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%