Re: Fermat's Last theorem short proof

I can see why you are so frustrated with your readers -
You do not have a "Proof" but you do have an interesting "algorithm." The problem is language and use of terms. In English "better method" is what you have, but that is not a "proof = no doubt of outcome" without all the calculations written down -- completely.

Keep in mind that your F(x) does not vary much from Wiles' proof. Converting "c^z" to "b" is so minor a change...

And you cannot use this to "prove" Beal's Conjecture either - x is a common factor at the outset. If you start at the end, you only get back to the beginning. You cannot "prove" what you are trying to prove by using the thing you are trying to prove. That is

"Circular logic" and that is what you do have - in abundance.

Sorry...

Joe
.