From: michaelg@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael Greenwald)
Subject: Re: A REAL CHALLENGE: Fermat's last theorem..
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date:  8 Apr 92 23:33:11 GMT

cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA) writes:

>kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) remarks:

>>Anyone seriously interested in the problem should go read the
>>sci.math FAQ posting, with has a lot of information and
>>references as well.
>>
>>This is one of the reasons why I don't think rambling about
>>random topics is appropriate here.  Much of the posted
>>misinformation about what has and has not been proven 

>The posting may have been incomplete, but there was *no*
>misinformation. For the record, (and future posters) my 
>original posting dealt *solely with the n=3 case* and only
>one person (so far) has claimed that that has been proved.
>My only error was to refer to this specialised instance as 
>being 'Fermat's last Theorem' when it in fact is of a more
>general nature. 

I'm not trying to argue about what's ok and what's not ok on this
newsgroup, I just don't want to let a potential misconception about
Fermat's Last Theorem stand.  The thing that is frustrating about this
thread, is that the so-called "Fermat's Last Theorem" (it ain't a
theorem. Yet) isn't hard to look up (it is one of the more famous 
mathematical conjectures and makes its way into many available
reference books).  It is frustrating that easily verifiable mistaken
assertions are posted (I'm not talking about "cjdcosta" who, I
believe, simply asked about it) -- it leads one to question how much
care is being taken before some people post other, less easily
verifiable, assertions.

In any case, at >least< 3 people have posted that the n=3 case has
been proven.  It is in almost >any< number theory text.  I previously
posted a reference to Hardy & Wright, 4th edition, Section 13.4,
Theorem 227.

In fact, all exponents up to a very large number (which is constantly
increasing) have been proven.

I also mentioned the book "13 Lectures on Fermat's Last Theorem",
which effectively summarizes the work on the problem up to about a
decade ago.  You don't need to be a working mathematician to read and
enjoy the book (I'm not, for instance, and I did).  You do need to be
comfortable with mathematical notation, and have a certain level of
mathematical sophistication (like you wouldn't be lost in a college
math course).  I'm pretty sure it's published by Springer Verlag, I
don't recall the author, but if anyone is interested I could post a
full reference tomorrow, after I go home and look it up.  If you're at
all interested in Fermat's Last Theorem, read the book.  It's a good
one.

But kyle@uunet.uu.net is right; this is much better addressed on
sci.math.  And it's in the FAQ, there.

cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA) also writes:

> Whether the problem is ever solved is not of immense importance
> to me, nor is the desire to dwell on long winded proofs in sci.math.
> I probably will look it up, though, now that I know that a proof 
> exists.

As an aside, there are rarely long winded proofs on sci.math.
Occasionally >pointers< to long-winded proofs, but rarely the proofs
themselves.