Since then I have covered conferences such as the International Congress of Mathematical Physicists at Boulder, Colorado (1983) , the 11th General Relativity and Gravitation Conference ( Stockholm, 1986), a conference directed by Benoit Mandlebrot on Fractals & Chaos, ( University of Cincinnati, 1987), Emma Noether ( Bryn Mawr, 1982) , the René Thom celebration at the Institute Poincaré in 1988, and others. In addition I have devoted many pages to interviews and biographies of mathematicians, not always because of their contributions to mathematics, but also because of their valuable work in other fields as well, notably civil rights: such was the case, for example, with the 3-part series I did on the logician Alexander Yesenin-Volpin, whose work in logic is considered controversial, even questionable, but whose activities in the Russian civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's are incontestably admirable.
I have also interviewed and written about Rene Thom ( 1986) and Alexander Grothendieck (1988) .
None of these projects qualify me as an expert in contemporary number theory. In fact, as one can see from the above, my interests and knowledge about modern science fall in the areas of mathematical physics, foundations, history of science, and psychology. ( In 1992, I wrote a 10-part series on the medicine and psychology of the late 18th century in Vienna).
However, this weakness, combined with my strengths, need not be a disadvantage. I am not, in most respects, the general uninformed layman. What I am is the general unspecialized mathematician. It will therefore be my task in these reports, to communicate my insights to other mathematicians in unrelated specialties, all of whom share a basic education in a dozen or so fundamental areas: analysis, topology, differential geometry, classical number theory, logic and set theory, abstract algebra, dynamical systems, etc., etc....
At the same time I am also addressing the literate general public, although I expect it to bear with me when I use basic terms such as "group", "affine transformation", "modular form", "elliptic curve", even "Galois group", without preparation or explanation. I don't expect non-mathematicians to understand these, and since my emphasis tends to be on the "human dimension" of the sciences, I intend to write up these reports in such a way that much of their content can be understood without knowing the meaning of these things.
I will take it for granted, that anyone who is interested in a report on the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, will not need to be given a course on the meaning of "prime", "Diophantine equation", "exponent", "divisor", "congruence mod q " , "binomial theorem", and so forth.
At the same time, I will try to be scrupulously honest about what I don't know: this is far more difficult than people imagine, especially in mathematics. Assuming that I succeed in complying with this restriction, the question remains: Can I, knowing only what I do know, say enough things that are meaningful and accurate about the Fermat's Last Theorem Conference, to give the average reader the sensation that he himself has been there, and the impression that he has learned something? Only you can judge.
ROY LISKER
150 Kisor Road
Highland, NY 12528
914-691-7578.
(As all of this is being done out of my own pocket,
I would also grateful accept, and acknowledge,
contributions sent to me to cover the basic expenses
of attendance at the conference, and the work of doing
the coverage. )
Back to Fermat's Last Theorem: Conference Report