
Re: From Fermat little theorem to Fermat Last Theorem
Posted:
Nov 27, 2012 5:26 PM


On Nov 27, 2:58 pm, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote: > John Jens wrote: > >quasi wrote: > >>John Jens wrote: > > >>>http://primemath.wordpress.com/ > > >>Copying part of the text from the link above (enough to > >>expose the error in Jens' reasoning) ... > > >>>Fermat?s little theorem states that if p is a prime number, > >>>then for any integer a, the number a^p is an integer multiple > >>>of p. > > >>> a^p = a(mod p) > > >> Yes, but note that a^p = a (mod p) does not imply 0 <= a < p. > > >>>Assume that a,b,c naturals and p prime and > > >>> 0 < a <= b < c < p > > >>> ... > > >>>So we can?t find naturals 0 < a <= b < c < p with p prime to > >>>satisfy a^p + b^p = c^p. > > >> Sure, but that doesn't even come close to proving Fermat's > >> Last Theorem. All you've proved is the trivial result that if > >> a,b,c are positive integers with p prime such that > >> a^p + b^p = c^p then c >= p. > > >"Assume that a , b , c naturals and p prime and 0<a=b<c<p" > > Yes, you can assume anything you want, but then any conclusion > is conditional on that assumption. > > Without loss of generality, you can assume > > 0 < a <= b < c > > but how do you justify the inequality c < p? > > Of course you can take 2 cases: > > (1) c < p > > (2) C >= p > > The case you analyzed is the case c < p (the trivial case), > and you never even considered the other case. Thus, you > did not actually prove Fermat's Last Theorem.
He might also want to check his proof when p = 2.....

