Pierre de Fermat was born in Beaumont-de-Lomagne. France in August of 1601 and died in 1665. He is considered to be one of the greatest mathematicians of the 17th century. Fermat is considered to be one of the ‘fathers’ of analytic geometry. Fermat along with Blaise Pascal is besides considered to be one of the laminitiss of chance theory. Fermat besides made parts in the field of optics and provided a jurisprudence on light travel and made wrote a few documents about concretion well before Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz were really born. Fermat’s most of import work was done in the development of modern figure theory which was one of his favourite countries in math. He is best remembered for his figure theory. in peculiar for Fermat’s Last Theorem.

This theorem states that: xn + yn = zinc has no non-zero whole number solutions for x. Y and omega when N is greater than 2. Fermat about surely wrote the fringy note around 1630. when he foremost studied Diophantus’s Arithmetic. It may good be that Fermat realized that his prove was incorrect. nevertheless. since all his other theorems were stated and restated in challenge jobs that Fermat sent to other mathematicians. Although the particular instances of n = 3 and n = 4 were issued as challenges the general theorem was ne’er mentioned once more by Fermat. In fact in all the mathematical work left by Fermat there is merely one cogent evidence. Fermat proves that the country of a right trangle can non be a square.

Meaning that a rational trigon can non be a rational square. In symbols. at that place do non be whole numbers x. y. omega with x2 + y2 = z2 such that xy/2 is a square. From this it is easy to infer the n = 4 instance of Fermat’s theorem. The cogent evidence of Fermat’s Last Theorem marks the terminal of a mathematical epoch. Since all of the tools which were brought to bear on the job still had to be invented in the clip of Fermat. Judging by the doggedness with which the job Washington for so long. Fermat’s alleged cogent evidence seems likely to hold been illusional. This decision is farther supported by the fact that Fermat searched for cogent evidence for the instances and. which would hold been otiose had he really been in ownership of a general cogent evidence.