In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote: > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > email@example.com wrote: > > This gets back to what several people have requested that you do. > > If a statement is true independent of the Fermat counterexample, > > then you should separate out such statements as lemmas or > > propositions. This would make analysis of your proof easier. > > Hey, I tried something like that with my p=5 proof. I started by > producing the partial factorization that was true independent of the > rest of the FLT business. People got upset with me on the ring issue. > I said I was giving a factorization and that many rings would fit, and > they wouldn't go for that.
Yes. It is the same objection that we have with your FLT proof. You need to address it. But, by being independent of the rest of the FLT business, it should be a little easier to discuss.
> Hey, that proof is still there in that format if you don't > believe me at > > http://www.mindspring.com/~jstev/FLTp5.htm. > > I've debated starting it out with something like x,y and z being in a > commutative ring,
That would be great!
> but I'm wary of being chased into complexity by those > of you who love to try and do that whenever I attempt > to get a bit more technical.
Well, you want to convince yourself first with your proof, so what others try to do is not relevant.