Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJan 8th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexjust out of a whim, I expanded a little the text at _[[Fermat curve]]_

   just out of a whim, I expanded a little the text at Fermat curve

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeJan 8th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexMade some corrections to the history, and added reference to Friedman's Grand conjecture at the end.

   Made some corrections to the history, and added reference to Friedman’s Grand conjecture at the end.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJan 8th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> Made some corrections to the history Could you say explicitly which corrections to the history you have in mind? What I see from the logs is that at _[[Fermat curve]]_ you just changed "modularity conjecture" to "modularity conjector for semistable elliptic curves" and at _[[Ribet's theorem]]_ you changed "assuming" to "together with assuming".

   Made some corrections to the history

   Could you say explicitly which corrections to the history you have in mind? What I see from the logs is that at Fermat curve you just changed “modularity conjecture” to “modularity conjector for semistable elliptic curves” and at Ribet’s theorem you changed “assuming” to “together with assuming”.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeJan 8th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexWiles didn't prove the Modularity Conjecture in full, and it wasn't necessary to do so. I didn't change Ribet's theorem today, it must have been a while ago. I fixed the statement that there were no rational points to no nontrivial rational points for $n\geq 3$, and the result that for $n=2$ the curve is just the projective line. I added mention that 'direct proof' is generally taken to mean in some formal system of arithmetic, for instance EFA, as Friedman conjectures.

   Wiles didn’t prove the Modularity Conjecture in full, and it wasn’t necessary to do so. I didn’t change Ribet’s theorem today, it must have been a while ago. I fixed the statement that there were no rational points to no nontrivial rational points for $n\geq 3$, and the result that for $n=2$ the curve is just the projective line. I added mention that ’direct proof’ is generally taken to mean in some formal system of arithmetic, for instance EFA, as Friedman conjectures.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJan 8th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexOkay, thanks for the qualification of the modularity statement. Sorry about the thing with Ribet's theorem: I had created that today, and the change I saw was by myself! :-)

   Okay, thanks for the qualification of the modularity statement.

   Sorry about the thing with Ribet’s theorem: I had created that today, and the change I saw was by myself! :-)