tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Appropriate for MO?) Sun, 04 Nov 2018 13:37:28 -0800 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.1.9 & Feed Publisher Emerton comments on "Appropriate for MO?" (19132) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19132#Comment_19132 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19132#Comment_19132 Thu, 24 May 2012 19:23:51 -0700 Emerton Dear Eugene,

Sorry, I didn't see that the question had already been asked on the main site. As Felipe says, my reply above doesn't really add anything, so I don't see any need to post it there. (But I don't think you did anything unseemly!)

Best wishes,

Matt

]]>
Eugene comments on "Appropriate for MO?" (19131) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19131#Comment_19131 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19131#Comment_19131 Thu, 24 May 2012 16:35:49 -0700 Eugene
I am sorry if it was unseemly of me to suggest this. ]]>
voloch comments on "Appropriate for MO?" (19130) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19130#Comment_19130 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19130#Comment_19130 Thu, 24 May 2012 16:21:29 -0700 voloch Eugene comments on "Appropriate for MO?" (19129) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19129#Comment_19129 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19129#Comment_19129 Thu, 24 May 2012 16:12:51 -0700 Eugene
Thank you for your insightful reply. I greatly appreciate the advice you have dispensed to me on mathoverflow and mathstackexchange.

I have since posted my question (linked here http://mathoverflow.net/questions/97820/a-recommended-roadmap-to-fermats-last-theorem).

Professor Emerton, could you post your reply as a formal answer in case I choose to accept it to close the question down? Sorry for any inconveniences I may have caused.

Thanks
Eugene ]]>
Emerton comments on "Appropriate for MO?" (19128) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19128#Comment_19128 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19128#Comment_19128 Thu, 24 May 2012 15:40:23 -0700 Emerton Dear Eugene,

Get a copy of the book "Modular forms and Fermat's Last Theorem" and read it. It remains the best introduction to this part of mathematics (unless you are in the situation of having an expert at hand to teach you directly). You will want to read a lot of other things for background as well, unless you know a lot of number theory already. My guide to learning Galois representations (should be easy to find on the main site) gives one possible approach.

Regards,

Matthew

P.S. There is also the excellent paper of Darmon, Diamond, and Taylor. You could read that in conjunction with the BU volume. I don't think there is any advantage to going via the Serre's conjecture literature. Many of the key ingredients are the same, but the proof of Serre's conjecture (since it is proving a more general result) is harder going at various points, and requires more input from the theory of automorphic forms.

]]>
Asaf Karagila comments on "Appropriate for MO?" (19127) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19127#Comment_19127 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19127#Comment_19127 Wed, 23 May 2012 23:27:39 -0700 Asaf Karagila If you do ask your roadmap question, you may want to take into account what Joel D. Hamkins wrote in a comment on my roadmap question:

I don't think this question should be community wiki, because to answer well, as Andres has, is a demanding task.

It's not necessarily applicable to every roadmap, but it's something to take into account. (On the other hand, no one on MO cares about reputation... :-))

]]>
DavidRoberts comments on "Appropriate for MO?" (19126) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19126#Comment_19126 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19126#Comment_19126 Wed, 23 May 2012 20:03:52 -0700 DavidRoberts Well, FLT may just follow from the Peano Axioms by current work of Macintyre and McLarty, so if you're prepared to read a very looong proof... :-)

More seriously, there is also the more recent proof by way of Serre's conjecture. Experts would be able to say which of the proofs is easier, and which is more profitable to spend the time tackling.

]]>
Eugene comments on "Appropriate for MO?" (19125) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19125#Comment_19125 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19125#Comment_19125 Wed, 23 May 2012 20:02:10 -0700 Eugene Noah Snyder comments on "Appropriate for MO?" (19124) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19124#Comment_19124 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19124#Comment_19124 Wed, 23 May 2012 19:29:30 -0700 Noah Snyder It's worth thinking about discussing a roadmap with a local expert at your graduate school instead of on MO. They'll be able to better assess what papers you're ready to understand.

]]>
Eugene comments on "Appropriate for MO?" (19123) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19123#Comment_19123 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1367/appropriate-for-mo/?Focus=19123#Comment_19123 Wed, 23 May 2012 19:23:53 -0700 Eugene