Talk:Andrew Wiles/Archive 1

Archive 1

How Wiles got paid while working on Taniyama-Shimura

I've always wondered what Wiles was doing to earn an income while working on his proof. I can't seem to find any mention of it, but maybe I'm not looking in the right places.

Tenure at Princeton University. So he did it the hard way ... Charles Matthews 17:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

According to Fermat's Enigma, Wiles had a fairly large paper (or two) ready for publishing when he began on the Fermat work. To remain "active" in the mathematical world, he split up the paper into several smaller papers and published them separately over the years of his Fermat work. —dcclark (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is the Wiles-Taylor paper also and there is public PDF of it avaible somewhere.

Rumor, Hoax

This rumour is not I think worth a place on the page itself: Charles Matthews 15:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Important! There is a news reported on Manila Times on May 5th 2005. According to this report, Professor Wiles' proof is incorrect. For those of you interested in this topic, please help us to verify the source of this important information.

[1]

It's not a rumour, it seems to really have happened. Wiles' sarcastic reply being interpreted literally, that is. Quite funny stuff. Fredrik | talk 16:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It is a HOAX! Read http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=73 . They forgot to do their homework. Timothy Clemans 07:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up

The discussion of the Frey curve was a mess, and I cleaned that up, but this article still needs more work. Gene Ward Smith 06:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I did a bunch more rewriting, and removed the following section, which was so confused I decided we were better off without it:

The problem was how do you count and it was the big question on the subject. Wiles introduced the correct counting technique. Wiles converted elliptic curves by their j-invariant to their corresponding Galois representation to study elliptic curves. He did studies on representations according to partations and said in his paper on this, "suppose for the moment that $p_{3}$ is irreducible". He tells us why 3 is important.

He found a surprising link between Galois representations and modular forms and the interpretation of special values of L-functions. The proof is based on that link and is used to prove a hypothesis that $p_{3}$ is semistable at 3 by linking some of commutative algebra with a well-know type for a class number problem.

Gene Ward Smith 07:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have has a hard time adding to this stuff but I am still trying. I am looking at maybe making an article just on the Fermat's Last Theorem journal offered by JHUP that way it can be more techincal(sp). Timothy Clemans 19:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you click on the "bluff your way" link in the article, you get a nice collection of papers including Wiles and Taylor. The "short" scans are much clearer (as well as being shorter.) There are also a number of other relevant articles, plus survey articles at various levels. The comments Wiles makes in his introduction could be partcularly useful. Gene Ward Smith 22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know that. The most helpful references are "John Coates (July 1996). "Wiles Receives NAS Award in Mathematics". Notices of the AMS 43 (7): 760-763. " and Andrew's first Fermat paper. The proof is in chapter five.

Classical modular curve

I created classical modular curve a few days ago, and people wanting to get a somewhat more down-to-earth concept of what it means for a curve to be modular might find it useful. Gene Ward Smith 22:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Taniyama-Shimura theorem

I worked on this page; hopefully it now makes more sense. Gene Ward Smith 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Positive integers

It's all equivalent, but I think sticking to tradition and making the integers all positive is preferable to saying "non-zero". Gene Ward Smith 04:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Epsilon theorem

I've edited this now also. Gene Ward Smith 08:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Students

Students

Karl Rubin, Harvard University, 1981 Ehud de Shalit, Princeton University, 1984 Richard Taylor, Princeton University, 1988 Fred Diamond, Princeton University, 1988 Ravi Ramakrishna, Princeton University, 1992 Luis Navas, Princeton University, 1993 Brian Conrad, Princeton University, 1996 Christopher Skinner, Princeton University, 1997 Vinayak Vatsal, Princeton University, 1997 Arash Rastegar, Princeton University, 1998 Manjul Bhargava, Princeton University, 2001 Kartik Prasanna, Princeton University, 2003 James Parson, Princeton University, 2003 Ritabrata Munshi, Princeton University, 2006

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timothy Clemans (talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

References?

It seems to me that the article has too few direct citations of sources and references for various biographical facts (e.g. in the Fermat's last Theorem section). I hope that people who worked on this article can provide such citations, as per WP:SOURCES and WP:BLP. Nsk92 10:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Wiles, nationality?

Why is Andrew Wiles listed as being an American? He is from Britain, and his nationality is British, so where did this information come from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.231.110.50 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

He is listed as dual nationality; is there a reference for that? Unusual Cheese 17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this "American" listing, as half an hour on Google could not verify it. If someone can confirm his possession of dual-citizenship then by all means restore it. Manning (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He is certainly a British citizen, other wise he could not use the title Sir (and Whos Who uses the title). Also the 2007 edition of Whos Who lists him as a Foreign member of the US National Academy of Sciences. From which we deduce that as of 2007 he is not a US citizen. You can speculate if he holds a dual nationality, but if he does it is not US unless it is very recent Billlion (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed ?

Having read the article, I still don't know when Mr Wiles proved the Theorem (Fermat-Wiles Theorem ?) or why this theorem is so important. What I mean is that there no explicit mention of the date of the publication of his theorem with reference linking to the paper.

I understand that this is not an article about the theorem but about the man. Nevertheless, I think this kind of information is important.

sseb22 (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The papers are listed under refernces but they are not cited in the article, so it is not clear what is in the Wiles and Wiles Taylor papers. This should be fixed, I think by using footnote style references. Billlion (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Work after Fermat's last theorem

There's no description of the work of Andrew Wiles after the proof of Fermat's last theorem. I don't know if there are publications after that or not, but surely it would be a nice addition to the article. Iipii (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

According to MathSciNet the last new maths he published was Skinner, C. M. Wiles, Andrew J. Nearly ordinary deformations of irreducible residual representations. Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. (6) 10 (2001), no. 1, 185--215. I expect being department chair is keeping him busy too. Unless of course he is working on his next project in secret....Billlion (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Avoid complex aspects of the proof

Please note that I have created Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem so that the details of the proof can be treated independently of any BLP issues. If this makes the BLP fell stubby, well then, so be it.--06:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC) —-Lagelspeil (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we have another picture?

Any better pic available? Orz (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Yes! of course when I was searching for his proof I also found one Indian mathematician, Nilaish, who writes actually might be possible what Fermat might have thought.{http://www.geocities.com/snilaish/ Laurence Bender (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't waste your time reading Nilaish' work thinking it might be ground breaking. I don't mean to sound harsh, but he has a doctoral degree from an online university known for giving "dubious" degrees based on life experience (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Belford_University) and from the brief look I had at one of his "pre-print publications" he seems to have misunderstood some of the basics behind the problem and the proof. I wish him all the best and sincerely hope he goes on to do some great research, but until he publishes some relevant work in reputable peer reviewed journals that can be cited please don't add a link from the main article. -- Peter. Please view his recent work at: www.annalsofmathsci.webs.com it seems quite impressive. The name of the article is: The solution of Fermat's Equation.

The bridge between Fermat and Taniyama

In the side box with title "The bridge between Fermat and Taniyama", it is mentioned that p should an odd prime. But in Fermat's theorem, any integer would do, which is more general condition. Thus it is inaccurate to say that hypothetical elliptic curve, the Frey curve, must exist if there is a counterexample to Fermat's Last Theorem. For example, if we found a counter example to Fermat's theorem with p=10, it does not satisfy the required condition for Frey curve, since 10 in not an odd prime number. --Sandipani 01:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Every power of 10 is also a power of 5, an odd prime. So proving Fermat on every odd prime proves it on all integers except powers of 2. I suppose there's a separate froof for the latter, discovered before Wiles's work. 80.235.60.165 19:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Every power of 10 is also a power of 5". Well... 100 is a integer power of 10, but isn't a integer power of 5.

80.235... meant that "every tenth power is also a fifth power". E.g. 6^10=36^5. And yes, there is a separate proof for exponent 4 (for 2 it's obviously false). See comment below.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's enough to verify FLT for exponents n that are an odd prime, or 4. That's a fortiori (no sum of cubes is a cube, so no sum of 99th powers is even a cube, let alone a 99th power). The exponent 4 was done by Fermat and/or Euler. Charles Matthews 19:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OBE vs. KBE

Why does the first line include the word "Sir", but has only OBE after his name, while, later on in the article it states (with a source) that he is a KBE (which would entitle him to call himself "Sir"), not an OBE who is also a Knight Bachelor (which also would entitle him to call himself "Sir")? Shouldn't the correct opening be something like "Sir Andrew John Wiles KBE FRS"? Note KBE instead of OBE. 68.200.97.152 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It says that because somebody vandalized it yesterday. I've fixed it. Thanks. RobHar (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Andrew Wiles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131001192150/http://www.ox.ac.uk/roq/maths.html to http://www.ox.ac.uk/roq/maths.html

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Clare or Merton

It says he got his BA from Clare Cambridge but after that it says he studied his undergrad at Merton Oxford, then did graduate work at Clare Cambridge. I think the latter is correct.131.111.200.74 (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference

Can someone please add Simon Singh https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem_(book) as reference for the 'citation needed' in the Early life paragraph after "However, he soon realised that his knowledge was too limited, so he abandoned his childhood dream, until it was brought back to his attention at the age of 33 by Ken Ribet's 1986 proof of the epsilon conjecture, which Gerhard Frey had previously linked to Fermat's famous equation.[citation needed]"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.99.70.232 (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Reasons for removing the "Popular Culture" section

Just wondering.-217.248.32.145 (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

As this is a BLP, unsourced content should probably be deleted, rather than commented out of sight or kept with a tag. - DVdm (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Good point! Is that rule always applied or only for sensitive information? I wonder because the points listed would be harmless even if completely made up.-217.248.32.145 (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much always when challenged. See also wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok then.

For future reference: [2]. -217.248.32.145 (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I have replaced your inclusion for future reference with a "diff". Makes it easier. By the way, what happens with such content is ultimately decided by wp:CONSENSUS here on the talk page. - DVdm (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, should have done that myself.

Thanks for the patient explanation! Believe me, that is not the way IPs are usually treated.-217.248.32.145 (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, some IPs are treated differently, usually the ones who behave more like IMPs . - DVdm (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I wish that would be true. No, usually AGF is simply reversed for IP editors. I've had pages of discussions with named editors for minor common sense changes, only resolved by some form of dispute resolution. It's my impression that "losing" against an IP is seen by some editors as a blame on one's record that they could simply not cope with. Red mist seem to set in immediately and that prevents to differentiate common IP vandals from people like me.

Again, not at all the case here, and thanks again.-217.248.32.145 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Crazy FLT Conspiracy Theories...

I know that this is a really crazy idea. I know that this will probably be horrifically unpopular to anyone with common sense (save, perhaps, fans of 'Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy'....But, given the audacious complexity of the FLT proof, given that there were mistakes made when it was intially published, given the small number of people (as a proportion of the human race, if not just in absolute numbers) who understand the FLT, given the prize money that has been at least suggested as a reward for FLT - is it not possibly, slightly (but not too slight) likely as it is conceivably possible and probable that there may be a small flaw in the proof that an automated theorem prover might be capable of picking up on? That is, has anyone run FLT through a computer for objective assessment?

Again, I re-iterate the notion that *this is a crazy suggestion*, and I probably don't know what I'm talking about (though enough to know that I don't understand the proof to FLT and need some Hitchhikian computer to blurt out '42' to convince me....). Further, this notion would probably not just concern the proof to FLT, but many areas of mathematics which very few people understand, but where 'obvious' and 'intuitive' assertions are relied upon.

....Just offering my tuppence's worth.....

--Wackydough

Dear Wackydough, It's certainly true that there are papers in the Mathematical literature which have been published, and then mistakes have been found years later. These are typically proofs which are either unclearly expressed or obscure. However, every detail of this proof has been poured over, initially by a small group of experts, and more recently by the wider Number Theory community. Although technical, it is a clearly expressed and checkable proof, and it would really be quite remarkable if any mistake were still overlooked. At a minimum, several hundred people are now able to understand the proof, and it is in the public domain. Even though this is a small fraction of the population, it is still too large and diverse a group of people for a conpiracy theory to be plausible. In fact, there would be strong incentive (in terms of kudos) for anyone who could have found a mistake. Furthermore, many researchers have been producing further results in this area recently, and it would be astonishing if they had not noticed a flaw in their follow-up research (and their follow-up research involves a considerable amount of going back through the techniques, and does not merely quote Wiles' results). Several more accessible versions of the proof have been published, and there is already a new generation of Number Theory PhD students and postdocs who have read the proof. I don't know anyone in the academic community (which is exceptionally cautious about these things) who has any doubts about the proof. As far as "automated theorem provers" go (or perhaps you mean "automated proof checkers" in this case), I'm afraid that we are way, way, way, way, ...... (you can add another few ways, if you like) below the level where these would be of any help. A substantial proof in Mathematics is expressed in sentences of normal language, embellished with technical terms, equations and references to previous lemmas (smaller preparatory results). There is no "proof checker" which comes even remotely close to being able to read a research article in Mathematics and check it. Attempting to re-express the proof in terms of a sequence of computer-checkable elementary steps would make the proof mind-bogglingly long (too long for this strategy to be viable). Anyway, I hope the above is of some use to you! Best regards, Victor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.108.178 (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Lede

Would it taking a little extra space in the lede to cover the deeper mathematical significance of his work on FLT? Perhaps something like adding ... in the process founding the research tradition that accomplished the proof of the modularity theorem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.81.192.106 (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Regius

"In May 2018 he was appointed Regius Professor of Mathematics at Oxford, the first in the university's history.[7]"

The cited source says that it was the first Regius Professorship granted to Oxford since 1842, which I'm guessing contradicts the latter half of the sentence above. If someone wants to confirm that'd be great, otherwise I'll make the edit some other day.

Arunim.agarwal (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a contradiction. He is the first Regius Professor of mathematics at Oxford, and the appointment of a Regius Professor of mathematics is the first new Regius since 1842. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I came here to make the same point as Finlay McWalter. See the list here. JezGrove (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)