
Re: From Fermat little theorem to Fermat Last Theorem
Posted:
Jan 6, 2013 2:05 PM


You should give a reason why you assume a < p. For p = 2 you have 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, and then by little Fermat 3 + 4 congruent 5 (mod 2) but not 3 < 2.
Regards Michael
"John Jens" <7arctic77@gmail.com> wrote in message news:696982e8322848d0b4839cc3acb97341@googlegroups.com... > On Sunday, January 6, 2013 10:56:35 AM UTC+2, M_Klemm wrote: >> Hello, >> >> >> >> consider the case p =3, proved by Euler. Then you see that the assumption >> a >> >> < p in line 4 is not at all justified. >> >> Regards >> Michael > > I'm sorry but I don't understand what are you trying to say.

