Richard wrote:
> Chris Dollin <chris.dollin@hp.com> writes:
>
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Bos said:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> The fundamental theorem, which has not even
>>>> been proved (though there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence for
>>>> it, and none against)
>>> Oh my dear chap, you're beginning to make a bit of a habit of being wrong,
>>> aren't you? If it's a theorem, it *has* been proved. If it has not been
>>> proved, it is not a theorem.

The rest of RH's snipped paragraph goes on to say:

] (Fermat's Last Theorem was for centuries a
] misnomer, because it hasn't been proved. Now it's a misnomer because
] the proof was supplied by Wiles, not Fermat.)

> What a load of rubbish.
>
> Fermat's last theorem wasn't "proven" until 1994.

You chose to comment on a snipped quotation rather the original message,
which distorts the discussion somewhat. There's certainly a sense in
which you're both wrong. Fermat proved his last theorem before he wrote
it down (or so he said) but the proof was never recorded or was lost.
Whether that's enough for it to be called a theorem in a technical
sense, I've no idea.