Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement

@Purgy Purgatorio: I think that the inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement here would be justified.

1. There are connections between Fermat's Last Theorem and other major modern conjectures & theorems which are not included within the article text (except for the modularity theorem).
2. Even if the connections were included, they would not be mentioned until far down the article due to the size of the article.
3. This is one of the most famous theorems of the modern era so I imagine such connections would be of interest to a substantial portion of the audience.
4. The infobox does not take up significant real estate on the right side of the page, where the picture and caption are now, due to the size of the lead and TOC.

To see what it would look like, the previous version is here. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove: I won't invest much arguing here, as long as I can hope that the whole template gets deleted. Purgy (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Restore the infobox, which provides a useful summary of key points about the page's topic. The removal of the template with an edit summary of "I am firmly convicted that there should be established consensus on implementing an infobox here, BEFORE doing so)" is particularly troubling, because policy requires no such step. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Restore the infobox which makes the article much more accessible to the occasional reader unfamiliar with the topic. Agree with Andy that there's no justification to request a discussion before an edit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of infobox. The infobox provides an at-a-glance summary of key information in this article for readers, and provides structured data suitable for use by third-party tools. The microformats emitted include 'vcard' and 'image', although others could be added. --RexxS (talk) 1:02 pm, 25 February 2019, Monday (13 days ago) (UTC−5)
• Remove/Keep out. I find the contents of the infobox itself problematical. Fermat did not "conjecture" it, he made a marginal note to himself claiming to have proven it, but never made the statement or conjecture in public (and given that he explicitly provided a proof for n=4 later in his lafe, there is good reason to think he recognized a problem with his original argument). The date is likewise suspect, since we don't know exactly when he made the annotation. The "Implied by" can hardly be exhaustive, but will give the false impression that it is, as will "generalizations". In short, I find the contents of the infobox to be misleading and open to controversy. Magidin (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  Conjecture: "a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved". Of course Fermat made a conjecture; it's an abuse of the English language to pretend otherwise, regardless of your OR about what he thought.

  Approximate dates are perfectly acceptable. The article text currently reads "This theorem was first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637", so it's good enough for the lead, but according to you, it's not good enough for an infobox.

  The documentation for the infobox shows implied by Statement(s) that imply the current one. There's no requirement for an exhaustive list, and that is common in infoboxes where only the key points should be included. There's no evidence that readers will assume that the contents are exhaustive. Disagreement with what the contents of a field should be is a very weak argument for removing an infobox.

  You have provided no evidence that the infobox you object to is any more misleading than the lead or the body text. That's no argument at all against an infobox. --RexxS (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  First: "Conjecture", in this context is a term of art. Looking it up in Webster fails to acknowledge that. Not every unproven/undisproven proposition is considered a conjecture. It's actually an abuse of the term of art to pretend that it is, regardless of you looking the word up in an inappropriate source. Second, while the statement (prior to its proof) eventually came to be understood as a conjecture, this is distinct from saying that Fermat conjectured it. Again, the Mordell Conjecture was indeed a conjecture in the technical sense, and Mordell very specifically said he had not conjectured it (in the technical sense). Saying Fermat conjectured it elides context, trivializes a complex issue, and creates the potential for false impressions. Compare to Fermat's actual conjecture that Fermat numbers were all primes. I object that a list of "Implied by" would give the impression of exhaustiveness; if there is no evidence readers would assume it is complete, there is also no evidence that readers would not assume it is exhaustive. And given that it is argued that the infobox is particularly for non-experts, I would think that it is more likely to create that impression than not. So really, what we have, is my opinion versus yours, not my opinion versus your expression of objective fact. My "OR about what [Fermat] thought" is actually a repetition of what is in the text of the article: "It is not known whether Fermat had actually found a valid proof for all exponents n, but it appears unlikely." etc. Infoboxes don't provide context, and give the appearance of finality, so they need to be much more careful than text in the article. They trivialize, oversimplify, and emphasize what is usually least important about the subject. Please do not confuse "I do not agree" or "I do not consider those arguments strong/valid" with "You have provided no arguments" or "you have provided no evidence". I find David Eppstein's arguments much better distil my general feelings about the infobox both in general and in specific. Magidin (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  • • In this case the issue is not that “conjecture” is a term of art, but that the embarrassing ‘’argumentum ad dictionary‘’ used the definition of the noun form when the objection is to the use of the verb. (I do not disagree about it being a term of art.) The point about the lead is not dumb, though. —JBL (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

      Regarding the point of exhaustiveness, I don't think that readers would assume exhaustiveness here, just as one wouldn't for fields such as "Known for", "Awards", "Doctoral students", or others used in infoboxes elsewhere. Regarding the subtleties in whether someone "conjectured" something or not, this is something that can be decided by consensus on a case-by-case basis for more controversial instances. The majority (or at the very least, a substantial portion) of theorems and conjectures are not so controversial as to claims of whether the author truly conjectured something. But of course, this talk page should really focus on this particular instance of the infobox rather than the infobox in general (which it seems to have become to a good degree). If it's good enough to be stated in the lead and article, it should be so for the infobox as well. Subtleties are still discussed in the article and the infobox is never intended nor assumed to have a strict finality just as the lead is not. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

      @Joel B. Lewis: Did you actually read https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture before commenting? It defines "conjecture verb" as "to make conjectures as to". Of course you have to use the definition of the noun to elucidate the meaning of the verb. Please feel free to explain where your dissenting view is sourced. --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

    @Magidin: Re https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture. We are writing an encyclopedia for a general audience. It is ludicrous to suggest that Merriam-Webster's dictionary is "an inappropriate source". Of course Fermat made a conjecture by any common understanding of the word. Your objection on grounds that you disagree with that common understanding is worthless. We're not writing the encyclopedia for you. It's also the word used in the lead and I don't see you wanting to delete the lead because it misuses your "term-of-art". --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

    An infobox in an article about a mathematical subject would not be using technical terms in a colloquial manner. Nor would it be relevant to quote the definition of a noun to justify a misuse of a verb. We are also not writing this entry for you, and your continued tone of just laying down the law and determining exactly what is worth what or what is worthless shows just more than a bit of hubris, particularly seeing how you apparently cannot tell the difference between a verb and a noun. And that is all for me, because, I find your contributions so far to be misguided and worthless, and since apparently that is more than sufficient to dismiss anything, I guess all your comments are hereby dismissed. Unless, of course, it's just those opinions you don't agree with that can be declared worthless by fiat, or if it is only your royal fiat that counts. I don't feel strongly enough about this to subject myself to the particular brand of "argument" that you apparently prefer. Magidin (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

    @Magidin: I'm going to ask you to keep your discussion civil now. I object to your ad hominem attack on me in reference to my "tone" (whatever that may mean in a textual discussion) and by accusing me of "hubris" and of making a "royal fiat" as well as calling my contributions "misguided and worthless". Those uncivil comments are not allowed as part of discussions on this topic and I'm going to ask you to strike them.

    You called my objections "worthless" and engaged in other comments that I found to be personal, but I guess that was okay. In any case, I have unwatched this page and will not participate in this "discussion", nor do I have any plans to exchange any further messages or comments with you on this or on any topic. Magidin (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Now, to return to the actual debate: An infobox in an article about a mathematical subject is still an infobox in an article for a general audience. I have shown by reference to a very well respected dictionary (Meriam Webster) what a general understanding of the term "conjecture" means. You have yet to provide any source that demonstrates otherwise, beyond your own self. A "conjecture" is "a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved" and "to conjecture" is the act of making a conjecture. Verb and noun don't have different meanings in a mathematical sense. If you claim otherwise, adduce your source.

If you think that it is inappropriate for the infobox to have a field titled "conjectured by", then kindly explain why the lead contains the phrase "This theorem was first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637". It even links to our article on Conjecture and has been present in the article since 11 May 2009. --RexxS (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Include infobox. For goodness' sake, it's a helpful thing to have to be able to get quick facts at a glance and compare against similar articles. Infobox opponents should stop reverting due to "no consensus" and start making concrete, positive arguments against inclusion. Or, you know, accept the infobox and move along. Lagrange613 18:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You mean, "concrete, positive arguments against inclusion" like, literally the one right above your comment? Are you actually bothering to read before pontificating, or does that take up too much of your precious time? Magidin (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean an argument against including the infobox, not an argument for changing some of the infobox's current contents. Lagrange613 19:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying each and every item on the infobox (except for the title) is incorrect or misleading, so I am arguing against including the infobox. I specifically said I was arguing for excluding the infobox. Perhaps you can stop misrepresenting what I'm saying and doing? Magidin (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're not trying to argue for excluding the infobox, just that your arguments point toward a different conclusion. Lagrange613 19:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Meh: I do not think that mathematical statements, broadly, lend themselves to treatment by infobox. But maybe a handful of prominent examples do. The box itself seems to be done in a relatively unobtrusive way, and the initial choice of contents seem reasonable. But the issues Magidin raises are also legitimate, and it's easy to imagine the "implied by" and "generalizations" (by the way, what is the difference there?) items growing into an unwieldy mess. --JBL (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  But by that logic, any part of the article could grow into an unwieldy mess. That isn't an argument against having an article. We deal with what the contents of any part of the article (including the contents of an infobox) should be, by editorial consensus. Incidentally, we are required to focus on arguments specific to this infobox in this article, not general objections like I do not think that mathematical statements, broadly, lend themselves to treatment by infobox, per ArbCom injunction. --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: For an example of the distinction between "implied by" and "generalizations": The Generalized Poincaré conjecture is a generalization of the Poincaré conjecture as it extends the statement to broader settings. The geometrization conjecture implies the Poincaré conjecture but is not a generalization as it concerns a different kind of problem that has an application to the setting of the Poincaré conjecture. Generalizations of X always imply X, but the converse is not necessarily true! — MarkH21 (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I've protected the page, until consensus is achieved here. Paul August ☎ 19:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remove/keep out. See my more detailed comments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 24 for why. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment on "consensus first", moved out of the above discussion

• Comment: "I think there should be consensus first" is isomorphic to "I object and do not believe there is consensus for inclusion", i.e., it is a perfectly reasonable position that either will or will not be borne out by this discussion. Whining about the choice of wording is pointless. --JBL (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No. There is no requirement for prior consensus in order for any editor to make an edit. Pretending that consensus for inclusion has to be established first is anathemic to to how Wikipedia works. If there is prior consensus not to have an infobox, then requiring discussion to change that consensus is reasonable. It is not reasonable to to insist on prior consensus in the absence of any prior consensus. --RexxS (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    • However, once there is disagreement about an important change (and the infobox is an important change), it makes more sense to restore the status quo ante during the discussion, which is what was done here. The editor was free to make the change. Another editor was free to object. And since this resulted in strong opinions, discussion while the status quo ante holds is what makes sense. Nobody is saying "Never make a change unless you discuss it first." Kindly don't pretend that is what is being stated. Magidin (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

      That is literally what is being stated: "I am firmly convicted that there should be established consensus on implementing an infobox here, BEFORE doing so". I have seen procedural arguments about whether the infobox should remain pending an outcome, but no actual arguments about why the article shouldn't have the infobox. It's impossible to take the former seriously absent the latter. Lagrange613 18:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

      It's hard to see arguments when one refuses to read them, indeed. I guess it's easier to just say there aren't any, even when that's not true. 19:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

      (ec) Magidin responded on my talk page. Bringing it here so we can have a unified conversation:

      First, I did give an argument. In the talk page. So kindly don't pretend I didn't in the edit summary: it's insulting, and it shows that you did not actually bother to check or to listen before trying to lecture. Second, nobody is saying that consensus is needed before any change. Rather, that if a change is seriously contested, as this one clearly is, then it makes sense for the status quo ante to hold while the discussion is taking place. So again, don't misrepresent the argument being made. Magidin (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

      My response is that I didn't quote Magidin; I quoted another user's edit summary. Magidin's argument that some of the infobox's contents are wrong is an argument for changing the contents, not for excluding the infobox. Lagrange613 19:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

      Repeating pointless whining does not make it amount to anything more than pointless whining. Every word wasted on PP's edit summary is pointless whining. Focus on the actual issue. --JBL (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

      This is an odd comment to make given how you began this thread. Lagrange613 19:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

      Since I did not begin the thread, I presume you mean "given [my] first contribution to the thread". Both of my comments have the same point, namely, to push others to stop pointless whining about an unimportant issue of how an edit summary was phrased. Maybe it is fruitless to write "stop talking about X, it's a waste of time", but it is in fact true people should stop whining about the trivial procedural question and focus on the substantive issue. --JBL (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

      I was defining "thread" to begin with a top-level bullet above. The fractal structure of Internet conversations creates ambiguities. Lagrange613 19:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

      • <Aside: please be kind to screen readers - MOS:LISTGAP> @Magidin: I have no objection to reversion to the status quo ante when a discussion has commenced. I do object to challenges to an edit based solely on the mistaken premise that a BOLD edit has to have prior consensus. That's not how BRD works. --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Post-TfD closure

Now that the TfD has been closed, I hope that we might be able to reach some consensus on the template's usage on this particular article. Hopefully we can have such a discussion and decision without distractions or drama.

From the above discussion, it seems that while there might not be a clear consensus, there is a slight preference towards inclusion by the involved editors. The specific hotpoints here are whether Fermat actually made the conjecture and the issue of an unwieldy list of implications, generalizations, etc.

• Since the lead explicitly stated that "This theorem was first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637" since 11 May 2009 (without any apparent objections), listing Fermat as the originator seems reasonable to include as a template field.
• Since the previous implementation of the template had three notable implications and two generalizations (only one of which is currently in the lead), this does not seem to be an out-of-control list. In this particular case, I also do no think that there exist many conjectures and theorems on Wikipedia that imply FLT.

Thanks in advance for any input and civil discourse :) — MarkH21 (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No consensus for deletion of the whole template is certainly not the same light as a green light for adding it wholesale to all our articles. I still object, strongly, to its inclusion here, for the same reasons I articulated on the TfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course, that's why I restarted this discussion! Nevertheless, I still don't see your argument and you never responded to my refutation of your points. That said, it doesn’t seem like our opinions on this are changing. Barring a number of new voices becoming involved, we may need to consider other content dispute resolution methods? — MarkH21 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Your options are limited when it comes to resolution of these sort of binary content disputes (either an infobox or not). If you think the debate above has exhausted the issues and is likely to result in a consensus one way or the other when adjudicated by an independent closer, then you could try to find a mutually agreeable administrator with experience of DR to close the debate. I've found User:Worm That Turned, a former Arbitrator, to be very fair-minded and has previously closed infobox disputes as both in favour and against, so he might be willing to help. If there isn't a clear enough consensus above, and you want more voices to be heard, then you should start a RfC here and advertise it to Wikiproject Maths and Wikiproject Infoboxes as the most likely sources of other views. Naturally, notifying other central noticeboards is sensible as well. You can suggest that the debate above be considered as "background" to save the previous contributors from re-hashing the same points again. When the RfC is closed after 30 days, the closer should take the debate thus far as part of the RfC. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the affective care of some editors, I am now unsure whether I am entitled to state my opinion (a second time!) in this thread, or not, and any helpful, uninvolved admin might save me from more severe retorsions by just topic banning me, and save WP from my disruptive view on info-boxes, by applying discretionary sanctions.

Since my hope of totally getting rid of this box were in vain, I consider this a new thread, and state that I still object to inserting an infobox of any genesis to this article. Especially:

1. Field: It is questionable whether this proposition should be ascribed to number theory. By its formulation it is rather trivial and belongs there, but its proof is involved and not solely ascribable to number theory, thus rendering the field entry dubious, if not meaningless, or, worse(?), misleading. BTW, similar would hold for many propositions, h(o)untable by this box.
2. Conjectured by/in: One might safely assume, for the quite simple formulation, that the article's proposition was conjectured already way earlier than the given year, and necessarily by other people. The conjecture is famous for Fermat just because of his cheeky claim on the rim of some manuscript. Again information is given in tabular form that requires expert interpretation for not to be misleading.
3. First proof by/in: Yes, this it! This is the kind of knowledge worth having an infobox for (assuming it is waterproof, and it was not one of Yau's disciples, has not been kept secret by Gauß, or invented by Hilbert, ...). Even this category is of doubtful value for math articles.
4. Implied by/Generalizations: I can only interpret these categories as a fundamental misconception of logical derivations. One might perhaps refer to some subsections in one arbitrarily selected derivation and claim its structural similarity to some proof of some named theorem, but this is just lucky coincidence. Any other proof might miss this similarity, have another one instead, ... The claim that experienced mathematicians would like, use, ur even find potentially useful is unsourced, if not unfounded.

*Do not reintroduce. Purgy (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The first two objections are independent of this infobox. They're prominent features of the lead that have been established by consensus both here and in the mathematical literature.

1. Field: There is no dispute that FLT is a problem of number theory. Sure, the proof uses algebraic geometry, analysis, etc. but so does almost every other proof of a modern problem in number theory. The first three words of the lead ascribe FLT as a problem of number theory and this is a characterization that has been standard in mathematics for centuries.
2. Conjectured by/in: Again, this is something that has been clearly stated in the lead for a decade. This would be an objection independent of the infobox - if it is accepted to be stated unqualified in the lead then it should be fine in the infobox.
3. First proof by/in: If the identity of who gave the proof of one of the most influential mathematical problems in history is undisputed, then it's clearly important information.
4. Implied by/Generalizations: FLT is a known consequence of several major open problems in number theory in addition to the modularity theorem. It's not just structural similarity.

But anyways, we are going to rehash the same arguments again and again. @RexxS: Thanks for the guidance, I'll ask the former arbitrator you mentioned if there is no objection or otherwise start an RfC. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Comment: I think for fairness reasons it is advisable to make explicit that there is no asking if there is no objection (against an official RfC), but that MarkH21 already asked for closing the debate.

Perhaps I don't understand your comment, but are you saying that we should have an official RfC instead of referring to User:Worm That Turned? The "if there is no objection" referred to any objection of the choice of arbitrator. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Comment: The statements trying to justify an IB here by stating the connections of the IB fragments to the lead or the article take in no account that the IB (context-less) deprives these fragments, of the context offered in the article, thereby loosing almost all of their relevance, leaving only trivia of an inherently complex construct. Additionally, these remaining trivia, besides their high potential of mystification and misguidance, are not even of value for a laymen's chit-chat.Purgy (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

    @Purgy Purgatorio: This is how the disputed infobox looks:

    Fermat's Last Theorem

    The 1670 edition of Diophantus' Arithmetica includes Fermat's commentary, particularly his "Last Theorem" (Observatio Domini Petri de Fermat).
    Field	Number theory
    Conjectured by	Pierre de Fermat
    Conjectured in	1637
    First proof by	Andrew Wiles
    First proof in	1995
    Implied by	abc conjecture Modularity theorem Modified Szpiro conjecture
    Generalizations	Beal conjecture Fermat–Catalan conjecture

    The field "conjectured by" is not a piece of trivia. The objection to that field was that it was not a conjecture. The refutation of that was provided by showing that the phrase "This theorem was first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637" has been in place in the lead for years.

    The field "conjecture date" is not a piece of trivia. The objection to that field was that it was not a conjecture. The refutation of that was provided by showing that the phrase "This theorem was first conjectured by Pierre de Fermat in 1637" has been in place in the lead for years.

    Those are the reasons why the presence of the phrase in the lead are adduced. Contrary to what Purgy Purgatorio believes, there is absolutely no "context" necessary to understand those facts.

    The field "field" gives a reader an at-a-glance indication of the mathematical field to which this theorem belongs. This is not trivia. It also presents information as a key-value pair, usable by third-party tools.

    The field "first proof by" gives a reader an at-a-glance indication of who first proved this theorem. This is not trivia. It also presents information as a key-value pair, usable by third-party tools.

    The field "first proof date" gives a reader an at-a-glance indication of when this theorem was first proven. This is not trivia. It also presents information as a key-value pair, usable by third-party tools.

    The fields "implied by" and "generalizations" may be more than the general reader will normally use, but may be useful to mathematical students who wanted to find this information efficiently. However, the link to the Modularity theorem, for example, is extensively discussed in the article and cannot be lightly dismissed as unsuitable for inclusion in an infobox. On the other hand, if these fields were included in an infobox, I would expect to see the article making far more mention of the other conjectures, as the infobox should only contain a summary of the key information in the article. None of the facts presented in these fields are trivia, and both also present information as key-value pairs, usable by third-party tools. --RexxS (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

    I do not doubt, not even a second, that it might be a rewarding target to make information contained in WP, as much as is possible, fully disregarding potential triviality, usable by third-party tools, and that there are potent stakes holders out there considering (re-)structuring WP this way a fruitful task. How these interests conflict with with genuine readers' interests must be researched, and how much they should be supported from within WP is to be decided upon and made transparent.

    - Calling information trivia requires fixing some scale. I plead for taking the level of the topic addressed by the article as the gauge. I consider the fact "1 + 1 = 2" as non-trivial in a pre-school environment, but as ridiculously trivial already in an encyclopedic article about "arithmetic". This article's topic can be stated in a trivial notation, but required in its proof very deep, partly new methods with a broad span of context, nothing apt for IBs. Calling entries of an IB ex cathedra This is not trivia. does not suffice, imho.

    - I totally miss a refutation of my claim that most entries in this here IB are deprived of their highly non-trivial context, given by the article's content already yet, leaving there just a Box of Trivia, as measured at the level of the article's topic. Purgy (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

    Please read MOS:LISTGAP. Be kind to those less fortunate than yourself.

    It is part of Wikipedia's vision to create "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." Jimmy Wales has made clear that Wikipedia is committed to allowing "developers to use its content on other websites". So that debate has already concluded. You can disengage from the process yourself, but you don't have the right to obstruct those wishing to expand the availability of the information in Wikipedia in as many ways as possible. It is not necessary to restructure Wikipedia in order to take advantage of the structure of infoboxes. Google has been using our infoboxes since 2008 when they were acknowledged as the largest source of structured data on the internet. Our audience extends beyond those reading our articles; and whatever conflict in interests may have been raised in the past are now settled. Your suggestion to re-examine issues that already have been settled is no more than an attempt to create unnecessary delay.

    Fixing a scale to gauge trivia is not necessary for Wikipedia. Common sense and common consensus will tell you what is trivial. Our content is aimed not at a pre-school environment, but at a reasonably competent reader – Wikipedia's score on the Flesch Reading Ease test in 2012 was 51, "Fairly difficult". Although efforts have been made to improve readability, there is little doubt that a Wikipedia reader is still expected to have reading ability and comprehension at least roughly equivalent to that of a good high-school student. There has never been any agreement that particular topics should be exempt from a requirement to be accessible to a general audience. That has been a perennial plea from every topic area that thinks it is somehow "special"; and it has been rejected consistently by the community. A mathematics article has no special status nor has it exemption from the expectation that it should be usable by the general readership. It simply is not tenable to try to argue that the year when a theorem was first conjectured, or first proven, is "trivia". That information quickly places the article in a historical context, and allows the reader to compare it with the dates of other topics. You fail to specify which of the seven infobox fields you consider trivial – is this because you cannot withstand scrutiny of your generalised assertions? No matter how much you opine otherwise, those seven facts can be seen by anyone to fit a common conception of "non-trivial".

    You are wrong to think that many aspects of this article's topic cannot be summarised concisely: the author, the date, the mathematical field, the person who made the first proof and the date of that, and so on. These key facts require no further context and are not so nuanced that they require significant explanation in the text. Such facts are eminently suitable for inclusion in an infobox.

    The refutation is clear: I have shown that the community rejects your plea for special treatment for mathematical articles. I have explained what our audience is. I have demonstrated what can be considered as "non-trivial" by our general audience. I have explained how each of the infobox's seven fields will be considered by that audience as "non-trivial". Quad erat demonstrandum.

    Additionally, you have failed to address the arguments that an infobox in this article would provide an "at-a-glance" summary of key facts, as 75% of our best articles do, and that an infobox in this article would provide key facts in a structured manner that enables third-parties to make use of them more easily. --RexxS (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

    Thanks for pointing me to MOS, I was unaware of this; as I am of those less fortunate(?).

    The meanwhile walls of text clearly show to me that with my meager means of using English I am incapable of pointing out that

    - this IB for this article does not provide at-a-glance key facts of the article, as judged by pertinent competent, reputable editors,

    - I do not plea for a special treatment of math articles,

    - it is not the common sense/conception of an audience against which "triviality" is to be gauged (what a condescence! should read CONDESCENDENCE!), but the level of the article's topic,

    - depriving delicate information of its context for constructing info-bites fitting here to IB entries, is a way to deprecate WP content,

    - here it's not about Jimbo's or any editor's view on profitableness of automated extraction of data out of WP-content, but about article quality as perceived by those generally promoting IBs vs. their opponents.

    I think I stop any further efforts of argumentation for my incompetence in making me understood (see above the list of objections against each single entry in the suggested IB). Purgy (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

    You call those arguments? You're just throwing out falsehoods in a verbose manner. Every single one of your claims is based on a fallacy.

    The infobox for this article does provide key facts from the article at-a-glance. You're the only dissenter from that, so there are no competent, reputable editors claiming otherwise. Are you claiming that none of author, date of conjecture, person who first proved, date of first proof, or mathematical field are key facts for Fermat's Last Theorem? Of course they are, and any rational reading of the article would show that to be so.

    "I plead for taking the level of the topic addressed by the article as the gauge." Of course you're asking for your mathematical articles to be treated differently. We write for a general audience for all articles; there's no exception for maths articles.

    "it is not the common sense/conception of an audience against which "triviality" is to be gauged". Where did that come from? I wrote "Common sense and common consensus will tell you what is trivial." Are you having a problem in reading English? And what is "condescence"? Please make an attempt to communicate in English. This is the English Wikipedia, after all.

    "depriving delicate information of its context for constructing info-bites fitting here to IB entries, is a way to deprecate WP content". Which of the seven pieces of information in the infobox is "delicate"? Which of those seven pieces of information require a context? What sort of context do you think the average reader needs to grasp that Fermat made his conjecture in 1637?

    You have still failed to address the arguments that an infobox in this article would provide an "at-a-glance" summary of key facts, as 75% of our best articles do, and that an infobox in this article would provide key facts in a structured manner that enables third-parties to make use of them more easily. Why are you failing to engage in debate beyond mere contradiction? --RexxS (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding English, let us be civil and not re-escalate non-content disputes of which this topic has seen more than enough. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Just to note, the actual article here on FLT is not very technical and quite accessible to non-mathematical audiences. The proof is indeed very deep and uses novel ideas (in modularity lifting, Galois representations, etc.), but most details are in the article on Wiles's proof and not in this article. — MarkH21 (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Closing or RfC

Hi All. MarkH21 asked me to look at closing this after a recommendation by RexxS. I understand why RexxS suggested me, I'm a current arbitrator (clearly making a difference if no one knew that), who happened to draft Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes (sorry!). I've written articles with and without infoboxes, I've previously closed debates for and against - so I hope that I can be considered as fair minded. As an extra benefit, I have a degree in Maths and used to drink in a pub called Fermat's Number, so I'm clearly a good egg.

After that preamble, we come to the question - should we close this discussion, or open it up to the wider community? Having read through the discussion (and associated discussions, noted at User:Worm That Turned/FLT) I would recommend opening it to the wider community. The last thing I'd want to do is close this as no consensus and I believe more voices would be beneficial. That said, I am happy to weigh up the arguments at this point if people prefer. I leave it to you. Worm^TT(talk) 09:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the question, I stand with my opinion that more voices do not necessarily lead to better decisions. Assuming good faith in the judgement of reputable experts (without COI) yields a more reliable result than gathering impressions from activists (who else chimes in?). Next I start with thanks for noting also the preliminary discussion on your subpage, continue with asserting me feeling submitted to the outcome of this process, state that I will try to avoid adding to what I said already (except when being asked, or blatantly misinterpreted), and finally, I hope for an unbiased reasonable outcome, especially since in the course of this I thought to perceive efforts to silence my opposition to this here IB by calmly persuading me, by being unreasonably and repeatedly ridiculed, templated, and even indef'd by a fast gun, reacting to a -say- perceived legal threat. All the best! Purgy (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with either option but will lean towards your recommendation of taking an RfC. More voices will not hurt (assuming the good faith of 'all editors' as one should always do). — MarkH21 (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I stand with Purgy on this. He seems to have taken the brunt of flak over this question and that appears to be rather unfair since he has been expressing the opinions that are basically shared by most, but not all, of the experienced math editors. This started with the observation that there weren't very many infoboxes in math articles, which I take as indirect evidence of the esteem these things are held in by the editors most involved in these articles. Opening an RfC will further degenerate this discussion into generic pro- and anti-infobox sides, and the voices of those who would naturally create and maintain them would, I'm afraid, be lost in the uproar. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I can see how that may happen, but there are only 3 opposes (which I hope isn't most of the experience math editors?) in the discussion to include the infobox in this article as it stands now. Nevertheless, we can defer to Worm That Turned if there is opposition towards creating an RfC. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Per the recommendation of Worm That Turned and seeing that there are only 3 existing opposes, 5 supports, and 1 "meh", I think it may be fairer to all parties to open an RfC. See Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem#Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Because of referring to lack of flaming outcry by experienced math editors with "only 3 opposes", I can't help but explicitly outing (Personal attack removed) MarkH21 as the author of this template under discussion, certainly planning for adoption of this IB at any math statement looking out of WP, and for this reason having a serious bias to see his template, that survived a suggestion for deletion by one of these editors, applied at one more occasion. I am surprised by the expectation that experienced math editors would be bludgeoning on this eternal dispute (more interesting things galore), lead by only(???) three manifest IB-promoters, unknown for substantial contributions to math articles, by the template's author, and an editor almost abstaining from math topics for his professional reasons. That much mobilization can be seen against the template here, too. Purgy (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Dates wrong

In this article they state that the date of Arithmetica was 1670, did they mean 1570, because further in the article says Fermat penned it in 1637. So someone has their dates wrong. 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:B4 (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Archimedes Plutonium, 19SEP2018

You've misread the article. Diophantus wrote the Arithmetica an ancient work (c. 3rd century BC). In 1637 Fermat wrote his note in the margin of a 1621 edition of Arithmetica. A later 1670 edition of Arithmetica included Fermat's commentary. Paul August ☎ 09:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me the original source according to which Fermat's comment is dated to around 1637 (according to most published sources) or even exactly 1637 (as stated e.g. in your comment above)? It's an old assertion; e.g. Dickson 1917. All I know is that it must have been between the 1621 publication of the edition of Arithmetica that Fermat used and the 1665 or 1670 edition that included his note. If there's some scholarship explaining why this note is believed to have such a precise date, it should be explained rather than merely asserted in our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It's always been my understanding he tweeted it. The proof would not fit in a tweet. EEng 19:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Dixon's own citation is to Oeuvres de Fermat, Tome 1, p. 291 (e.g. here, 1891) and Tome 3, p. 241 (1896). I checked these pages but they only give the quote of what Fermat wrote in the margin without a year given. Perhaps the attribution could have originally come from something within Fermat's letters (also contained in the various tomes of Oeuvres de Fermat)? A quick look at some modern sources don't really explain why 1637 is the standard given year.

Some digging around in the letters shows that the problem is from 1657 at the latest: on Oeuvres de Fermat, Tome 3, p. 313, there is a letter from Fermat to Kenelm Digby dated 15 August 1657: "Je propose donc de « partager un nombre cube en deux cubes rationels » ... je voudrais savoir ce qu'on pense de ce problème en Angleterre et en Hollande." (I propose to 'split a cube into two rational cubes'... I want to know what one thinks of this problem in England and Holland). — MarkH21 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind about the letters, as the article does note: "While Fermat posed the cases of n = 4 and of n = 3 as challenges to his mathematical correspondents, such as Marin Mersenne, Blaise Pascal, and John Wallis, he never posed the general case." It's not clear to me where the dating from Dickson and the countless modern attributions come from. Maybe through Fermat's son? Maybe we'll never know. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)