Inadvertant inaccuracy

[Timewalker]

I think Chekov mentioned Leningrad in the series, too (something about a little old lady in Leningrad?).

That's something I kind of wish the later Treks had maintained from the original series: avoiding references to 'current' Earth, avoiding the issue of which social/political systems 'won out'.

It was in the bar scene in The Trouble With Tribbles. Scotty and Chekov are arguing about which is better: vodka or scotch. Scotty asks when Chekov is going off his "milk diet" and refers to vodka as "soda pop." According to Scotty, "Scotch is a drink for a man."

Chekov snorts, "Scotch? It vas inwented by a little old lady from Leningrad!"

 

[SPCTRE]

While we're on the subject...

"This place is even better than Leningrad!" -- Pavel Chekov, 277 years after Leningrad changed its name back to Saint Petersburg.

It's tough when real life doesn't cooperate with fiction. Leningrad is mentioned in TVH, too.

Maybe in ST03, they'll have Chekov mention, "Putingrad." You know, try to get ahead of the game.

For even more historical accuracy, they could name it Putingrab, as in, "Putingrab everything I own"

Crimea river.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

While we're on the subject...

"This place is even better than Leningrad!" -- Pavel Chekov, 277 years after Leningrad changed its name back to Saint Petersburg.

What about Picard, not knowing that the proof of the validity of Fermat's theorem has been found in the 20th century?

 

[TheFlutteringHorde]

In Star Trek Into Darkness, there are scenes that take place at Jupiter... and of course the establishing shots show the prominent Great Red Spot.

Of course, that spot will probably be gone by the 23rd century.

Red Spot Junior grew up.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Crimea river.

 

[Christopher]

There was no way to assume that Leningrad would ever change its name back to St. Petersburg until the Soviet Union fell. And in Star Trek, that was assumed to never happen. They would just make peace at some point and be part of the United Earth government by the time of the founding of the Federation. If fact it didn't happen until the year Star Trek VI came out.

Right. Nobody who wrote science fiction during the USSR's existence ever guessed that it would cease to exist as early as 1991. Arthur C. Clarke's 2010: Odyssey Two had it extant but on friendly terms with the West at the time of the novel, while the movie version played up the Cold War tensions angle, making it far more dated in retrospect. Plenty of other SF assumed that the Soviet bloc or some successor to it would continue to counter the West for centuries, or else would come to terms with the West but continue to exist, as in Trek. There are some things science fiction is better at predicting than others.

What about Picard, not knowing that the proof of the validity of Fermat's theorem has been found in the 20th century?

That was later retconned in DS9 by having Dax talk about someone coming up with the most creative proof since Wiles in the 20th century -- i.e. that just because one way of proving it had been found, that hadn't ended the search for other proofs, because there's really no way of knowing if Wiles's proof was the same one Fermat had in mind.

 

[Nebusj]

What about Picard, not knowing that the proof of the validity of Fermat's theorem has been found in the 20th century?

That was later retconned in DS9 by having Dax talk about someone coming up with the most creative proof since Wiles in the 20th century -- i.e. that just because one way of proving it had been found, that hadn't ended the search for other proofs, because there's really no way of knowing if Wiles's proof was the same one Fermat had in mind.

No, we can be awfully sure about this one: Fermat did not have anything remotely like the Wiles-Taylor proof in mind. The Wiles-Taylor proof is built on elliptic integrals, abstract algebra, and group theory; even the prerequisites for the Wiles-Taylor proof were centuries in advance of anything Fermat did.

It's most likely that Fermat thought a proof for the general case would look much like the ones for cubes and fourth powers, since that approach looks promising, and can take some time to fall apart if you actually try it, and wouldn't require any major new mathematical discoveries from his time.

 

[Timo]

...So what Picard said remains valid, in spirit and letter. (Picard also appears to realize that there is no such thing as Fermat's Proof, and never was, but he's a romantic at heart and therefore keeps trying.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

...So what Picard said remains valid, in spirit and letter. (Picard also appears to realize that there is no such thing as Fermat's Proof, and never was, but he's a romantic at heart and therefore keeps trying.)

Timo Saloniemi

You need a ton of suspension of disbelief to believe that.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

What about Picard, not knowing that the proof of the validity of Fermat's theorem has been found in the 20th century?

That was later retconned in DS9 by having Dax talk about someone coming up with the most creative proof since Wiles in the 20th century -- i.e. that just because one way of proving it had been found, that hadn't ended the search for other proofs, because there's really no way of knowing if Wiles's proof was the same one Fermat had in mind.

No, we can be awfully sure about this one: Fermat did not have anything remotely like the Wiles-Taylor proof in mind. The Wiles-Taylor proof is built on elliptic integrals, abstract algebra, and group theory; even the prerequisites for the Wiles-Taylor proof were centuries in advance of anything Fermat did.

It's most likely that Fermat thought a proof for the general case would look much like the ones for cubes and fourth powers, since that approach looks promising, and can take some time to fall apart if you actually try it, and wouldn't require any major new mathematical discoveries from his time.

DS9 introduces there another implausibility, even greater than the one it was meant to resolve, IE why would a Trill from the 22nd century at most (Tobin) have even heard of Fermat, let alone Wiles? When we ourselves didn't even know about them (the Trill) until Picard's time? Why would he compare his proof of <insert Trill name>'s theorem with that of some human from the past? It's well intentioned but in the end it raises more questions than it answers.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That was later retconned in DS9 by having Dax talk about someone coming up with the most creative proof since Wiles in the 20th century -- i.e. that just because one way of proving it had been found, that hadn't ended the search for other proofs, because there's really no way of knowing if Wiles's proof was the same one Fermat had in mind.

No, we can be awfully sure about this one: Fermat did not have anything remotely like the Wiles-Taylor proof in mind. The Wiles-Taylor proof is built on elliptic integrals, abstract algebra, and group theory; even the prerequisites for the Wiles-Taylor proof were centuries in advance of anything Fermat did.

It's most likely that Fermat thought a proof for the general case would look much like the ones for cubes and fourth powers, since that approach looks promising, and can take some time to fall apart if you actually try it, and wouldn't require any major new mathematical discoveries from his time.

DS9 introduces there another implausibility, even greater than the one it was meant to resolve, IE why would a Trill from the 22nd century at most (Tobin) have even heard of Fermat, let alone Wiles? When we ourselves didn't even know about them (the Trill) until Picard's time? Why would he compare his proof of <insert Trill name>'s theorem with that of some human from the past? It's well intentioned but in the end it raises more questions than it answers.

As you said,Tobin Dax met exiled Cardassian poet, Iloja of Prim on Vulcan in the 21st/22nd Century. Emony Dax met Leonard McCoy on Earth in the 23rd Century. From that we can conclude that the Trill haven been known to the Vulcan since the 21st/22nd Century and the Federation since the 23rd Century. Don't confuse the first time we see a species with the the first time the Federation does. Odan was Federation ambassador, we can assume that position wouldn't be given to someone who wasn't at least a citizen.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

That's a very good point. For all we know, this could be a recurring phenomenon.

It's not like it hasn't happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Dark_Spot

 

[Locutus of Bored]

While we're on the subject...

"This place is even better than Leningrad!" -- Pavel Chekov, 277 years after Leningrad changed its name back to Saint Petersburg.

Totally not their intent, obviously, but we can BS an explanation and say he was talking about the still existing Leningrad Oblast.

Alternatively, perhaps the Neo-Trotkyists of the 21st century gained some traction and were able to claim a new homeland in the northwest part of Russia, reverting St. Petersburg back to Leningrad.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Leningrad was mentioned in Star Trek IV: "Leningrad has lost all electrical power."

 

[drt]

Nobody who wrote science fiction during the USSR's existence ever guessed that it would cease to exist as early as 1991.

Although, oddly enough, now that I think about it, I don't recall Chekov in the original series ever referring to the Soviet Union, only Russia.

 

[Ithekro]

One would think the old Soviet system would change its name as some point, and away be Russia under everything. But no one would guess they'd change the city name back to what it had been prior to the Revolution. It was assumed Lenin would always be a national hero or something.

 

[Christopher]

Nobody who wrote science fiction during the USSR's existence ever guessed that it would cease to exist as early as 1991.

Although, oddly enough, now that I think about it, I don't recall Chekov in the original series ever referring to the Soviet Union, only Russia.

Yet a map of Earth shown on the bridge monitor in "The Cage" included the USSR, and the Tsiolkovsky's dedication plaque in TNG: "The Naked Now" gave its place of origin as "Baikonur Cosmodrome, USSR, Earth" and its commissioning date as early 2363. Also, the first TNG novel Ghost Ship (from 1988) involved the "ghosts" of a Soviet aircraft carrier crew, vintage 1995.

 

[Johnny]

Or unless the 'red spot' is undergoing a phenomena whereby it contracts and expands through different periods of time and depending on what is happening on the planet's surface.

That's crazy talk!

Everyone knows about the spot on Jupiter and would've been asking where it was at if they hadn't shown it.

Or it could just be on the other side of the planet...it being round 'n all.

 

[Christopher]

Everyone knows about the spot on Jupiter and would've been asking where it was at if they hadn't shown it.

Or it could just be on the other side of the planet...it being round 'n all.

Have you ever seen a show or movie set in Paris where the Eiffel Tower wasn't visible out someone's window? Hollywood needs to display landmarks. Anything that happens in San Francisco is going to happen in view of the Golden Gate Bridge for at least part of the story, and anything that happens around Jupiter has to be in view of the Great Red Spot.

 

[drt]

Nobody who wrote science fiction during the USSR's existence ever guessed that it would cease to exist as early as 1991.

Although, oddly enough, now that I think about it, I don't recall Chekov in the original series ever referring to the Soviet Union, only Russia.

Yet a map of Earth shown on the bridge monitor in "The Cage" included the USSR, and the Tsiolkovsky's dedication plaque in TNG: "The Naked Now" gave its place of origin as "Baikonur Cosmodrome, USSR, Earth" and its commissioning date as early 2363. Also, the first TNG novel Ghost Ship (from 1988) involved the "ghosts" of a Soviet aircraft carrier crew, vintage 1995.

I was mostly thinking of the original series, where ("Cage" map excepted, I guess) they ended up being oddly prescient by never mentioning the Soviet Union as something that existed in the 23rd century. Although, I suppose that may have been a conscious "pro-West" choice on the part of the production.

Maybe we could attribute Chekov's mention of Leningrad as part of his insult to Scotty, to also indicate that Scotch was invented in the 20th century.