Date: Dec 30, 2012 12:27 PM
Author: Pubkeybreaker
Subject: Re: From Fermat little theorem to Fermat Last Theorem

On Dec 30, 10:59 am, John Jens <7arcti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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%- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Idiot.