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.