> My understanding is that Wiles's work depends on association. > > The logical fallacy I've put forward as a challenge against his work > is, > > "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc". > > James Harris
Your 'understanding' is a misunderstanding. What you have put forward is,
"Argumentum ad ignorantum."
You have no standing to challenge anyone about anything. Get over it, James Harris. You have been thoroughly debunked. Remove your faulty and error-ridden attempts at proving FLT from public view. You are polluting the internet with your posts.
-- The only thing more pitiful than beating a dead horse is trying to ride one. -- Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle. -- http://www.crbond.com