Andrew Wiles talks to Hannah Fry 

It’s my dream to meet Sir Andrew Wiles

Yeah idk why he hasn’t been on numberphile yet ! 😩

He guards his time meticulously.

It is about time!

Thank you for pointing this out!

@@nowtronix8996You are welcome!

"and unfortunately, it's quite rare to (at least it was in America) have maths teachers (before you reach the age of 10 or 11) who are actually trained to teach mathematics or wanted to be teaching mathematics, I think what happens is that mathematics is a very useful subject and the people go off and do many other things with it there weren't enough left as teachers so the teachers tended to be recruited from other subjects or even from sports or something like that, and they didn't care about mathematics and that got passed on."

thanx

Singh !

sigh ....

Thank You！！！

@rwalser I often think, we are better served by spending more time thinking more about where to direct our efforts, framing the problem is key. Once a problem is properly framed, it can be easier solved.

@@tensevoWhich is something I believe Polya said in his book “How to solve it”, which is very recommendable for actually anyone

I found maths teachers (lecturers) at Uni were dedicated, imaginative and inspiring compared to my dull as dishwater school teachers. Sad really.

Ye Dara did maths or something before becoming a comic, so neat to see him make a little cameo

If you hadn't written that comment I probably wouldn't have stuck it to the end of the questions, thank you!

Calling him Fer-MATT I kind of expect from Mary Archer, but from the sainted Dr Hannah? #Disappointed

Fermat's theorem I proved on 09/14/2016 the ONLY POSSIBLE proof of the Great Fermat's Theorem (Fermata!). I can pronounce the formula for the proof of Fermath's great theorem: 1 - Fermath's great theorem NEVER! and nobody! NOT! HAS BEEN PROVEN !!! 2 - proven! THE ONLY POSSIBLE proof of Fermat's theorem 3 - Fermath's great theorem is proved universally-proven for all numbers 4 - Fermath's great theorem is proven in the requirements of himself! Fermata 1637 y. 5 - Fermath's great theorem proved in 2 pages of a notebook 6 - Fermath's great theorem is proved in the apparatus of Diophantus arithmetic 7 - the proof of the great Fermath theorem, as well as the formulation, is easy for a student of the 5th grade of the school to understand !!! 8 - Me! opened the GREAT! A GREAT Mystery! Fermath's theorem! (not "simple" - "mechanical" proof) !!!!- NO ONE! and NEVER! (except ME! .. of course!) and FOR NOTHING! NOT! will find a valid proof of the FGT! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@@user-me5vv9wh3u post it then

​@@cashcherry8754 - I HAVE! proved! on 09/14/2016 the ONLY POSSIBLE proof of the Great Fermat's Theorem (Fermata!). I can pronounce the formula for the proof of Fermath's great theorem: 1 - Fermath's great theorem NEVER! and nobody! NOT! HAS BEEN PROVEN !!! 2 - proven! THE ONLY POSSIBLE proof of Fermat's theorem 3 - Fermath's great theorem is proved universally-proven for all numbers 4 - Fermath's great theorem is proven in the requirements of himself! Fermata 1637 y. 5 - Fermath's great theorem proved in 2 pages of a notebook 6 - Fermath's great theorem is proved in the apparatus of Diophantus arithmetic 7 - the proof of the great Fermath theorem, as well as the formulation, is easy for a student of the 5th grade of the school to understand !!! 8 - Me! opened the GREAT! A GREAT Mystery! Fermath's theorem! (not "simple" - "mechanical" proof) !!!!- NO ONE! and NEVER! (except ME! .. of course!) and FOR NOTHING! NOT! will find a valid proof of the FGT!

@Emmet Break it into small portions. RU-vid seems to be the right place to publish this proof.

@@keinKlarname No :D

The probability is higher that his proof was just false. I don’t think he lied particularly, but rather hasn’t recognized a mistake he must have made along the path.

He did say that the RH is not really his area of specialty, but given his secrecy during his work on Fermat, that's possible. I get the idea that Birch Swinnerton-Dyer is probably more "up his street" as it seems to my layperson's ear that it has more of a crossover with his previous work than the RH. I always find the idea that Poincaré was probably the last mathematician who could grasp the whole of mathematics as it was in his time, rather interesting. That the subject, partially due to Poincaré's work, exploded in so many different ways since his time, that now no mathematician could possibly hope to have that broad an understanding, is interesting. But then like many areas of science, mathematic, technology, this seems to have become the era of the specialist, rather than the generalist.

No chance, the RH is orders of magnitudes more complex over FLT

WTF?

Henry Ginn that’s a rational assumption

Natural among researchers, I believe he means

No. It's pretty standard to look for solutions to algebraic equations in the Real and Complex numbers. We learn real number solutions to quadratic equations in high school, for example.

@@MrAlRats Looking back it seems I really was quite clueless about maths 2 years ago

THE EPIC QUEST FOR THE PROOF OF FERMAT LAST THEOREM IS NONSENS IF YOU SEE THE VIDEO titled FERMAT-GEORGE ICE THEOREM PROOF AND THE PINNED COMMENT TO IT. WHICH IS PUSH AWAY FROM THE VIEW OF THE AUDIENCE SINCE EMBARESSED ANDREW WILES &CO BEING DISCOVERED BY GEORGE ICE,AN AMERICAN WITH NO UNIVERSITY STUDIES!! AND IT TAKES ONLY TWO TEXTBOOK PAGES!! ANDREW WILES REALIZED THAT HE GOT TO GO BACK TO HIGH SCHOOL TO STUDY THE MATHEMATICS OF FERMAT'S PROOF..THE ONLY THING HE DONE IS TO SHOW THAT USING MODERN MATHEMATICAL TOOLS OVER 150 PAGES CAN BE PROVED FLT TOO!! IS IT NOT HILARIOUS AND MAKES ANDREW WILES RIDICULOUS?? CHECK IT OUT AND EXPOSE YOUR CREDENTIALS IF YOU WANT ME TO REPLY TO YOUR COMMENT UNLESS YOU ARE LEFT SPEECHLESS.HAVE A CHEER FOR ME IF YOU REALLY APRECIATE THE GENIUS OF THIS AMERICAN WHICH GIVES A LESSON TO A GREAT BRITISH PROFESSIONAL MATHEMATICIEN,,,,,ANDREW WILES SAID ON NOVA THAT FERMAT FOOLHIMSELF INTOOTHINKING HE HAD A PROOF.WHAT A AROGANT AND STUPID STATEMENT FROM HIS PART. RU-vid GEORGE ICE AND SEE WHY.EULER FAIL TO PROOF PELLS EQUATION AND SO FROM THAT TIME IT WAS ACCEPTED THAT FERMAT WAS WRONG BY A HERD OF MATEMATICIAN.AND IN 2004 GEORGE ICE DISCOVERED HOW FERMAT PROVED IT. EULER FAIL TO FIND THE ELEMENTARY PROOF OF FLT BY FERMAT SO THE HERD OF MATHEMATICIEN AND ANDREW WILES ACCEPTED THAT FERMAT WAS WRONG SOMEHOW.AND IN 2018 GEORGE ICE DISCOVERED FERMAT PROOF OF FLT SO THE STORY REPATES.NO PUBLICITY AT ALL ABOUT THIS. THE HERD WAS LEAD INTO A DEAD END CONCLUSION BY A LEADER.WHAT A PITY.

@@georgeice4389 ok....thanks for you friendly comments. 2 pages would work for me. 😇 I am going to check it out soon. Robert Check out : bams4.pdf Dr mordell. Louis RAMANJUAN

@@georgeice4389 I took a look at your web proof of flt. I do believe its not adequate if n>4 These problems of polynomials of rational forms can't work for n>4 because you can't use only real numbers. Kummer tried this and developed the first theory of 'cyclomic integers' using the p roots of unity etc. The case if n=3 you did can't be generalized. See Gauss develop the complex field approach you posit. For n=3. The way to actually reduce the proof of flt is using the continued fractions ideas of Weierstrauss. I sent you a link. One must define all numbers in the line or complex number fields as Weierstrauss did for transcendental first; then fill in the gaps with algebraic irrational. Then, rationals and finally , integers. The features of continued fractions split these out. And then apply the idea to flt .

(x+P) must divide (x^3+3Qx^2+3*x*Q) Pmust be -rootx.and be an integer must divivide3*Qbut 38Q andPare relative prime.the only integer which divides 3*Q is number 1so the only root value must be -1 if want p to be integer.

fermat proof use n=4 and the proof is good for n=prme

so?

... and? They're a subset of the rationals. Thus solving it for integers does not solve the problem for rationals. If you want to pick at a world famous mathematician's comments, make you sure you get it right first.

@@ViceroyoftheDiptera you're technically right but you say it like that the integers are a subset of the rationals implies solving it for the former does not solve it for the latter, which is not true since a subset of a set can be the set itself. So if you said proper subset it would be more accurate I think

@@cletushumphrey9163 That's very pernickety but yes, proper subset.

@@ViceroyoftheDiptera I interpret "solving it in rational numbers has not been done" as "there has not been found a value for the variables that is a rational number". Perhaps my interpretation is not reasonable; i am not sure since english is not my main language.

*insert facepalm*

What does her being female have anything to do with your comment?

🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤪🤪🤣🤪🤣🤪🤪...are you on day release?

He did mention that they need to pay math teachers more. I agree!

They need to fix the whole system. If you make a C+, you move on regardless if you understand the foundational material necessary to effectively move on. Too much concern over grades and not much for learning.

@@Ken.- Yep, abolish grades, they're not conducive to learning, and in fact hinder it in my experience.

I, an American, aced my calculus class when I was in 10th grade. If you want to generalize an entire country (especially your own), get to know it well first.

the equation has an error it is actually 15^2+ 8^2= 17^2 sorry for the typo

@@tharanathakula3588 All Pythagorean triples are of the form (r^2-s^2, 2rs, r^2+s^2) for integers r,s. This is a great exercise IMO

Fermat's Last Theorem states that the exponent must be greater than 2.

Who?

dude, this isnt even a^n + b^n = c^n, but a^n + b^n + c^n = d^n. wtf

Fermat's theorem I proved on 09/14/2016 the ONLY POSSIBLE proof of the Great Fermat's Theorem (Fermata!). I can pronounce the formula for the proof of Fermath's great theorem: 1 - Fermath's great theorem NEVER! and nobody! NOT! HAS BEEN PROVEN !!! 2 - proven! THE ONLY POSSIBLE proof of Fermat's theorem 3 - Fermath's great theorem is proved universally-proven for all numbers 4 - Fermath's great theorem is proven in the requirements of himself! Fermata 1637 y. 5 - Fermath's great theorem proved in 2 pages of a notebook 6 - Fermath's great theorem is proved in the apparatus of Diophantus arithmetic 7 - the proof of the great Fermath theorem, as well as the formulation, is easy for a student of the 5th grade of the school to understand !!! 8 - Me! opened the GREAT! A GREAT Mystery! Fermath's theorem! (not "simple" - "mechanical" proof) !!!!- NO ONE! and NEVER! (except ME! .. of course!) and FOR NOTHING! NOT! will find a valid proof of the FGT! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You mean the woman whose name is in the title of this video?

@@ViceroyoftheDiptera Yes

"Girl"? She is hardly a "girl", dude...and this is a maths lecture, not a beauty contest.

@@waynedarronwalls6468 for me she's HOT girl..

Squares and cubes, etc, of numbers are just single numbers belonging to the same set - they are not in any sense in a different dimension.

You very much misunderstand Gödel's theorem if you think that's a worthy question to ask.

@@ViceroyoftheDiptera Even Penrose thinks Godel is wrong.

@@naimulhaq9626 er... no. Moreover, Penrose is not a mathematician, so even if he did think that, it wouldn't hold much water.

@@ViceroyoftheDiptera I am sorry to say, now you are wrong. Penrose IS a mathematician (look it up). Mathematical logic is a finite axiom system (therefore provable), but Godel's proof is based on logic of infinite axioms.

5 - Fermath's great theorem proved in 2 pages of a notebook 6 - Fermath's great theorem is proved in the apparatus of Diophantus arithmetic 7 - the proof of the great Fermath theorem, as well as the formulation, is easy for a student of the 5th grade of the school to understand !!!

8 - Me! opened the GREAT! A GREAT Mystery! Fermath's theorem! (not "simple" - "mechanical" proof)

Not everybody is so obsessed with their looks as you are.

He looks rather like Stephen Hawking - as was - to me. But is probably a more able mathematician than Hawking ( RIP ) was.

LOL fuck off

You are confusing introvercy and humility (of a brilliant man) with those things

@@stevedl3150 perhaps because Hawking was a PHYSICIST

Please go back to TikTok, Mr ADHD.