Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!csc
From: csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club)
Newsgroups: net.crypt
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorem
Message-ID: <8290@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Jul-84 02:06:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.8290
Posted: Tue Jul 10 02:06:01 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Jul-84 07:09:19 EDT
References: <1004@druxt.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 41

This topic was discussed on the net before (net.math).  In brief a man with
the improbable name of Arnold Arnold claimed to have solved Fermat's last
theorem.  Naturally all the vicious nasty establishment mathematicians
wouldn't listen to him.  He also claimed to be able to factor any number
in reasonable time!  His claims were taken seriously by the science editors
of the Manchester Guardian and they published an article praising Arnold,
attacking establishment mathematicians, making dire predictions that Britain's
military codes were now insecure and presenting a summary of some of Arnold's
results, including a large number Arnold claimed was prime.  The media around
the world reprinted the story, usually getting it wrong or embellishing it
(no Cambrige mathematicians supported the proof!) and nobody bothered to check
with a mathematician!

Arnold's "proof" is nonsense!  It is almost incomprehensible.  Either Arnold
does not understand the statement of Fermat's last theorem and has proven
something trivial (the sympathetic view) or he is completely up a tree.
Also rather embarrasing for Mr. Arnold is the number he claimed was prime
was immediately factored (by rather elemetary methods).  Mr Arnold has not
demonstated the ability to factor large numbers.

The British mathematical community replied to the Guardian article with a
large number of letters, varying from the enraged to the sardonic.  The
science editors of Guardian withdrew their claims (though with rather
poor grace).  Arnold still claims to have solved Fermat's last theorem
(naturally to understand his proof you have to read his complete paper).
He does admit that there are a few bugs in his algorithm for checking
large primes.

New Scientist (a non-technical, British, science magazine) published a
"rebuttal" of Arnold's claims.  Unfortunately the math in their article
was almost as bad as Arnold's.  (Their presentation was clearer though
so the mistakes were easier to see!)

The moral.  Don't believe everything you read in the popular press about
mathematics.  Even moderately prestigous publications like the Guardian
and New Scientist can make idiotic mistakes.

                                      William Hughes