wiles

Andrew Wiles worked on Fermat's last theorem for six years in complete secrecy while he was at Princeton.

It's kind of the anti-Andrew Wiles (who worked alone and in secret for many years before proving Fermat's last theorem).

Andrew Wiles would like to have a word with you regarding this claim!

The Last Theorem, on the other hand, was only finally proven in 1994 by Andrew Wiles after countless failed attempts by mathematicians before him.

Andrew Wiles spent 7 years trying to prove Fermat's Last Theorem.

Not really sure of the point of employing smart people to protect you if they then use all of their wiles to weaken individual and state security.

And I watered it in fears Night and morning with my tears, And I sunned it with smiles And with soft deceitful wiles.

I was actually studying Maths at Cambridge when Wiles gave his seminars.

He compares the decoding of the rosetta stone and linear B 40 years ago with Andrew Wiles proving Fermat's last theorem in the past decade, and how fundamentally different their respective approaches are.

My best friend from graduate school (which was the Harvard Math department at a time Wiles was an assistant professor) used to stay with me when he visited his employer in NYC after moving to Israel.

According to Simon Singh's book on the subject, Wiles had to go as far as stockpiling several years' worth of conference papers in advance in unrelated areas so he could submit one occasionally while he was really working on FLT, just to affect the appearance of productivity.

So, yes, a formal rewriting of Wiles' proof is "only" a practical challenge.

And so I greeted him at the door to my apartment, not with my usual warm hello, but rather the words "Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem".

I presume that you're referring to Wiles' statement to the effect that, "Proving Fermat's Last Theorem is probably the biggest thing that I'll ever do." As a young student, it made a big impression.

Right, the analogy between Wiles/Fermat and Perelman/Poincaré so glaringly contradicts what she's saying ("the American model may not be able to produce a breakthrough like the proof of the Poincaré Conjecture" - huh?) that one has to wonder.

The article is a very interesting popular account of the Fermat-Wiles Theorem and the discovery of the flaw in Wiles's first attempted proof of the theorem.

Wiles' proof was not written in machine-checkable language; if it had been, the error would almost certainly have been caught.

If Wiles' proof wasn't in ZFC we wouldn't call it a proof (at least not without qualification).