[FOM] What is the current state of the research about proving FLT?

[Timothy Y. Chow]

Arnon Avron wrote:
> Once this community has claimed to prove it, they should follow the 
> standard, eternal crfiteria of mathematics (at least mathematics that 
> deserves that name.) For example: making explicit in a very precise way 
> what are the assumptions that underline the alleged proof.

Idealism is one thing, but historical inaccuracy is another.  "Making 
explicit in a very precise way what are the assumptions that underlie the 
alleged proof" is almost never done in mathematics.

For centuries, Euclid was the gold standard.  Today, we don't think that 
Euclid "made explicit in a very precise way" what all the assumptions 
were.

If we look at mathematical practice across all fields and all of history, 
your "standard, eternal criteria" are far from being either.

Tim