/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15153147
>All that's been proven is at best Con(ZFC)-> FLT.
Quite famous mathematicians have conjectured FLT to be provable in very weak systems. Super weak like EFA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_function_arithmetic#Friedman's_grand_conjecture

I also remember Colin McLarty has shown that Fermats theorem, despite using a bunch of large category theory structures, doesn't need that.

>>15153339
>you did prove Con(ZFC) then you would know that ¬Con(ZFC)
"would know" is a bit vague, but fair enough. However, that statement is assuming you use ZFC or something weaker, which OP didn't necessarily imply.
You can also just assume Con(ZFC) on top of ZFC without a problem.

>>15153430
>Wrong. If you prove X, you demonstrate that X is true, which means not X is not true. This is basic logic.
This doesn't contradict what he said. (Namely that proving Con(ZFC) (from ZFC), would not only prove not not Con(ZFC), but also would be in contrast to Gödel 2)

>FLT is in a different league, because it relies on formalism
FLT of all statements you consider to be more complicated? That's a super low complexity claim

>>12517111
>additional
Condensed sets are also a categorical abstraction from certain nicely behaved topological spaces and Schulzboi thanks that this is indeed more relevant than the standard pointset topology approach to them.
He uses this to cast measure theory is a very function/arrow heavy language and aims at making a lot of functional analysis algebraic.

You know the situation is bad if
>Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists
is a separate Wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists