Looks like http://www.ipam.ucla.edu/abstract/?tid=19347&pcode=MAP2023 has both 
an abstract (which goes into more detail about what the talk is about) and a 
video of the talk.

Maybe you'd be able to figure out where this fits into your outline; I'm afraid 
I'm even less far up the learning curve than you.

On February 18, 2023 7:58:11 PM MST, Steven Nguyen 
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I've actually taken some notes over Fermat's Last 
>Theorem: 
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/19dXkojJJt6gq9rYLo6zbz7HpHpD9iMJJkY0LEpGqPs0/edit?usp=sharing
>Although so far, all that has come out of it are some useful resources, 
>definitions, and the overall structure of Fermat's Last Theorem, which I 
>summarize here:
>
>   1. 
>   
>   Modularity Theorem (previously the Taniyama-Shigura(-Weil) conjecture): 
>   every rational elliptic curve is modular
>   2. 
>   
>   Yves Hellegouarch came up with the idea of associating hypothetical 
>   solutions (a, b, c) with elliptic curves of the form y^2 = x(x − a^n)(x 
>   + b^n).
>   1. 
>      
>      Such curves are called Frey curves or Frey-Hellegouarch curves.
>      3. 
>   
>   Ribet’s Theorem (previously called the epsilon or ε-conjecture): All 
>   Frey curves are not modular
>   
>Note that the final paper by Wiles proved a special case of the modularity 
>theorem for semistable curves over ℚ. In this case, "Frey curves are 
>semistable" would have to be proved as well.
>
>This is enough to prove FLT. If there were any solutions, then there would 
>be a corresponding Frey curve. By Ribet’s Theorem, the curve would not be 
>modular, but that contradicts the Modularity Theorem. Therefore there are 
>no fermat triples, FLT is proved. ∎
>
>
>However, I admit I don't understand almost all of the theory behind FLT... 
>I've never heard of local field class theory. So that's quite an 
>interesting link.
>On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 8:36:10 PM UTC-6 [email protected] wrote:
>
>> I know this is a bit of a white whale and there is a lot of mathematics to 
>> formalize before this is even in reach. But when the formal math community 
>> (taken as a whole) is at 99 out of 100 of the Top 100 list, of course it is 
>> easy to focus on the one.
>>
>> Anyway the news is that there was a recent talk on formalizing local field 
>> class theory which apparently is one of the things that will be needed. 
>> https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/109877480759530521
>>
>
>-- 
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>"Metamath" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>email to [email protected].
>To view this discussion on the web visit 
>https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/1ceff94e-aa1a-411f-bb69-8dea80fd6a59n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Metamath" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/8F1764D0-2354-465D-ABF6-A15C7A8B9BDE%40panix.com.

Reply via email to