On Thu, 06 September 2001,

paulmillscv@... wrote:

> Hello to all,

> Here is version 2 of my proof of Fermat's Last theorem. Am I on

> the green or a greenside bunker? Have fun.

>

> http://members.tripod.co.uk/comms1/papers/flt2.pdf

>

> Of course, FLT is relevant to primes because if you can prove x^p +

> y^p = z^p for odd primes p then FLT is proved.

Don't confuse the 'tool' and the 'application'.

FLT proofs may involve primes, but that doesn't mean that FLT is _about_ primes. FLT is about _all positive integers_.

One could say that _every_ theorem that _anywhere_ uses properties of UFDs is 'prime related'.

Apart from that, it appears that all you've done is add some handwaving to 3.2, and created a bizarre mathematical structure, the �modulo rational plane�, which you do not prove to be either a Ring or Field. You do not even claim it to be either of those, and the operations you perform in the structure I consider to be inconsistent with both.

The few "definitions" that you do give are either inconsistent with the usage of the things you are trying to define, or are so ambiguously worded that they don't actually define anything.

e.g. "Note that modulo rationals are defined in pairs." causes nothing but confusion at this end.

Can you _please_ move this to sci.math, In particular you appear to have reached a similar position to where the resident FLT prover got to about 2 weeks ago, before he flew off at a normal (not a tangent), so all the relevant arguments are fresh in the debunkers' minds.

It appears a de-'bunker' is what is required...

Phil

Mathematics should not have to involve martyrdom;

Support Eric Weisstein, see

http://mathworld.wolfram.com
Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!

http://www.shopping.altavista.com