Re: This Week's Thought's on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1
From: Gerry Myerson (gerry_at_maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email)
Date: 07/21/04
- Next message: Herman Family: "Re: What is Forced (accelerated) Motion?"
- Previous message: Gerry Myerson: "Re: Number theory"
- In reply to: Doug Goncz : "Re: This Week's Thought's on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1"
- Next in thread: Doug Goncz : "Re: This Week's Thought's on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1"
- Reply: Doug Goncz : "Re: This Week's Thought's on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:08:34 +1000
In article <20040720060753.12124.00002019@mb-m01.aol.com>,
dgoncz@aol.com.bat.exe ( Doug Goncz ) wrote:
> I think I should have written
>
> a^n + b^n = 0 (mod c) is sufficient for
> a^n + b^n = c^m
This is false.
> a^n + b^n = 0 (mod c) is necessary for
> a^n + b^n = c^n
This is true.
-- Gerry Myerson (gerry@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
- Next message: Herman Family: "Re: What is Forced (accelerated) Motion?"
- Previous message: Gerry Myerson: "Re: Number theory"
- In reply to: Doug Goncz : "Re: This Week's Thought's on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1"
- Next in thread: Doug Goncz : "Re: This Week's Thought's on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1"
- Reply: Doug Goncz : "Re: This Week's Thought's on Fermat's Last Theorem: 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]