In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote: > 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. >
Ok, let's say I start there. In fact, I'll make that change now.