Interview with Andrew Wiles

[@shubhjoshi6205]

An exceptional genius, a brilliant interview diving inside the mind of this timeless genius.

[@MagnusAnand]

“I was just so obsessed with it”. That explains a lot

[@tahamuhammad5962]

Thank you for your opinion, and I hope you see the truth which I have it on paper. I wish you the best.

[@tahatariq2424]

He is a true genius!

[@ACantu-de8pg]

*wow, he's so humble and soft spoken for solving such a difficult problem.*

[@trevormugalu3797]

The Gap joke was top tier.

[@Roxell21]

True Indeed

[@rajendralekhwar4131]

Indeed ❤😅

[@tahamuhammad5962]

@@Roxell21 Thank you for your opinion, and I hope you see the truth which I have it on paper. I wish you the best.

[@tahamuhammad5962]

@@rajendralekhwar4131 Thank you for your opinion, and I hope you see the truth which I have it on paper. I wish you the best.

[@sudhirjain16]

It is a great interview. The interviewer is also very good.

[@ACantu-de8pg]

_Yes, I thought the same._

[@hanchisun6164]

I actually thought the opposite. A professional interviewer often tries to express themselves too much rather than letting the great mind speak. I rather listen to Andrew Wiles' monologue.

[@o1techacademy]

Congratulations Andrew Wiles

[@rijogratius5141]

Congratulations Sir! Your thoughts are inspiring!

[@chrisdinsdale1390]

Genius responses to excellent questions…. so sad that not many have seen it.

[@justinhhhfan3602]

It is so extraordinarily complicated that it's not really possible for most people to grasp. I have known about Andrew and given my best attempt to understand it but even the branches of math it involves, I have asked a university professor of mathematics about it and not only didn't they understand it, they didn't even know where you could go to learn about Elliptic Curves and Modular Functions. In my mind I think about it as being that an equation as stated can be represented as a geometric shape and that shape is capable of being "translated" to another shape in another branch of mathematics and when Fermat's equation was entered to create an Elliptic Curve it did not have a traditional donut shape and therefore could not be translated to a Modular Form so he had to prove a prior conjecture that stated that should never occur when the stated formula had any true solutions. Sorry long winded lol.

[@yabannamba7678]

nice laidback interview

[@davidwilkie9551]

The observation that a lens used to focus line-of-sight parameters at a focused = integrated in sync-duration point of view conveys the pure-math relative-timing ratio-rates in aligned frequency motion of orthogonal-normal 0-1-2-ness in the GD&P picture-plane. The thought experiments conduct and condense in a testable arrangement in the modulated awareness of real-time Mind-Body manifestation, (when you look carefully enough).

[@abdelhaylawhy631]

Wow Andrew wiles👏👏👏

[@reachforthesky1576]

One of the world's most interesting people?

[@edernollivier]

Thank to you.

[@mikej3555]

4:03 5:47 15:11 17:17

[@aubintchuyayomba1672]

Thank you sir 🙏

[@BuleriaChk]

Godel expresses wff's in odd numbers every number is prime relative to its own base n = n(n/n)=n(1_n) (primes do not include division by other numbers) Goldbach's Conjecture "every even number is the sum of two primes" n + n = 2n Godel's expression does not include even numbers in his defintion of wff's - they are therefore "undecidable" (o + e) = o is always odd so is undecidable because of the existence of even numbers (e+e) = e (o and e are sets of numbers). Proof of Fermat"s Theorem for Village Idiots c = a + b c^n = [a^n + b^n] + f(a,b,n) (Binomial Expansion) c^n = a^n + b^n iff f(a,b,n) = 0 f(a,b,n) 0 c^n a^n + b^n QED Pythgoras is wrong, Fermat is correct even for n = 2. Someone go tell the physicists (Especially Einstein and Pauli) and also for multinomials (tell the cosmetologists..) (Hint: Wiles had to use modular functions, which are only defined on the positive half of the complex plane.) there are no negative numbers: -c= a-b, b>a iff b-c=a, a >0, a-a = 0, a=a if there are no negative numbers, there are no square roots of negative numbers. The ""complex" plane is affine to the real plane (1^2 1, sqr(1^2) = 1 2qr(1) (Russsell's Paradox; a number can't both multiply and not multiply itself). more on this on the physicsdiscussionforum (dot org)

[@thanzawtun3538]

❤

[@tahamuhammad5962]

Why did Sir Anderw get $ millions and no one recommended him to come to math prize committee? Plus, his solution was wrong and still wrong not logical 129 pages for 3 letters!

[@Ozymandi_as]

I think you're dwelling on this way too much. There's plenty of Abel prize winners who haven't sat on the committee. Perhaps he's too busy, or can't bear loads of meetings. The prize is currently about $700,000, and has no doubt brought him other opportunities, but not in the order of $millions. A mistake was spotted in his proof, which he was able to correct quite quickly. No others have been found since. I realise you are disappointed that your own efforts have borne no fruit, but denigrating the work of others smacks of jealousy, an emotion that has no useful outcome.

[@tusharhalder64]

When he was asked what’s his dream today , sarcastic enough we all know he’s gonna pin down the birch and swinnerton-dyre’ s conjecture 🤣

[@mathematicsandstuff]

Diplomatic schemes, so to speak. Careful with meta-communications :))

[@colz4r454]

Well done you, I guess.

[@tahamuhammad5962]

3 years I need a help math association to review my math, but they are ready to receive it, and then after one, 3 days, or when I ask about it, they send it back under bunch of lies. I solved Fermat on 3 pages. I solved general case too. I solve Collatz sequence and all of are crying for it. I solved Euler Perfect Box, but because I am not your friend at universities and my age 80 years then no one likes me to hero of math. It is very shame to all of you Math associations.

[@tahamuhammad5962]

@@razib0711 Hello and your name and contact please to talk.

[@98danielray]

ok crank, sure you did

[@tahamuhammad5962]

@@98danielray Thank you.

[@Ozymandi_as]

It's not impossible that you have discovered a concise proof of FLT using only (I assume) elementary maths, but given that this problem became so famous and defeated the greatest mathematical minds for 300 years, it seems more likely that you have made an error in your proof. It is no doubt very disappointing to get negative replies for the various mathematical institutions you have approached, but that does not mean they are all lying to you. Such a discovery would be sensational for the mathematics community around the world, and I think any professional mathematician would want to help you if your proof was robust. A proof is either coherent or not, and mathematicians routinely engage in peer review process to validate findings before they are published. A mistake is a mistake, and pointing out errors is a professional duty, not an assault on someone's character. It's almost certain that Fermat's 'miraculous proof' would have crumbled if he had been able to write it out fully as he intended; lots of promising ideas fail to materialize after further reflection, as every mathematician knows. Andrew Wiles' proof, after a labour of seven years, called on making novel connections between two very advanced and abstract fields of mathematics. He used tools that were simply not available to any but elite mathematicians, and neither to Fermat. If an elementary solution existed, don't you think it would have been found before Wiles published his proof.

[@alexandermadison5743]

The lady, who made the interview riveting, did a much better job than the two who also interviewed Andrew Wiles.

[@rolandhayes9657]

He owes his success to the academic freedoms provided by Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study.

[@aubintchuyayomba1672]

Thank you sir 🙏

[@tahamuhammad5962]

Thank you and best regards.

[@98danielray]

​@@tahamuhammad5962just end it schizoid