Hi, Given Tim May's assertion that publishing is not critical to the advancement of science *and* that Fermat is a prime example of this I would like to examine it. Let's ignore the references to Fermat's letters and such to Pascal, Descarte, and others. Let's take as a given that Fermat's work was not published. When he died the executors found the material and decided to publish it (we'll ignore their motives for a moment). The result was a global 'aha' for mathematicians. A collective "Ah, so THAT's how you do that." Since it is clear that had Fermat's work *not* been published those self same problems would have remained unsolved, perhaps some as long as his Last Theorem which stands as a prime example of the result of *not* publishing or noting results, perhaps some even till today. It is clear that the initial hypothesis that publishing (or sharing) of work is not critical is clearly incorrect by the very example it holds to prove itself. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|