Re: Bring Math Arguments against this FERMAT LAST THEOREM PROOF


george ghiata wrote:
> I hope You read all My rep;ies to you on this topic
> They are explicit as quas's.
> He got to regnoise that the key ideea of the proof is original and
> it is mine.No another math.come out with the ideea shown at the
> end of the proof.Yes,everything else has been known before
> but the "spark" has been given by me with
> the final of the proof which beleive it or not thousands of mathematicien miss it to find.Quas just does not believe that could happened.and my proof must be wrong somewhere.But as he goes on the path of the proof
> he is perplex that he can not find a math argument against it but
> only confirmations of its validity.And he still can not
> beleive it!! But he is forced by his reason to beleve it!

Hold on, we only got to the end of the "OBSERVATION" for the case n =
3, so don't get too excited about "confirmations of validity"! Assuming
that the "OBSERVATION" is indeed correct, it still remains for the rest
of your proof to be verified or (more likely IMO) refuted.

Having got this far I don't mind reading a bit further when I get a
moment, but all I can do is ask for explanation of things which are not
immediately obvious, or point out things that are very obviously wrong.
I don't have the number theory background to fill in the missing parts
of the proof myself, or to recognise known results when no reference is
given.

.