In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > In article <email@example.com>, > firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > > You say, I'm forced to act like I'm outside of integers at the start, > > but what if there were an integer solution to FLT? > > > > Then wouldn't your objection fall away? > > No. > > One proof of Fermat's result that primes congruent to 1 modulo 4 > can be written as the sum of the squares of two integers uses > complex numbers (in particular, Gaussian integers). You are > proving a result about integers, there are integer solutions for > the result, yet you go outside to complex numbers (and you have > to specify that you are going out to complex numbers so that > you can use their properties). >
Nope. Turns out that it depends on what I call 'v' in the proof.
You've been arguing that I have to go to complex numbers for my proof using x^2 + y^2 = 0. I think you're a bit confused by that, as you've now gone to saying it also applies to my FLT proof.
It turns out that I can extend the ring I'm using in the FLT proof, without going into complex numbers, and make all of your objections go away.
But I prefer to discuss these details, and highlight problems with the current mathematical understanding of these issues.
I don't know why you guys forget, when I've told you more than once, that I have selfish interest in these discussions. One, I'm exploring my own understanding of deep mathematical properties, and two, I'm highlighting that many of you simply *believe* that you have a very thorough understanding, when you don't.
After all, if it took the mathematical community 360 years to produce a proof of several hundred pages of something that I proved in less than five years with a couple of pages, then maybe you all don't know quite as much as you think.
Again, as of now, I *could* if I wished produce something that covered every base you folks can bring up, and that is in the standard form that you're used to. But, from my perspective, it would be more complicated than necessary (thought still much, much shorter than what is currently accepted as a proof of FLT), and it would be continuing perspectives that are too limited.