Did anyone ever solve Fermat's last theorem?

Question

I heard Andrew Wiles got close, did he solve it

Answer 1

Andrew Wiles presented a proof a few years ago at a congress (don't remember where).
A year later, someone discovered a flaw in the proof.
It took another two years for Wiles to correct the flaw, and no one has yet found another mistake.
So I guess it is accepted.
Easy to prove something exists.
Very hard to prove it DOES NOT!
BTW, the proof did not take 40 pages, but a bit more than 250...

Answer 2

Andrew Wiles did make the proof, with a flaw, which he then corrected, with some help. The proof is, actually, a lengthy thing.
Fermat probably didn't. He is believed to have made a mistake in his proof. This being the sole reason for his proof being short.

Answer 3

Andrew Wiles proved that it was correct, but his proof runs to about 40 pages and I don't know if it's universally accepted. Most of us doze off around page 2.

Answer 4

no individual, a minimum of no individual who replaced into utilizing valid common sense, replaced into putting forward that Fermat's very last theorem replaced into unprovable. there replaced into hypothesis about no matter if it replaced into valid in any respect, as till it replaced into shown, it replaced into continually plausible that it replaced into only undeniable incorrect and there have been counter-examples that hadn't been got here across yet, which may have shown it to be pretend. yet even as there have been reviews on no matter if it replaced into valid or not, i do not remember mathematicians pointing out that "it would nicely be valid and it can not, yet we will not in any respect be able to respond to that question one way or the different." If I remember properly, Andrew Wiles replaced into waiting to educate Fermat's very last theorem once he'd been presented to a branch of set theory that replaced right into a really modern-day discovery through yet another mathematician, and realized that it replaced into only what replaced into had to end area of his evidence that he had for this reason a techniques been unable to get previous. If that branch hadn't been got here across or he hadn't hit upon it, he probable does not were waiting to educate the theory. So sure, i'd say that our modern-day information of mathematics is popping out to be. clone of the sciences, there could be not some thing in mathematics that experts could ever say "can't be shown or disproven", as hostile to "have not been shown or disproven yet". there are particular issues, like Heisenberg's uncertainty concept in physics and the "halting difficulty" in pc technology, in which it would nicely be mathematically shown that some thing can't be calculated, yet that is massively diverse than only neither having shown nor disproven some thing yet.

Answer 5

I suppose you could say that Fermat did, but unfortunately he "popped his clogs" before expanding on that enigmatic note in the margin!

Answer 6

Afaik

they are still checking it