Date: Dec 30, 2012 10:59 AM
Author: John Jens
Subject: Re: From Fermat little theorem to Fermat Last Theorem

On Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:33:01 PM UTC+2, Pubkeybreaker wrote:
> On Dec 30, 6:48 am, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote:
>

> > John Jens wrote:
>
> > >... =http://primemath.wordpress.com/
>
> >
>
> > The obvious error is your claim that a < p.
>
> >
>
> > But that error was previously pointed out to you.
>
> >
>
> > And yet you repost the same nonsense.
>
> >
>
> > Did you really fail to understand the previous objections?
>
> >
>
> > Or are you simply trolling?
>
> >
>
> > quasi
>
>
>
> I also pointed out that modular considerations, such as the one he is
>
> using,
>
> are known NOT TO WORK. One can not lift results from a local field
>
> (i.e. mod p)
>
> to a global one (i.e. Q) because SHA is an obstruction to the Hasse-
>
> Minkowski
>
> theorem.


I'm not using modulus 100% ,just for a < p only 99,99%