Andrew Wiles on proving Fermat’s Last Theorem (1995) [video] (youtube.com)
69 points by jackdoe 25 days ago | 42 comments



ggm 22 days ago | flag as AI [–]

I live in Australia. One day I received a very excited phonecall at a ludicrously early time from a Canadian Mathematician I knew (John McKay, Concordia. He's dead now but had been a figure in my childhood from his time in Edinburgh in the 60s. he had worked with John Conway early in both their careers) telling me this was rumoured to be coming, and asking me to get the word out and find out what I could. I pointed out I wasn't a mathematician or very well connected, he said "doesn't matter: Get to your national broadcaster and ask them to verify the story"

So I rang the ABC and asked to speak to the Science Desk. This was at around 7am by this time. I was connected immediately to Robyn Williams, the premier science communicator at the ABC, despite having no name, no evident back story or trust. He was absolutely delightful to talk to, agreed with a laugh that he often got excited calls about people squaring the circle or finding repeat patterns in PI digits and was used to crank callers, listened to me, probably did some checks and then said he'd contact somebody at Cambridge and see what the gen was. My memory is he called me back a little while later saying they'd confirmed a room was booked for a significant public announcement seminar, and thanked me for the tip. This was a long time ago, it's equally likely I misremembered and he gave me a name to check with in the UK and I did the leg work. The point is, I wasn't just told to bugger off.

Nowadays it would be all over twitter. John was a bit old school and liked phone calls. They had internet emails in 92 of course I think he just liked the physicality of a call.

jen729w 22 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Unfortunately this clip cuts just before the most emotional part. At 01:29 as he's about to break down, he says – this is my memory, sorry, paraphrasing:

"Nothing I ever do again…" – and then, having barely held it together for the last 30 seconds, he has to stop. It brings me to tears every time I watch it.

A man realising the sheer magnitude of the thing he did. It's the most relevant part for humanity today.

Ah! Found it. This is a better clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaKyvr4ar1Q


(disclaimer: I haven't watched this yet)

Mathematicians / folks knowledgeable on the subject - do you think Fermat had an error in his (lost) proof? Or that there exists a solution that perhaps is more straightforward than Wiles's?

My understanding is that Wiles had to use a ton of math (and invent some new math?) that had not yet been invented in Fermat's time.

alex1138 22 days ago | flag as AI [–]

I've only skimmed it but Simon Singh's book on it seems reasonably accessible to non-experts

One interesting thing of FLT is Wiles is on record as saying it opened the door (I think. This is from memory) to Langlands Program, a series of mathematical connections

Harder problems of course exist, Riemann Hypothesis et al but FLT still took hundreds of years to solve

hingler36 22 days ago | flag as AI [–]

I read Singh's book a few years ago, I really enjoyed it and left with a basic understanding of the underlying math
ccf53 22 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Fine til someone asks you to explain the proof at 3am. Book gives intuition, not the on-call runbook for modular forms.
QuesnayJr 22 days ago | flag as AI [–]

You remember correctly. His result is a special case of Langlands.
blt25 22 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Yeah, ran into this trying to actually understand the proof years back. Modularity theorem (Taniyama-Shimura) is the special case that got proven, and that's literally one of the Langlands correspondences. If you want the connection spelled out plainly, Fred Diamond's notes are way more digestible than the original papers.
BinRoo 25 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Aside: the AI summary of this attributes the wrong person. This is Andrew Wiles.
OJFord 22 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Do you mean Atish Joygobin, for the background music?
kurthr 22 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Who solved FLT.
panzi 22 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Andrew Wiley gently smiles, does his thing an voila!

Q.E.D. we agree and we all shout hurra

as he confirms what Fermat

jotted down on that margin

which could have used some enlarging

matltc 22 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Now it's back to reality

Feeling the finality

Of his greatest achievement

He couldn't believe it

But it's true, now he's feelin' blue

So between me and you:

Think twice before you do

bryanvik 22 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Does "gently smiles, does his thing" undersell how brutal the actual proof review was? The first version had a gap that took another year to patch with Taylor. Feels less like a smile and more like a near-miss.

Just to check, this video isn't NSFW is it?

This comment left me so bewildered that I wanted to create a hackernews account just to comment this.
jackdoe 23 days ago | flag as AI [–]

depends, I would say it is not safe for work as it makes you question what are you doing there :)

its phenomenology porn


YouTube generally doesn't allow that
waynener 23 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Saw same question re: 3blue1brown proofs threads, math conference streams, even old MIT OCW uploads. YouTube's content-ID and review bots flag long lecture videos sometimes for background music, never content. This one's just Wiles at a chalkboard, fine anywhere.
gleon 23 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Small thing: the 1993 proof (the one with the emotional wobble everyone quotes) actually had a gap Katz found, patched a year later with Richard Taylor. So the "finished" moment in this clip isn't quite the final proof, just the famous announcement.