Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem

If Fermat’s Last Theorem were false, this would require either a conspiracy theory , or a quasi-conspiracy theory. “The conspiracy theory, of course, would be that mathematicians as a body know that Fermat’s Last Theorem is false, but do not want everyone else to know this, so they claim that they have verified the proof and found it valid, while in reality there are flaws in it and they know about them. The quasi-conspiracy theory would be that mathematicians as a body believe that Fermat’s Last Theorem is true, but that they consistently fail in their attempt to verify the proof. There is a mistake in it, but each time someone tries to verify it, they fail to notice the mistake. The reason to call this a quasi-conspiracy theory is that the most reasonable way for this to happen is if mathematicians as a body have motivations similar to the mathematicians in the case of the actual conspiracy, motivations that cause them to behave in much the same ways in practice. We can see this by considering a case where you would have an actual conspiracy. Suppose a seven year old child is told by his parents that Santa Claus is the one who brings presents on Christmas Eve. The child believes them. When he speaks with his playmates, they tell him the same thing. If he notices something odd, his parents explain it away. He asks other adults about it, and they say the same thing. The adults as a body are deceiving the child about the fact that Santa Claus does not exist, and they are doing this by means of an actual conspiracy. And in reality, this may be the only likely way for this to happen in the case of mathematics. But in other cases, there may be a more plausible mechanism to generate consistent mistakes, and this is wishful thinking of one kind or another. If mathematicians as a body want Fermat’s Last Theorem to be true and to be a settled question, they may carelessly overlook mistakes in the proof, in order to say that it is true. Technically they are not making a deliberate mistake. But in practice it is the lack of care about truth, and the interest in something opposed to truth, which makes them act as a body to deceive others, just as an actual conspiracy does.” The fact is, of course, that the proof of the Wiles is not widely accepted and understood, therefore it is a proof of conspiracy . However, the Last theorem of fermat as a theorem is correct, the healthy mathematical community expects a proof accessible at its average spiritual level so that it is a clear proof and within the real mathematical theories.

若费马大定理（Fermat's Last Theorem）不成立，则要么需要引入阴谋论，要么需要准阴谋论。所谓阴谋论，自然是指数学界全体均知晓费马大定理不成立，但不愿让其余人知悉这一事实，因此宣称已验证该证明并确认其有效性，而实际上证明中存在缺陷且他们对此心知肚明。准阴谋论则是指，数学界全体都相信费马大定理成立，但始终无法成功验证该证明。证明中存在错误，但每当有人尝试验证时，都未能发现该错误。称其为准阴谋论的原因在于，这种情况最合理的解释是，数学界全体的动机与实际阴谋论中的数学家类似，这些动机致使他们在实践中表现出近乎一致的行为。我们可以通过一个存在实际阴谋的案例来理解这一点：假设一名七岁孩童被父母告知，平安夜送礼物的是圣诞老人，孩童对此深信不疑。当他与玩伴交谈时，玩伴们也给出了同样的说法；若他察觉到异常，父母会为他解释消除疑虑；当他向其他成年人询问时，他们也给出了相同的答复。全体成年人合谋欺骗孩童，让他误以为圣诞老人确实存在，而这正是一场实打实的阴谋。而在数学领域的相关情形中，这或许是唯一可行的解释。但在其他情况下，可能存在更合理的机制来催生这类系统性错误，即某种形式的一厢情愿。若数学界全体都希望费马大定理成立且成为已定论的问题，他们可能会草率地忽略证明中的错误，以此宣称定理成立。从技术层面而言，他们并非故意犯错，但实际上，正是对真理的漠视以及对与真理相悖之事的执念，让他们如同真正的阴谋参与者一般，集体性地误导了他人。但事实上，怀尔斯（Andrew Wiles）的证明并未被广泛接受与理解，因此这一证明本质上带有阴谋论色彩。然而，费马大定理作为一条数学定理本身是正确的。健康的数学界理应期待一份契合学界平均专业认知水平的证明，使其成为一份清晰易懂、扎根于真实数学理论体系的严谨证明。