Is this even related to Trek? -- Enzo Aquarius 01:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

People, places, and things from the "real world" definitely warrant entries, so long as they were specifically referenced somehow in an episode or movie.

Edit Edit

I deleted this:

"Fermat wrote in a margin, "I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain." For 300 years, mathematicians have been obsessed with finding this solution. In 1993, Andrew Wiles came up with an extremely long proof, certainly not the one Fermat had in mind; some mathematicians continue to try to find Fermat's elegant proof. Despite this in the 24th century, neither Captain Picard nor Commander Riker realized it had been solved."

Much of it belongs in a background note. But what's really bad is that we do not know whether Riker and Picard realized that Wiles proved the theorem. And even worse, if they hadn't, then that would ruin the rationalization given in DS9!--Skon 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)--Skon 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Added the background to explain why Dax' statement could resolve the problem. The idea is that Picard, being the educated man he was, knew that Fermat's Theorem was proved. Picard was engaging in the search for the simple proof Fermat had in mind. This would make Picard and Riker just talking sloppy: they did not mention that a simpler proof was wanted. This way we needn't conjecture that both men slept through their math curriculum at the Academy! I also replaced some mathematicians' jargon with a plainer description. I don't know why the math markup doesn't work.--Skon 20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Or the writers just wrote the episode before Wiles made the proof. It's as simple as that. Let's be honest, there's really no need to bend over backwards for an in-universe explanation for this. Just blame the writers for incorrectly assuming that the theorem would never be proven and it can be left at that. 8 January 2013 The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Here is some further background Edit

This was too specific and too conjectural to include in the background, but in case someone's interested: As far as I know, many mathematicians believe that Fermat never had a proof for his Last Theorem. Because of this: There is a relatively simple proof of Fermat's Last Theorem for the special case n=3. So we may conjecture that Fermat had the simple proof for this one case, n=3, and then made a flawed generalization of the proof to all n greater than 2. If this conjecture is true we shouldn't expect a simple proof. Picard can have his fun trying to find one as long as likes!--Skon 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed Edit

  • ...The mention in "Facets" may be understood as a subtle correction for the incongruency.
  • Fermat had claimed that he had found a simple proof for his last theorem without ever presenting it. No written records of that alleged proof could be found after his death. The proof by Wiles was lengthy, complex and essentially required advanced 20th century mathematical concepts, so it is extremely unlikely that Fermat had known Wiles' proof. So even if Fermat's last theorem was proved in 1993, the question remains open whether the simple proof Fermat claimed to have found exists or not.

The first note is irrelevant as the statement by picard doesn't necessarily mean it hasn't been solved just means that people still try and solve it. This is further evidenced by the statement in "Facets". The second note is what wikipedia is for. — Morder (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the following note, which 1.) uses incorrect POV, 2.) improperly formatted, and most importantly, 2.)it's original research. --From Andoria with Love 05:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out one of the two flaws in Wiles' proof: the use of the vacuous concept i = the root of the x^2 + 1 = 0, denoted by i = sqrt(-1). As you can see from the definition i is vacuous since the equation x^2 + 1 = 0 has no root. Consequently, we have,. i = sqrt(1/-1) = sqrt 1/sqrt(-1) = 1/i = i/i^2 = -i or 1 = -1 (division of both sides by i), The other flaw will be posted next time. Edescultura 04:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Edescultura (E. E. Escultura)
It's not only original research, it's also mathematical nonsense - as is the whole idea of creating a new "system of real numbers" to prove or disprove a theorem that was formulated in a completely different system of integer numbers. -- Cid Highwind 09:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

More removed Edit

  • The above is a direct quote from TNG season 2 episode "Royal." However, the theorem is stated incorrectly in the show. The actual theorem is xn + yn =/= zn, where n > 2.

I removed the following as it breaks point of view. But even as a background note, I have to question it. I admit I'm not a mathematician, but I looked up a few sources and all agreed with the expression used on the show. I don't understand what "=/=" is supposed to mean, and that comes up with zero google hits.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:18, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

It may mean an equals sign with a slash through it, which means "not equal". --31dot 10:47, August 18, 2011 (UTC)