

Wonderful talk, Andrew never ceases to amaze me, also awesome to see Dara in there lol

Did not understand anything after a^2 + b^2 = c^2 , BUT was very interesting. :D

You could place a video monitor on the front side for the presenter. Thanks.

Pay them more!!

Great sir

This helped me fall asleep, thanks

“It’s elementary my dear Watson.”

Auto-subtitles here are hilarious: Fermat's Last Theorem became her massage theorem.

It is still the case that primary school teachers are not specialists in Maths. Many misconceptions at a crucial time. Our language system can also be a barrier in the early years due to the complexity of counting to 100 in English versus other language systems. It would only take an initiative of maths specialists who work with primary schools for solid CPD and resource generation. Those teachers who are not confident teaching Maths often get defensive and make the learning experience toxic. The Scottish Curriculum for Excellence tried to create some fluidity across levels.

@patrickcorliss8878

3 ай бұрын

I found maths teachers (lecturers) at Uni were dedicated, imaginative and inspiring compared to my dull as dishwater school teachers. Sad really.

@48.57 who was the person??

Unexpected Dara O'Briain!

@error_-qh7dd

4 жыл бұрын

Ye Dara did maths or something before becoming a comic, so neat to see him make a little cameo

@PopeLando

3 жыл бұрын

If you hadn't written that comment I probably wouldn't have stuck it to the end of the questions, thank you!

@PopeLando

3 жыл бұрын

Calling him Fer-MATT I kind of expect from Mary Archer, but from the sainted Dr Hannah? #Disappointed

I have my own proof of Ferma's last theorem, BUT KZread is not allowing to type more than 500 characters.. sorry..

@user-me5vv9wh3u

3 жыл бұрын

Fermat's theorem I proved on 09/14/2016 the ONLY POSSIBLE proof of the Great Fermat's Theorem (Fermata!). I can pronounce the formula for the proof of Fermath's great theorem: 1 - Fermath's great theorem NEVER! and nobody! NOT! HAS BEEN PROVEN !!! 2 - proven! THE ONLY POSSIBLE proof of Fermat's theorem 3 - Fermath's great theorem is proved universally-proven for all numbers 4 - Fermath's great theorem is proven in the requirements of himself! Fermata 1637 y. 5 - Fermath's great theorem proved in 2 pages of a notebook 6 - Fermath's great theorem is proved in the apparatus of Diophantus arithmetic 7 - the proof of the great Fermath theorem, as well as the formulation, is easy for a student of the 5th grade of the school to understand !!! 8 - Me! opened the GREAT! A GREAT Mystery! Fermath's theorem! (not "simple" - "mechanical" proof) !!!!- NO ONE! and NEVER! (except ME! .. of course!) and FOR NOTHING! NOT! will find a valid proof of the FGT! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@cashcherry8754

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-me5vv9wh3u post it then

@user-me5vv9wh3u

2 жыл бұрын

​@@cashcherry8754 - I HAVE! proved! on 09/14/2016 the ONLY POSSIBLE proof of the Great Fermat's Theorem (Fermata!). I can pronounce the formula for the proof of Fermath's great theorem: 1 - Fermath's great theorem NEVER! and nobody! NOT! HAS BEEN PROVEN !!! 2 - proven! THE ONLY POSSIBLE proof of Fermat's theorem 3 - Fermath's great theorem is proved universally-proven for all numbers 4 - Fermath's great theorem is proven in the requirements of himself! Fermata 1637 y. 5 - Fermath's great theorem proved in 2 pages of a notebook 6 - Fermath's great theorem is proved in the apparatus of Diophantus arithmetic 7 - the proof of the great Fermath theorem, as well as the formulation, is easy for a student of the 5th grade of the school to understand !!! 8 - Me! opened the GREAT! A GREAT Mystery! Fermath's theorem! (not "simple" - "mechanical" proof) !!!!- NO ONE! and NEVER! (except ME! .. of course!) and FOR NOTHING! NOT! will find a valid proof of the FGT!

@keinKlarname

Жыл бұрын

@Emmet Break it into small portions. KZread seems to be the right place to publish this proof.

@emmetray9703

Жыл бұрын

@@keinKlarname No :D

22:00 think in terms of modulo p arithmetic

Exсept from mathematician he is poet. Because beyond from the mathematics the numbers hide harmony and musicality...

Pretty good mathematics.

1:00:55 Piece-wise 2-period catenary

It's funny to see self proclaimed mathematicians in the comments disagree with the works of Dr. Andrew Wiles. 😂

"I have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this, which, however, the margin is not large enough to contain." I suppose Fermat had not.

@sonicmaths8285

3 ай бұрын

The probability is higher that his proof was just false. I don’t think he lied particularly, but rather hasn’t recognized a mistake he must have made along the path.

the guy is onto the Reimann Hypothesis, clearly!

@timbeaton5045

3 жыл бұрын

He did say that the RH is not really his area of specialty, but given his secrecy during his work on Fermat, that's possible. I get the idea that Birch Swinnerton-Dyer is probably more "up his street" as it seems to my layperson's ear that it has more of a crossover with his previous work than the RH. I always find the idea that Poincaré was probably the last mathematician who could grasp the whole of mathematics as it was in his time, rather interesting. That the subject, partially due to Poincaré's work, exploded in so many different ways since his time, that now no mathematician could possibly hope to have that broad an understanding, is interesting. But then like many areas of science, mathematic, technology, this seems to have become the era of the specialist, rather than the generalist.

@benfyrth1804

2 жыл бұрын

No chance, the RH is orders of magnitudes more complex over FLT

I heard Fermat's last vermon was found in a handwritten math diary. That it isn't Wile's proof!

Checked it, all correct! 😂😂😂😂😂

Finding the Observable Correspondence=> categorization, of a Sublimation-Tunnelling axis of trivial zeros (Fluxion-Integral Temporal Origin) with a string of transverse 2-ness interference=> logarithmic positioning, 1-0-infinity reciprocation-recirculation "resonance", or Entanglement, that is the Observable Singularity-Duality vanishing-into-no-thing Perspective Principle in e-Pi-i instantaneous infinitesimal coordination-identification. "You just look at it.." in the picture-plane = Looking Glass Universe. Beauty, "in the eye of the Beholder, because Actuality is self-defining AM-FM Logarithmic Time.., is the texture of precision Correspondence, accurately in Principle(?) You have to Be there, in Flash recognition of QM-TIME Completeness] The binocular Optics of parallel lines of sight coexistence using your own eyes and pupil-apatures, "set the scene" of stacked orthogonality like the scattered pages of picture books in mindfulness.., look, listen, hear and see by sifting through the alignments, allowing annealing of the misaligned stresses and strains of harmonic-anharmonic inclusion-exclusion timing-phase resonance positioning. "Stuck on a problem" aptly describes the situation of managing and maintaining metastability, Metaphysics and Philosophy, by Disproof Methodology. (Fun to imagine)

@jessewolf7649

Жыл бұрын

WTF?

How do we know that Fermat's Last Theorem has been proved? who says it has and what confidence can we have in their pronouncement?

8 - Me! opened the GREAT! A GREAT Mystery! Fermath's theorem! (not "simple" - "mechanical" proof)

He kinda looks like dr Kleiner from half life.

Bus, bath and bed!!! I’ll use it

sir i don't know whether walis sir will know or not philosophically talking within infinity number of integers there is a possibility that format's theorem is right,sir please see the my thology of india or greek and egypt then clearly study the movement of gods and angels and also the movement of aarrows sir you know it well that any incident or movement must be attached to mathematics and numbers and their value is different at different places and there is infinity planes in universe as an example 9.8m/sec^2 is not same in moon so there must be some solution in higher stage that is the uncertainty (word only) not principle that word is the blunt truth sir by several formules iterations,trial and error i have got the 6 numbers 3 each satisfying the theorem Iam now in the process of deriving the numbers by formula I have, Thank you very much it took me 10 years am drastically inclined to philosophy

sorry #Oxford_Mathematics but name of #Proof is #Science_Ambiguity . Luck at #Fermat_Murgu_Quadruplets to understood it. Also #Murgu_Quadruplets for power n=2 which mimic also a modularity and #Pythagorean_Triples are ... a proof #Modular fall , about eliptic ??? #Fermat_Murgu_Quadruplets can help you to test function used for.

I love watching stuff like this in2020. I am shocked 😲. WhenI took number theory at U of A. from Dr. Mordell we were talking about the same fine points, of elliptic curves!! Like modern physics its only about 'fine tuning ' the results we know and theory and fitting life into the holes. I have been worried about "Wiles proof" some 200+ pages of very abstract concepts, ever since 1994 when I got the papers. I don't always believe 'proofs by a logic of contradictions ' he and others used for Fermats Last Theorem. It covers up mistakes. The 2 competing theorems... that led to contradictions hence f.l.t. is or must be true, could in quantum logics be both true and false at the same time ( like a wave particle) because they can't compute or decide about irrational computations versus transcendental algorithms. Meaning that f.l.t is assumed or implied in the 'contradictions " in Wiles proof. Its equivalent and not proved. We need a simple direct proof of f.l.t then I would accept it.

@georgeice4389

3 жыл бұрын

THE EPIC QUEST FOR THE PROOF OF FERMAT LAST THEOREM IS NONSENS IF YOU SEE THE VIDEO titled FERMAT-GEORGE ICE THEOREM PROOF AND THE PINNED COMMENT TO IT. WHICH IS PUSH AWAY FROM THE VIEW OF THE AUDIENCE SINCE EMBARESSED ANDREW WILES &CO BEING DISCOVERED BY GEORGE ICE,AN AMERICAN WITH NO UNIVERSITY STUDIES!! AND IT TAKES ONLY TWO TEXTBOOK PAGES!! ANDREW WILES REALIZED THAT HE GOT TO GO BACK TO HIGH SCHOOL TO STUDY THE MATHEMATICS OF FERMAT'S PROOF..THE ONLY THING HE DONE IS TO SHOW THAT USING MODERN MATHEMATICAL TOOLS OVER 150 PAGES CAN BE PROVED FLT TOO!! IS IT NOT HILARIOUS AND MAKES ANDREW WILES RIDICULOUS?? CHECK IT OUT AND EXPOSE YOUR CREDENTIALS IF YOU WANT ME TO REPLY TO YOUR COMMENT UNLESS YOU ARE LEFT SPEECHLESS.HAVE A CHEER FOR ME IF YOU REALLY APRECIATE THE GENIUS OF THIS AMERICAN WHICH GIVES A LESSON TO A GREAT BRITISH PROFESSIONAL MATHEMATICIEN,,,,,ANDREW WILES SAID ON NOVA THAT FERMAT FOOLHIMSELF INTOOTHINKING HE HAD A PROOF.WHAT A AROGANT AND STUPID STATEMENT FROM HIS PART. KZread GEORGE ICE AND SEE WHY.EULER FAIL TO PROOF PELLS EQUATION AND SO FROM THAT TIME IT WAS ACCEPTED THAT FERMAT WAS WRONG BY A HERD OF MATEMATICIAN.AND IN 2004 GEORGE ICE DISCOVERED HOW FERMAT PROVED IT. EULER FAIL TO FIND THE ELEMENTARY PROOF OF FLT BY FERMAT SO THE HERD OF MATHEMATICIEN AND ANDREW WILES ACCEPTED THAT FERMAT WAS WRONG SOMEHOW.AND IN 2018 GEORGE ICE DISCOVERED FERMAT PROOF OF FLT SO THE STORY REPATES.NO PUBLICITY AT ALL ABOUT THIS. THE HERD WAS LEAD INTO A DEAD END CONCLUSION BY A LEADER.WHAT A PITY.

@robertflynn6686

3 жыл бұрын

@@georgeice4389 ok....thanks for you friendly comments. 2 pages would work for me. 😇 I am going to check it out soon. Robert Check out : bams4.pdf Dr mordell. Louis RAMANJUAN

@robertflynn6686

3 жыл бұрын

@@georgeice4389 I took a look at your web proof of flt. I do believe its not adequate if n>4 These problems of polynomials of rational forms can't work for n>4 because you can't use only real numbers. Kummer tried this and developed the first theory of 'cyclomic integers' using the p roots of unity etc. The case if n=3 you did can't be generalized. See Gauss develop the complex field approach you posit. For n=3. The way to actually reduce the proof of flt is using the continued fractions ideas of Weierstrauss. I sent you a link. One must define all numbers in the line or complex number fields as Weierstrauss did for transcendental first; then fill in the gaps with algebraic irrational. Then, rationals and finally , integers. The features of continued fractions split these out. And then apply the idea to flt .

@georgeice4389

8 ай бұрын

(x+P) must divide (x^3+3Qx^2+3*x*Q) Pmust be -rootx.and be an integer must divivide3*Qbut 38Q andPare relative prime.the only integer which divides 3*Q is number 1so the only root value must be -1 if want p to be integer.

@georgeice4389

8 ай бұрын

fermat proof use n=4 and the proof is good for n=prme

20:28 "That's rather natural by now" - was that a joke?

@gonzalezm244

4 жыл бұрын

Henry Ginn that’s a rational assumption

@thinklex

3 жыл бұрын

Natural among researchers, I believe he means

@MrAlRats

3 жыл бұрын

No. It's pretty standard to look for solutions to algebraic equations in the Real and Complex numbers. We learn real number solutions to quadratic equations in high school, for example.

@henryginn7490

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrAlRats Looking back it seems I really was quite clueless about maths 2 years ago

Exactly the kind of person who should be appreciated. The +/- symbols are "arbitrarily" associated with the definitions of dimensional connection, so the chosen function and how it relates to a square root might determine the associated plus or minus, because it's all about abstract identities of values?, not absolutes. Interesting. Thanks. ***** An up to date Observation would correlate +/- with the imagined relative-timing direction of i-reflection along the collapsed projection-drawing of the z axis line-of-sight String Theoretical Vibration analysis of transverse trancendental e-Pi 2-ness 90⁰ orthogonal-normal rotation into the picture-plane.., all-ways all-at-once relative to the Absolute Zero-infinity floating Singularity-point reference-framing Origin. Ie it's the QM-TIME Completeness picture of Polar-Cartesian self-defining infinitesimal coordination-identification positioning system.

The Face associated with the BBC

Stimulating interview. I just thought it was a bit stupid of Ms Fry to pronounce Fermat wrongly even after hearing Wiles pronounce it correctly several times.

Hannah: "Why are people such shit at maths?" Andrew: "Well, ...when I was in America...." Ouuuuoooffff course. I mean, he's not wrong. I had a football coach literally screaming at us everyday in 9th grade. The guy knew nothing of algebra. In college, I was decent at calculus, but failed all of the tests because I didn't know the algebra to get the equation in the right format to begin to work on the problem.

@chessandmathguy

4 жыл бұрын

He did mention that they need to pay math teachers more. I agree!

@Ken.-

4 жыл бұрын

They need to fix the whole system. If you make a C+, you move on regardless if you understand the foundational material necessary to effectively move on. Too much concern over grades and not much for learning.

@theflaggeddragon9472

2 жыл бұрын

@@Ken.- Yep, abolish grades, they're not conducive to learning, and in fact hinder it in my experience.

@jacobschiller4486

2 жыл бұрын

I, an American, aced my calculus class when I was in 10th grade. If you want to generalize an entire country (especially your own), get to know it well first.

17^2+8^2 = 17^2 is a solution

@tharanathakula3588

2 жыл бұрын

the equation has an error it is actually 15^2+ 8^2= 17^2 sorry for the typo

@theflaggeddragon9472

2 жыл бұрын

@@tharanathakula3588 All Pythagorean triples are of the form (r^2-s^2, 2rs, r^2+s^2) for integers r,s. This is a great exercise IMO

@jacobschiller4486

2 жыл бұрын

Fermat's Last Theorem states that the exponent must be greater than 2.

Fermat's last theorem is a fact Fermat's did not claim that there are no whole solutions to equation. Fermat's claim that are no solutions to the equation in whole numbers.

LOL

Why does it appear to be so difficult for recorded talks to KEEP SHOWING THE SLIDES, at least most of the time. This permanent back and forth to the speaker's face is incredibly distracting and it's so hard to follow the content of the talk if you can't see what they're talking about for more than a few seconds at a time.

i am Indian ,,but your lecture is great sir,,,,,

i am Indian ,,but your lecture is great sir,,,,,a

My college female professor told me that the bombing of Hiroshima had no effect on the environment

@error_-qh7dd

4 жыл бұрын

*insert facepalm*

@ViceroyoftheDiptera

3 жыл бұрын

What does her being female have anything to do with your comment?

@waynewalls5033

3 жыл бұрын

🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤪🤪🤣🤪🤣🤪🤪...are you on day release?

14:12 Integers are rational numbers :/

@cletushumphrey9163

3 жыл бұрын

so?

@ViceroyoftheDiptera

3 жыл бұрын

... and? They're a subset of the rationals. Thus solving it for integers does not solve the problem for rationals. If you want to pick at a world famous mathematician's comments, make you sure you get it right first.

@cletushumphrey9163

3 жыл бұрын

@@ViceroyoftheDiptera you're technically right but you say it like that the integers are a subset of the rationals implies solving it for the former does not solve it for the latter, which is not true since a subset of a set can be the set itself. So if you said proper subset it would be more accurate I think

@ViceroyoftheDiptera

3 жыл бұрын

@@cletushumphrey9163 That's very pernickety but yes, proper subset.

@guersomfalcon7544

3 жыл бұрын

@@ViceroyoftheDiptera I interpret "solving it in rational numbers has not been done" as "there has not been found a value for the variables that is a rational number". Perhaps my interpretation is not reasonable; i am not sure since english is not my main language.

Hannah makes my thingy tingle every time

Last 2000 years human being dealt with 2 dimensions mathematics and solving n>3 more precisely with multiple dimensions description and where advance quantum plays.one bit part is there is no zero exists and trick is real zero is a unknown edge of an infinity on a X called unknown dimension.

@user-me5vv9wh3u

3 жыл бұрын

Fermat's theorem I proved on 09/14/2016 the ONLY POSSIBLE proof of the Great Fermat's Theorem (Fermata!). I can pronounce the formula for the proof of Fermath's great theorem: 1 - Fermath's great theorem NEVER! and nobody! NOT! HAS BEEN PROVEN !!! 2 - proven! THE ONLY POSSIBLE proof of Fermat's theorem 3 - Fermath's great theorem is proved universally-proven for all numbers 4 - Fermath's great theorem is proven in the requirements of himself! Fermata 1637 y. 5 - Fermath's great theorem proved in 2 pages of a notebook 6 - Fermath's great theorem is proved in the apparatus of Diophantus arithmetic 7 - the proof of the great Fermath theorem, as well as the formulation, is easy for a student of the 5th grade of the school to understand !!! 8 - Me! opened the GREAT! A GREAT Mystery! Fermath's theorem! (not "simple" - "mechanical" proof) !!!!- NO ONE! and NEVER! (except ME! .. of course!) and FOR NOTHING! NOT! will find a valid proof of the FGT! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All audience is baldness

Nice hairstyle.

@keinKlarname

Жыл бұрын

Who?

10 minutes before Wiles is speaking. Very annoying.

Me opened : - EXIST THE ONLY ONE!!!-POSSIBLE proof of Fermat's Great Theorem Me! opened : - the GREAT! Mystery! of the Fermat's Last theorem! (- !!! not "simple" - "mechanical" proof) Me! opened : - Pierre de Fermat - was proved! the Fermat's Last theorem! Me! opened : - my formula of my Proof is completely and absolutely identical with the words of Pierre de Fermat ! Me! opened : - the proof of the theorem - The REAL! Proof! - worth a BILLION! , - but do not! a one little-smalest-million !!!!- NO ONE! and NEVER! (except ME! ...AND!... Pierre de Fermat! - of course!) and FOR NOTHING! NOT! will find a valid proof!

Sadly, the Fermat's Last Theorem is not over yet. 3^3+4^3+5^3=6^3 How would you explain this? HA!!

@danielangulo2119

3 жыл бұрын

dude, this isnt even a^n + b^n = c^n, but a^n + b^n + c^n = d^n. wtf

And one more, The girl at 36:57, She's HOT .. her deep voice..

@ViceroyoftheDiptera

3 жыл бұрын

You mean the woman whose name is in the title of this video?

@emmetray9703

3 жыл бұрын

@@ViceroyoftheDiptera Yes

@waynedarronwalls6468

3 жыл бұрын

"Girl"? She is hardly a "girl", dude...and this is a maths lecture, not a beauty contest.

@emmetray9703

3 жыл бұрын

@@waynedarronwalls6468 for me she's HOT girl..

The most boring and pompous introduction ever - I couldn't get through it.

Fermat's theorem I proved on 09/14/2016 the ONLY POSSIBLE proof of the Great Fermat's Theorem (Fermata!). I can pronounce the formula for the proof of Fermath's great theorem: 1 - Fermath's great theorem NEVER! and nobody! NOT! HAS BEEN PROVEN !!! 2 - proven! THE ONLY POSSIBLE proof of Fermat's theorem 3 - Fermath's great theorem is proved universally-proven for all numbers 4 - Fermath's great theorem is proven in the requirements of himself! Fermata 1637 y. 5 - Fermath's great theorem proved in 2 pages of a notebook 6 - Fermath's great theorem is proved in the apparatus of Diophantus arithmetic 7 - the proof of the great Fermath theorem, as well as the formulation, is easy for a student of the 5th grade of the school to understand !!! 8 - Me! opened the GREAT! A GREAT Mystery! Fermath's theorem! (not "simple" - "mechanical" proof) !!!!- NO ONE! and NEVER! (except ME! .. of course!) and FOR NOTHING! NOT! will find a valid proof of the FGT!

I am surprise no one asked the question '...but Godel claims it cannot be proved within the proposition', so how did you do it? Or what role Godel played in your proof? I think, y^2 is a two dimensional object, while x^3 is a three dimensional object. When you like to equate them or compare them, it is like comparing goats and camel, how many goats make a camel. Or for a similar practical problem, take the example in cricket, where you are to decide the performance of a batsman and a bowler. We humans are required to invent the convention that scoring a 100 with the bat equals taking 5 wickets with the ball. So who is the greatest cricketer of all time, Tendulkar or Muttiah Muralitharan, only human intervention can solve the problem, there are no natural solutions.

@lsbrother

4 жыл бұрын

Squares and cubes, etc, of numbers are just single numbers belonging to the same set - they are not in any sense in a different dimension.

@ViceroyoftheDiptera

3 жыл бұрын

You very much misunderstand Gödel's theorem if you think that's a worthy question to ask.

@naimulhaq9626

3 жыл бұрын

@@ViceroyoftheDiptera Even Penrose thinks Godel is wrong.

@ViceroyoftheDiptera

3 жыл бұрын

@@naimulhaq9626 er... no. Moreover, Penrose is not a mathematician, so even if he did think that, it wouldn't hold much water.

@naimulhaq9626

3 жыл бұрын

@@ViceroyoftheDiptera I am sorry to say, now you are wrong. Penrose IS a mathematician (look it up). Mathematical logic is a finite axiom system (therefore provable), but Godel's proof is based on logic of infinite axioms.

Fermath's great theorem NEVER! and nobody! NOT! HAS BEEN PROVEN !!! 2 - proven! THE ONLY POSSIBLE proof of Fermat's theorem 3 - Fermath's great theorem is proved universally-proven for all numbers 4 - Fermath's great theorem is proven in the requirements of himself! Fermata 1637 y.

@user-me5vv9wh3u

2 жыл бұрын

5 - Fermath's great theorem proved in 2 pages of a notebook 6 - Fermath's great theorem is proved in the apparatus of Diophantus arithmetic 7 - the proof of the great Fermath theorem, as well as the formulation, is easy for a student of the 5th grade of the school to understand !!!

@user-me5vv9wh3u

2 жыл бұрын

8 - Me! opened the GREAT! A GREAT Mystery! Fermath's theorem! (not "simple" - "mechanical" proof)

He looks like he just got out of mummification. Does that man look like someone in their 60s to you?!

@JobBouwman

2 жыл бұрын

Not everybody is so obsessed with their looks as you are.

I've never seen anyone explain maths with such stagnancy and boredom. He looks like he needs a cold shower.

@stevedl3150

5 жыл бұрын

He looks rather like Stephen Hawking - as was - to me. But is probably a more able mathematician than Hawking ( RIP ) was.

@Kalumbatsch

3 жыл бұрын

LOL fuck off

@p3kris

3 жыл бұрын

You are confusing introvercy and humility (of a brilliant man) with those things

@cashcherry8754

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevedl3150 perhaps because Hawking was a PHYSICIST

@JobBouwman

2 жыл бұрын

Please go back to TikTok, Mr ADHD.

What is her purpose? Looking good?