When I set up the LISTSERV discussion for Fermat's Last Theorem, I imagined a lively discussion of the topic. More than 150 individuals have subscribed, so there is high level of interest in the topic. Except for administrivia, there has been absolutely NO discussion. Is anybody willing to advance a theory that explains the phenomena? David L. Rodgers From Ross Moore Yes, but the margin isn't big enough to hold the proof. ----------- I've been puzzled by that also, but speaking for myself, I am interested in understanding the proof, but feel that I don't know enough to contribute, and so have followed the advice that if you have nothing to say, say nothing. I've been doing a lot of reading on elliptic curves lately, hoping to at least understand the concepts involved. In other words, I signed up hoping that there would be dicussions by experts that would shed some light on the proof. John Riegsecker ------------ John Riegsecker writes: > I've been puzzled by that also, but speaking for myself, I am > interested in understanding the proof [...] In other words, I > signed up hoping that there would be dicussions by experts that > would shed some light on the proof. Oh, no! 150 people who are interested in listening to the experts have signed up, and there's not an expert amongst us!!! - Jonathan Dursi ----------- It was recently asked why there has not been a more lively discussion of Fermat's Last THeorem. I've noticed this as well; but I'm not that surprised by it. At this stage of the game (<2 months since Wiles' announcement) many mathematicians are still "stunned" and I'm sure that very few have had any chance to really investigate the proof in detail. It's my understanding that next Sunday at the Joint Meetings in Vancouver some "additions to the program"will be discussing FLT. I know that Barry Mazur had already been scheduled. Is Wiles the "addition"? Regardless, I feel that after the Vancouver Meetings this bulletin board could be somewhat more active. Herb Kasube Department of Mathematics Bradley University Peoria, IL 61625 hkasube@bucc1.bradley.edu ---------------- As, I bet, did most others, I subscribed to the Fermat list in case there was fast breaking news; I didn't want to be the last to know. But I had no particular wish to waffle on. Sure, I could be telling the world that a colleague at Sydney University attempted to get their university newspaper to mention that the FLT had fallen, but was rebuffed on the grounds that he was unable to mention an immediate Australian connection. In the event I was able to correct him by pointing out that Andrew Wiles' mathematical father --- or whatever is the PC description nowadays, John Coates, was born at Possum's Branch, near Taree in New South Wales, and that moreover my most recent successful PhD student, Deryn Griffiths --- apropos PC, she is a person, not a male --- is a cousin of Andrew's. But that would be parochial waste of bandwidth. Apart from this kind of nonsense the best one can hope for is messages unsubscribing accidentally sent to the list or blunders where messages intended for an individual foolishly are transmitted to the list. Alf van der Poorten ceNTRe for Number Theory Research Macquarie University NSW 2109 AUSTRALIA alf@mpce.mq.edu.au ---------------- My theory is that most of us have a hard enough time figuring it all out without saying anything. I had enough trouble with 'Modular Representations of bar Q/Q' to be pretty sure that Wiles stuff will really snow me, and anyway I havn't seen it. It might be worth asking if there is any hope at all of approching Taniyama-Weil ==> ABC. This would have to be done in a quite different way than Taniyama-Weil ==> Fermat, but does the idea even make sense? Another question is what characterizes modular curves in general. Gene Smith ------------------- A question people keep asking me is: what is the status of Wiles proof? Has the proof been completely checked by experts? Can anyone supply and up-to-date answer to this. Of course this also raises the question: have manuscripts been made available --to all? to a select few? Edwin Clark