# Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem

The first computer program I wrote - between high school and college - generated solutions to the Pythagorean Theorem. I guess I should have programmed it to count them, too. --Ed Poor ^{Talk} 21:25, 20 December 2007 (EST)

## Contents

## Axiom of choice

Any proof which uses the axiom of choice can be transformed into a proof that doesn't. Granted, it will be a somewhat more complicated proof, but it always works, and that's a fact. That is the reason that AC is much less controversial these days than it was, in the early 1900s.

There is a complete explanation of the process and the proof that it's reliable here.

Also, the profoundly intuitive trichotomy is equivalent to AC, so be careful what you call controversial. BenjB 20:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

"Any proof which uses the axiom of choice can be transformed into one that doesn't"?! Lol. If C is the axiom of choice, then C (vacuously) proves C. By your assertion, that proof can be 'transformed' into a proof not using C, which means you can prove C from ZF, which is a contradiction. Really, lol. Tomkup32 09:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)

## Marilyn vos Savant

Is there any purpose in the last few sentences mentioning Marilyn vos Savant's criticism that she retracted a few years later? I don't think her mistaken criticism is relevant to Fermat's theorem. Yoritomo 10:15, 17 December 2009 (EST)

## "Theorem"

If we argue that the proof is invalid, we can't subsequently call this a "theorem" since that term indicates it has been proven. Gregkochuconn 09:01, 7 March 2012 (EST)

## Removal of transcendental section

Fermat was a human being known for his integrity and he said he had the solution. Since Fermat was human, the theorum and its solution is not above human intellect so the transcendental section was unneeded. So I removed it.

I will admit that SamHB's edit summary should have been more polite.Conservative (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2019 (EDT)

## Paul Boisvert proof

If this is a *real* mathematical proof, why does it look like a satire of logic involving mathematics that could be used to prove anything?

And why is there a historical satire involving mathematics too, on the same page?

VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 14:31, 12 July 2019 (EDT)