[FOM] Proving FLT in PA
joeshipman@aol.com
joeshipman at aol.com
Tue Feb 28 23:11:48 EST 2006
Crowell:
>3. They're convinced that the proof could be reworked so that it would
>only use ZFC, but they see it as a waste of time to carry out the
>routine steps that would be necessary. This would be like publishing
>a proof using infinitesimals, knowing that it could be rewritten
>using limits, and not feeling that anything would be gained by
>the rewrite.
The essential difference is that in the case of a proof using
infinitesimals, WE HAVE A METATHEOREM so the mathematician doesn't need
to do any additional work. BEFORE the work of Abraham Robinson, there
was no metatheorem, and journal editors would have insisted on the
proof being reworked using limits.
I consider it an insult to the mathematical community that Wiles et al
don't even pay lip service to normal standards of rigor by at least
REMARKING that there is a logical issue here and that IN THE PARTICULAR
THEOREM BEING PROVED the extra assumptions can be eliminated. They
don't have to give the details of how they are eliminated in the
published proof, as long as they are officially prepared to supply more
details to those who ask for more details.
-- Joe Shipman
More information about the FOM
mailing list