Earlier this year I read a book by the same title by Simon Singh, and unfortunately it is the superior read. Both are about the steps leading to Andrew Wile's 1993 solution to Fermat's Last Theorem, from ancient Greece on. At less than 140 pages, this tiny volume does not do the story justice. I have a decent math background, but I found myself getting lost in places, and the intrigue simply didn't grab me like it did in Singh's book. If you're in a hurry and just want a bare bones account of the history behind Fermat's Last Theorem, this will do, but if you want the whole story, go straight to Simon Singh. ( )

I read SIngh's book on FLT first, which was impressive and a good read. I came across Aczel's book later, but even though it is much shorter I eventually had a much better grasp of some of the proof's finer details. E.g. the role of elliptic functions and modular forms. Being a math amateur I enjoyed reading it very much. ( )

Excellent book, short but full of relevant and interesting content. Provides a clear historical background of Fermat's last theorem and its resolution. ( )

TBR

Mathematical ignoramus that I am, I was sufficiently impressed by the announcement a few years ago that a mathematician had solved Fermat's Last Theorem. I guess what impressed and drew me to this is the fact that the theorem had lain unproven for over 300 years, ever since Fermat noted it in the margin of a book he was reading, said he had a "truly marvellous proof" of it, but not sufficient space to elucidate, and left it at that; he never returned to the question in any of his writings on mathematics (although he lived for 28 years afterwards). The theorem is elegant in its simplicity: x+y=z (where each is raised to the nth power), has no whole number solution where n is greater than 2.

This exercised many great mathematicians and students over the centuries, but was finally proven by Andrew Wiles, trained in Cambridge and in Princeton at the time. The book provides an overview of the history of mathematics by exploring the various elements and schools of thought that contributed to the solution, beginning with the Greeks and earlier. Frankly, I found it a bit much even in its watered-down form. But I was interested in the basic question: did Fermat have the proof? The book shows that Wiles used the work a number of 20th century mathematicians, building on their work and integrating various schools of thought and approaches, some arcane to put it mildly. Fermat could clearly not have had this proof in mind when he wrote the theorem because much of the mathematics had not yet been invented, but did he have another proof in mind? The author speculates probably not, "but this is not a certainty", as he concedes that there might be simpler proofs of the theorem. The secret went to the grave with Fermat, but it is intriguing to think that his riddle remained unsolved for 300 years.