consider the case p =3, proved by Euler. Then you see that the assumption a < p in line 4 is not at all justified.
"John Jens" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
> I won't go back to warn you about possible mistakes in your "proof", > rather I will only tell you that if you have any hope to be taken > seriously by anyone seriously related to mathematics you better type down > your stuff with LaTeX, either in your blog or in a PDF file, otherwise > many mathematicians, like me say, won't even take the time to try to read > all that in ASCII. > > > > Tonio