Hello Tom,

A nice observation and I will amend the paper so that the

Binomial prime `theorem' is a definition. But just a small comment.

Your example seems to be a contradiction but in fact you are

comparing a Binomial (2 + 1/5)^3 and a monomial (11/5)^3. :-). How

does one expand a monomial? How long is a piece of string? What

matters is that a consistent framework is developed and that is why

maths is fun. If you think that Andrew Wiles et al have approached

the problem of modulo rational arithmetic any other way you are in

for a pleasant surprise. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is

broke, define! Stay tuned as you see the end of my proof in version

2 and can you guess where it ends? No, it doesn't use Logical

Resonance! Something much more visual.

Regards,

Paul Mills