We had been at this argument for eternity, and to claim that is an intellectual position I ever maintained throughout all the interchanges on all the threads

**is at best misleading and at worst a blatant lie.**
Now I undersand why you closed the thread. To preserve that trivial error as a "counter-proof", at the same time claiming my actual position as your own. Talk about hypocrisy... in a "moderator" yet.

I will happily go back and correct the error to show what I mean, if it will help you to understand the proof and you open the thread instead of preserving the error as a quote of a position I have never held, and is in fact, part of my proof from the very beginning.

I have been writing a lot of tex, have no proofreader, and mistakes sometimes get by. You aren't writing anything original, just throwing shit against the wall to see if anything sticks. Others reading this will cut me some slack, and can pm me to see what I really meant if there is a question.

I have

**ALWAYS** said (in context, except for that mistake):

in the Binomial theorem where rem(a,b2) = 2ab.

**That is why I showed Fermat's theorem is proven**:

in the Binomial theorem where rem(a,b,2) = 2ab.

Therefore,

unless the triangle is Pythagorean (right triangle) for the case n=2. n>2 follows immediately.

(I don't even need this condition to prove Fermat's theorem for which n > 2)

(I show this case in the STR unit circle for two independent integers).

So the triangle inequality is never true because there exists rem(a,b,2) > 0. Which means you may finally understand what I have been saying from the beginning.

That is why I proved Fermat's Theorem for the case of the Binomial theorem for n = 2, (rem a,b,2) > 0

And then n>2 follows immediately. Because (a,b) are independent variables....

**As a moderator, you are unethical, small minded, and incompetent. If we're going to have to fight, have the courage to fight mano a mano on the same battlefield.**
## Bookmarks