Comment by prerok
3 days ago
Well, true, we cannot be 100% certain, but if he published the proof to n=4, we can say it's most likely he did not find the general proof.
3 days ago
Well, true, we cannot be 100% certain, but if he published the proof to n=4, we can say it's most likely he did not find the general proof.
why does that make it more likely?
Because if he had the general proof he wouldn't need to go out of his way to prove n=4, since it would be covered already by the general proof
It is simply an obvious fault line in the nature of the problem statement: you can crack the problem in 2 parts: the x^4+y^4=z^4 part, and the part that claims x^p+y^p=z^p with p a prime.
Suppose Fermat solved the proof by using this natural fault line -its just how this cookie crumbles- solved the n=4 case, and then smashed his head a thousand times against the problem and finally found the prime n proof.
He challenges the community, and since they don't take up the challenge, "encourages" them in a manner that may be described as trollish, by showing how to do the n=4 case. (knowing full well the prime power case proof looks totally different)
3 replies →