Date: Nov 28, 2012 3:04 AM
Author: quasi
Subject: Re: From Fermat little theorem to Fermat Last Theorem
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