First published in 1979 and written by two distinguished mathematicians with a special gift for exposition, this book is now available in a completely revised third edition. It reflects the exciting developments in number theory during the past two decades that culminated in the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Intended as a upper level textbook, it is also eminently suited as a text for self-study.
Ian Nicholas Stewart is an Emeritus Professor and Digital Media Fellow in the Mathematics Department at Warwick University, with special responsibility for public awareness of mathematics and science. He is best known for his popular science writing on mathematical themes. --from the author's website
I have been working on understanding the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem for several years. I'm pretty strong in analysis and algebra, but I really know nothing about modularity. Hoping this one teaches me enough to get me there.
P.S. I need some work on modular forms to really understand the proof, but this gave me enough context to understand the broader strokes. I'm good with the elliptic curves, numbers, and algebra and this book explains it well too.
A very good account of algebraic-number theory, a branch of mathematics whose genesis was motivated by the search for a proof of Fermat’s last theorem, as well as a brief discussion of the ideas used by Andrew Wiles for his Wolfskehl Prize winning proof. I thought the theory of ideals could be developed a bit further, but I understand that the central theme of the book is on FLT.
Good overview of algebraic number theory as it applies to FLT, however not exactly pitched at beginners. You'll want to have a grounding in abstract algebra & linear algebra at the minimum. Still, even if you don't, you can get a good sense of the "big picture" and a high-level understanding of the advances in mathematics that were directly or indirectly related to attempts to solve FLT. Overall a fascinating read if you're a math geek who wants something a little deeper than Simon Singh's pop treatment of Wiles' proof.