Polynomials Mathematician Fermat

Armenia honors mathematician Dmitry Mirimanoff

The special conference scheduled for the 150th anniversary of the birth of Mirimanoff is co-organized by the Yerevan State University, Academy of Sciences of Armenia and the Mathematical Society.

The conference will consist of two descendants of Mirimanoff living in Switzerland and a number of scientists made by Armenia and abroad, including Vahe Gurzadyan Yerevan Institute of Physics and Guy Terjanian French mathematician.

"A couple of years Mirimanoff Dr. Patrick, who is the grand-son Dmitri Mirimanoff, became interested in his roots and that is how I discovered his grandfather," Pavel Galoumian who initiated the idea Conference on Armenian journalist said.

"My first impression was that it was an outstanding mathematician totally unknown in Armenia," said Galoumian, a physicist by training who has worked in Armenia and Switzerland.

Tiflis in Geneva through Russia

Born September 13, 1861, the Russian town of Pereslavl-Zalessky, Dmitri Mirimanoff was a son of an engineer Semyon Mirimanov Mirimanovich and Maria Dmitrievna Rudakova Russia of a noble family who owned land in the region.

Mirimanovs (Mirimanians) were one of the most prominent Tiflis (Tbilisi), families with two representatives serving mayors in the mid-19th century. The family moved to Tiflis over a century ago and is believed to have moved from the Armenian community in New Julfa, Iran.

Dmitry Mirimanoff left Russia in 1880 to pursue university studies in Italy and France.In France, he first enrolled at the University of Montpellier and the University of Paris, where he was taught by some of the greatest mathematicians of the time, including Jean-Claude Bouquet, Emile Picard, Paul Emile Appell, Charles Hermite and Henri Poincaré. In 1897, Mirimanoff was elected member of the Mathematical Society of Moscow.

In 1887, in Geneva Dmitry Mirimanoff Malvina married Genevieve Valentine Adriansen. They had two son Alexander was born in Oranienbaum (now Lomonosov, Russia) in 1898 and Andrew born in Geneva in 1902.

Fermat's Last Theorem For Polynomials

Despite the infamous difficulty of FLT most students of mathematics can attest that they have, at one point or another, devoted a day, week, or month to trying to prove it--after all, it doesn't look that hard. Well, a more mathematically cultured person may have a different pursuit, namely asking whether an analogue of FLT holds for other fields (rings). Namely, given a ring I won't keep you in suspense, the answer is no. So, who won a Fields medal for the proof? Which great mathematician solved this problem? Well, shockingly the person who solved this originally didn't win a Fields medal, isn't famous, and isn't even (at least widely) known. In fact, one can prove this theorem (more generally over fields of characteristic zero) with such elementary methods that a mathematically inclined high school student would have no difficulty understanding it. Particularly, once one proves the so-called Mason-Stothers Theorem (which states that under the conditions of our 'theorem' one has that I'm not sure I totally agree. Unless I missed something in the proof of the FLT for polynomials via Mason-Stothers, there isn't any analysis used that I've seen. Am I being stupid? That said, I think the Mason-Stothers proof is one of those problem-solver proofs that is kind of...a fluke. It doesn't really tell you anything meaningful. The meaningful proof of the FLT for polynomials is done using alg. geo. in which case I'd agree with what you've said. I'm not sure I totally agree. Unless I missed something in the proof of the FLT for polynomials via Mason-Stothers, there isn't any analysis used that I've seen. Am I being stupid? That said, I think the Mason-Stothers proof is one of those problem-solver proofs that is kind of...a fluke. It doesn't really tell you anything meaningful. The meaningful proof of the FLT for polynomials is done using alg. geo. in which case I'd agree with what you've said. although derivation can be defined over a ring algebraically but over the ring of integers the only derivation which can be defined is the zero map. so it's completely useless. even if we define a non-trivial derivation over some Euclidean domain, the degree of the derivative of an element will not necessarily be less than the degree of the element. this is a very special case that happens in polynomial rings. although derivation can be defined over a ring algebraically but over the ring of integers the only derivation which can be defined is the zero map.

Integers, polynomials, and rings, a course in algebra

A to Z of mathematicians

Quantum

Kvant selecta, Algebra and analysis, II

Contemporary Abstract Algebra