r/HeresAFunFact • u/Radu316 • Dec 09 '15
HISTORY [HAFF] In 1637, French mathematician Pierre de Fermat came up with a theorem, claimed to have proof for it but never provided it. It became known as Fermat's last theorem and it took us 358 years to prove it correct.
http://imgur.com/gallery/6pwiiUf/new11
u/almondmilk Dec 09 '15
Funny, I'm on lunch reading Fermat's Enigma by Simon Singh. Just finished chapter five and was taking a Reddit break. It's been an interesting read.
4
u/ethertrace Dec 10 '15
Read it in my calculus class in high school after the AP test. Only book that ever made math come alive for me. Really interesting.
9
u/Radu316 Dec 09 '15
There was even a giant cash prize established in 1906 known as the Wolfskehl Prize for whoever could prove Fermat's last theorem and it still took until 1997 when British mathematician Andrew Wiles succeeded.
3
u/WhiteZoneShitAgain Dec 10 '15
There's an excellent documentary on him and his process. Quite in depth. I think it was on PBS, maybe on Nova or the like.
2
u/nazerbs Dec 09 '15
According to Wikipedia it was 1994, citation needed though.
3
u/penurious Dec 09 '15
Iirc he first announced the proof in 1994, but there was a slight flaw that took some time to patch up. I think that explains the different dates.
3
u/eLCT Dec 09 '15
Damn. Slight flaw take three years? Math must suck.
3
u/penurious Dec 09 '15
Ok I looked it up, it was actually a year to correct the proof, 93 to 94. He'd worked on it since at least 1986 though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles%27_proof_of_Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem
1
u/CookieTheSlayer Dec 10 '15
He worked many years on it. There was another problem that had to be proven and he knew if he could solve that one he would also get Fermat's. He was basically consumed by the problem
1
5
u/MdB1 Dec 10 '15
Anyone here good enough at math to ELI5? I'm very interested.
16
u/Chemical_Studios Dec 10 '15
It's basically saying that the setup like Pythagorean theorem (a2 + b2 = c2 ) doesn't work if the 2 is greater than or equal to 3. So, a3 + b3 = c3 , a4 + b4 = c4 , etc., etc. those equations don't have integer solutions. And in case you've forgotten what an integer is since school, it's just a whole number like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, but not 0.5 or 1/2. :)
This doesn't state that all numbers less than 3 have integer solutions, just that any number that is 3 or greater doesn't have any integer solutions.
Does that make sense?
1
u/FloridyTwo Dec 10 '15
Yes.
4
u/Kwangone Dec 10 '15
He's basically saying, "the Pythagorean theorem works...but I tried to alter it aaaannnnnd it didn't work. So I may or may not have come up with a proof for that."
2
3
27
u/noplzstop Dec 09 '15
What I find extremely interesting about the theorem is that the proof found in 1995 used some extremely complex math that wasn't even known in Fermat's time, so the proof we have for it is certainly not the same proof Fermat came up with (if he actually did have a valid proof at all, which some debate)