What does it take to prove Fermat's Last Theorem? Grothendieck and the logic of number theory
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 16 (3):359-377 (2010)
| Abstract | This paper explores the set theoretic assumptions used in the current published proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, how these assumptions figure in the methods Wiles uses, and the currently known prospects for a proof using weaker assumptions | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSteven Buechler (1991). Pseudoprojective Strongly Minimal Sets Are Locally Projective. Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (4):1184-1194.
Victor Harnik & Michael Makkai (1976). Applications of Vaught Sentences and the Covering Theorem. Journal of Symbolic Logic 41 (1):171-187.
Mark Howard (1988). A Proofless Proof of the Barwise Compactness Theorem. Journal of Symbolic Logic 53 (2):597-602.
Ambar Chowdhury (1994). On the Number of Nonisomorphic Models of Size |T|. Journal of Symbolic Logic 59 (1):41 - 59.
Anita Wasilewska (1984). DFC-Algorithms for Suszko Logic and One-to-One Gentzen Type Formalizations. Studia Logica 43 (4):395 - 404.
Bryan W. Roberts (2011). How Galileo Dropped the Ball and Fermat Picked It Up. Synthese 180 (3):337-356.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-05-08Total downloads114 ( #4,687 of 549,076 )Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #8,860 of 549,076 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
