From: cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Fermat's flunkeys (was Re: A Real Challenge)
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:19:04 GMT
Reply-To: cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA)
Organization: Project EOS - North Carolina State University

michaelg@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael Greenwald) claims:

>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.
[deleted]

You're partly right.

I'm not going to use the excuse though, that I "simply asked about it"
(no offense intended.)

I *did* make an error in my original posting, and I apologize for it.
WHat eats me, though, is some of the scornful, smug, and self righteous 
postings that followed it up.

I do not, for a second, accept the argument that Fermat's theorem is
something as commonplace as the wind, as some have made it out to be.
It's an even bet that many netters here haven't heard of it. There were
more than enough postings on the subject to testify to that.  What I
suspect is that it has recently been introduced into the undergraduate
math curriculum of some Universities, which is why so many prunes around
here are so keen to show off their newly acquired knowledge.

Well, it so happens that it *WASN'T* around when I took math, or number
theory. Furthermore, only last year, (about 8 months ago, to be precise)
I had a long and interesting discussion with a Faculty member
(CS, not Math) about Fermat and he wasn't any the wiser. I didn't want
to bring this up, and most certainly won't reveal any more details about
this person! I *don't* intend to embarass this person just to satisfy a few
persona non grata. Another report I stand by is when I spoke about some
mathematicians reasoning about why Fermat's theorem was, (at that time)
unsolvable. I *can* dig this out, if necessary, but really don't have the
time to..(And please, I don't want any dweebs asking me to produce facts and
figures. I *know* what I read, and don't really care what you think.)

The reason for this outburst? that it's nauseous how some people fail to 
take a posting in the spirit for which it was intended. My objective in making 
the posting was to stimulate a discussion on other similar 'unsolvable' 
math puzzles. I even prefaced the article with the words:
"To the best of my knowledge.."

WHAT do you think that was *for* ?? Aesthetic purposes??? I *wanted* to get
some feedback from this group! I *did* have some shadowy suspicion that F.T.
may*had* been solved and I had been unaware of it. Under the circumstances,
my article was at the worst, outdated. Results like Fermat's have remained
unsolved *FOR DECADES* (or is it centuries?) and only a hopeless nerd would
resort to checking the library out every little while to see if it'd been
solved as yet.. especially if you're not into math!! A far better source
would be a friend, or as the case may be, a newsgroup.  Replies like those
from Derek Bell, or Roger Lustig for instance were very much in order, and
in fact, most welcome. They correct me, I accept the error, and that's that.

But to dub the posting as "misinformation" and an "easily verifiable
assertion".. WHAT'S GOING ON? Are you going to get NUKED if I say that a vague
result hadn't been proved, when in  fact it has?? Is this subject of such
*critical importance* anyway? In fact, I think that this result, being true,
will now become a lot less interesting to most mathematicians & enthusiasts .
And if you expect postings to be Gospel - Truth, then it's YOU who are
the fool. ROM is NOT some kind of SPEAKER's FORUM where you're invited to
hold forth on topics of technical expertise!! It's a forum for *CONVERSATION*,
a two - way street, where besides speaking, you also listen and (hopefully)
learn!

Get a LIFE, people! Find some better way to distinguish yourself than gloating
about other people's errors! (if you can, that is.) No wonder so many people
think of mensans as a bunch of pompous stuffed - shirts. *YOU'RE* the cause!!

Sheesh!!

(Sorry Michael, I didn't intend for you to take all the flak.)