
Re: From Fermat little theorem to Fermat Last Theorem
Posted:
Nov 28, 2012 11:51 AM


On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:56:06 PM UTC+2, gus gassmann wrote: > On 28/11/2012 11:19 AM, John Jens wrote: > > > If x>p ,x = a + mp , m, natural > > > (a + mp)^p?(a + mp)(mod p)=a + mp + kp=a + p(m+k)... > > > > > > > How does any of your stuff work when p = 2? It is simply not sufficient > > to claim that a must be less than 2, i.e., equal to 1.
"If a + b  c>=0 because 0<a<=b<c implies b  c < 0 , 0 <= a + b  c < a < p If a + b  c = 0 see (1) If a + b  c >= 1 and because a + b  c < a implies a >= 2 and because a < p implies p > 2. "

