Math Forum From: Dan Hoey Date: Feb 24, 2000 1:24 AM Subject: Re: Alternative proof of FLT ? Jan Kristian Haugland writes: >I think the only interesting thing about these crank proofs is that >it's a challenge to try to convince the would-be provers that they >are wrong. It's been proven that no "elementary" proof of FLT can >exist. Your later explanation of this statement leads me to believe that it is based upon a definition of "elementary" that implies "equally applicable to the integers and to the p-adics", which does not apply to the crank proofs we usually see. However, it has been shown that no proof of FLT can exist that is composed of ill-defined terms, unfounded assumptions, and gaping non-sequiturs. Those are the kind we get all the time. You can presumably find one cited in this very thread (the presumption arising from observation of a habitual crank poster announcing yet another revision of his habitually botched approach to his habitual subject, absent any apparent amelioration of his habitual incoherence.) Dan Hoey