<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Geek Trivia: The math behind the myth ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-19T20:53:26-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Fermat's Proof != Wiles' Proof]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1967626]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Due to the nature of Andrew Wiles' Proof - and it relying on many 20th century breakthroughs (not least the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture which links group theory to elliptic curves which was only actually fully proven in 1999 - 6 years after Wiles first published his solution), this is not going to be anything like the so-called proof that Fermat had.The most reasonable explanation is that Fermat had something along the lines of Euler's proof of the special case of n=3 (which still wasn't published until 1753 about 120 years after Fermat made the remark) and his own proof for n=4 (strange he published this case later in life, and not the general case?)It's still ammusing however to see the quite wide margins at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_last_theorem]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1967626]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Meacher]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:22:31 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[So what's the math?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1967400]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Does anyone have a reference for the actual math behind Dantzig's solution(s)?Re unsolvable: the only thing we could say up to Weil's proof is that Fermat's theorem was not supported by any known proof (&quot;unsolved&quot;), and that it was considered &quot;unsolvable&quot; by some mathematicians. Saying that it *is* &quot;unsolvable&quot; would have needed a proof.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1967400]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[renrew]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2006 06:40:40 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Never mind.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1963881]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I am missing my glasses. Or several thousand brain cells. Should have read it one more time before I posted. I will just return my books for a refund and go back to math 101...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1963881]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[shardeth-15902278]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:21:13 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I am missing something...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1963880]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I am certain I am not reading htis correctly?for positive integers x,y and z &gt; 2, there does not exist such that x^2 + y^2 = z^2I have to be reading that wrong because x=3, y=4, z=5 contradicts.What am I missing?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1963880]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[shardeth-15902278]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:18:32 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Yes, but]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1963672]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[it's funnier when in context of chemistry.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1963672]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Leee]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:15:47 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[insoluble is acceptable]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1962404]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Insoluble: Difficult or impossible to solve or explain; insolvable: insoluble riddles.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1962404]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[LeeWin]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:18:19 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1962381]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The fact that the problem has been solved means that it was never insolvable. It had only never been previously solved.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1962381]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[scottharriss@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:31:58 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Darn! You beat me to it!!!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1962152]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I completely agree. If it has not a solution (solvation?) why bother...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1962152]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[SaintGeorge]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:38:28 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Correction]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1959453]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[**The fact that the problem is solved means that **it no longer is insolvable.  ** ** Post edited on 02/22/06   ** ** Posted by: Leee   Date: 02/22/06  This should read &quot;The fact that the problem is solved means that it NEVER WAS. . . (choose your adjective for &quot;not being able to be solved&quot;)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1959453]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[runner4ever@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:41:37 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Two ways of looking at it]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1958966]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Chalk can't completely dissolve in water. So if the problem on a chalk board were immersed in water, the problem itself might dissolve (actually disintegrate) from the board, but the chalk itself would not; it would then become sediment, which would leave the problem-solver... sentimental?The fact that the problem is solved means that it no longer is insolvable.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1958966]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Leee]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:27:00 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Peale and Schuller]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1958965]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I know Peale wrote  The Power of Positive Thinking (it was huge), but he didn't own the concept. Certainly he inspired Schuller, though.I remember reading years ago about Schuller's encounter with Dantzig; however, that, too, could be an urban legend. But the fact that Schuller's Crystal Cathedral (a separate, later structure than the open-air one) is based in Southern California lends itself to the probability that it was him or someone like him, while according to your Wikipedia article, Peale was based in New York and spent most of his time in the Eastern United States. (Of course, this doesn't mean that the encounter was not possible.)Maybe someone out there has actually read the books and can let us know if Dantzig is mentioned by either author? How 'bout... JAY?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1958965]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Leee]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:21:48 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Norman Vincent Peale, not Schuller]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1958929]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The author of &quot;The Power of Positive Thinking&quot;  was Dr. Norman Vincent Peale (1898-1993).  He wrote 46 books and founded several organizations (including the Positive Thinking Foundation and the Horatio Alger Association).  &quot;The Power of Positive Thinking&quot; was first published in 1952, and according to Wikipedia, &quot;continues to sell well.&quot;  I think Jay Garmon is referring to Dr. Peale.Robert H. Schuller (b. 1926), although he considers Peale a mentor, is known for his weekly evangelistic broadcast called the &quot;Hour of Power&quot; (not &quot;The Power of Positive Thinking&quot;).  He, too, is a best-selling author.  His son, Robert A. Schuller (b. 1954), now heads the Crystal Cathedral (not open-air, but huge) and hosts the &quot;Hour of Power.&quot;Both men believe in the power of positive-ness, but Peale called his &quot;The Power of Positive Thinking&quot; while Schuller calls his either &quot;Possibility Thinking&quot; or &quot;The Be-Happy Attitudes.&quot;It could be either one, then, but I still think it's Peale.  Maybe Jay will tell us which one he was referring to!References:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Vincent_Pealehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivenesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Schullerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Schullerhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0449911470/002-6925644-7468058?v=glance&amp;n=283155 (&quot;The Power of Positive Thinking&quot;)http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553264583/002-6925644-7468058?v=glance&amp;n=283155 (&quot;The Be-Happy Attitudes&quot;)http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0515089842/qid=1140627316/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6925644-7468058?s=books&amp;v=glance&amp;n=283155  (&quot;Move Ahead with Possibility Thinking&quot; - This one's interesting; written by Schuller with an introduction by Peale!)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1958929]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[alinder@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:05:55 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[insoluble math problem??]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1958875]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...mistakes it for homework and subsequently solves the mathematically insoluble.Shouldn't that be unsolvable? Although I suppose that a math problem can't dissolve in a solution.(For those that can't see the differance, insolUble with a U as opposed to unsolVable with a V)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1958875]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Don Christner]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:39:14 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Inspiration for Good Will Hunting?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1958884]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[George Bernard Dantzig's story was rehashed in the movie Good Will Hunting, I think.  Except that Matt Damon was a janitor genius who solved an &quot;impossible&quot; math problem posted on a hallway bulletin board.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1958884]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[migv1@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:14:25 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Not really a &quot;mistake&quot; in Next Gen...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1958612]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I wouldn't even call this a quibble, really, but I don't think it's fair to say that the writers of Next Gen made a &quot;mistake&quot; when they wrote about Picard discussing Fermat's Last Theorem being unsolved for 800 years.  After all, it *was* still unsolved when that ep was written, and it had attained an almost legendary status as being unsolvable.  The writers had no reason to believe that it would have ever been solved at all, let alone just a few years after the ep aired.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1958612]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Parrish S. Knight]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 06:06:59 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Complete quotation]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1958544]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Not only did Fermat write he had a &quot;marvelous demonstration&quot;, but he also wrote &quot;but the margin is to narrow to hold it&quot;. He wrote it next and in response to the problem exposed in a translated version of the &quot;Arithmetica&quot; from Diophante. Which made the mathematicians wonder for centuries what could be this solution and complain that it was too bad that the margin was not a little wider ! I remember my maths teacher telling this story in the class (yes I'm old enought to have attended school before Wiles found the solution) and everybody agreed it was stupid to loose a valuable information for a simple problem of margin width. However given the complexity of the Wiles demonstration, even in its reworked and simplified form, it is now admited that Fermat was wrong and he could not have found a correct &quot;marvelous demonstration&quot;.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1958544]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[alainric]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 03:13:06 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[And the name of the minister is...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1957520]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[For the sake of completeness, the name of the minister is Robert Schuller. Besides being a very successful televangelist and bestselling writer, he is noted for being the guy who set up an open-air church in a drive-in theater.It is unknown whether he had anything to do with the drive-thru wedding windows in Vegas.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/6-190315-1957520]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Leee]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:10:00 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

