marker at math.uic.edu
Wed Oct 22 01:42:57 EDT 1997
>Matiyasevic's theorem is much more
>readily understandable, because no curves or surfaces are involved.
>This explains why Matiyasevic's theorem may be called foundational,
>while the Lang conjectures may not. This is the answer to Anand's
I see. The real test for whether a result is foundation is if it
makes good cocktail party conversation.
As a point of fact I expect that the intelligent layman would have an
easier time understanding the statement of Falting's theorem
More information about the FOM