Math Forum

From Fermat little theorem to 'la theoreme "dernier" du Fermat -- and
the next one'

thus:
Furthermore, this may have been one of his earliest proofs
> in the theory of numbers -- which science he

Munk said that this must have been Fermat's proof, and
I can only verify it up to the very last page
of the alleged proof, which may be poorly

John Jens wrote:

> a^p?a(mod p)
> a^p = a + px it's obvious that x is positive integer

Yes,

John Jens <7arctic77@gmail.com> wrote in news:5ab9e178-d03f-4a35-
b142-9106b0fadd93@googlegroups.com:

> I'm

On Monday, January 7, 2013 8:00:42 PM UTC+2, M_Klemm wrote:
> John Jens wrote:
>
>
>

John Jens wrote:

> Yes it's only for step 1 when a,b,c naturals.

The proof for a,b,c naturals and p

Pubkeybreaker wrote:

> I have already told him that regardless of the details
> of what he is doing
>

I'm imagine that you're an expert in philosophy ;)

On Monday, January 7, 2013 3:18:29 PM UTC+2, M_Klemm wrote:
> "John Jens" wrote
>
>
>

On Jan 7, 8:18 am, "M_Klemm" wrote:
> "John Jens" wrote
>