quasi
Posts:
11,880
Registered:
7/15/05


Re: From Fermat little theorem to Fermat Last Theorem
Posted:
Nov 28, 2012 3:04 AM


John Jens wrote:
>From the condition 0 < a <= b < c < p,
The inequality c < p is not a _given_ condition.
You need to _prove_ it in order to use it.
>p must be bigger then 2 because don't exist minimum two >numbers (a <= b, c) between 0 and 2.
You asserted c < p but never proved it. There's nothing that you actually proved which excludes p = 2. Indeed, using a = 3, b = 4, c = 5, p = 2, the equation
a^p + b^p = c^p
is satisfied with p < a < b < c, contrary to your claim that c < p is forced. It appears you think c < p is somehow implied by Fermat's little Theorem, but guess what  it's not.
quasi

