Date: Dec 29, 2012 3:05 PM
Author: quasi
Subject: Re: From Fermat little theorem to Fermat Last Theorem

John Jens wrote:

>If a > p
>...
>So we can?t find naturals 0<a=b<c with a<p with p odd
>prime to satisfy a^p+b^p=c^p.


Already your argument is unintelligible.

The line

"If a > p"

is followed by the line

"..."

What does "..." mean in this context? I have no idea.

Next you have the sentence

"So we can?t find naturals 0<a=b<c with a<p with p odd prime
to satisfy a^p+b^p=c^p."

The word "So" is confusing.

Are you claiming to have proved it by the two lines

If a < p
...

which preceded the "So"?

But that makes no sense.

So maybe the "So" is a statement of what you are trying to
prove.

But then your next sentence

"We can extend this to a , b , c rational numbers ,
0<a=b<c and a<p."

suggests that you've already proved the previous sentence,
which of course, you haven't.

So already, the logic appears badly flawed.

A quick look at the rest of your argument makes it obvious
that as a whole, it's just nonsense.

Now you may be what we call "a troll", in which case, the
fact that your post is nonsense may be deliberate. In other
words, you know it's nonsense and you're just trolling,
baiting for reactions.

On the other hand, if you really believe your own nonsense,
then you're what we call "a crank".

Crank or troll, which are you? We'll see.

For starters, let's see how you respond to my requests for
clarification on the logic of the first few sentences of your
proof.

quasi