The concept of Modulus is irrrelevant to my proof of Fermat's theorem, however, since the Binomial Theorem holds as well for positive real numbers, so the question of modulus is moot. As a matter of fact it holds because the numbers it refers to are conceptuallized as single valued (i.e., invariant under arithmetic operations, and that the BT is a relation between independent number lines)

(I wrote the post because I had mistakenly thought the Naked Emporer was referring to "Modulus"; actually he was referring to "module" as a term in abstract algebra, which is equally irrelevant; not only to Fermat's proof, but to a whole lot of other concepts in mathematics - e.g., independent variables

That doesn't mean that number theorists and abstract algebraicists are bad; it just means that one likes some people a whole lot better if they don't know them very well....

Maybe some day I'll go back and look at it again (I'll re-analyze the lines containing modulo reference, because they may be incorrect as written, but there is a correct version, since I proved that

could not be an integer from the relativistic unit circle...

(BTW, Grapes, did you ever think that someone else might have a relevant point to make in my thread about Fermat's Theorem, besides your wrong and/or irrelevant comments (except for minor typo molehills that you tried to make into mountains? And that I might want to respond to someone who had an intelligent contribution to make in the interest of the free flow of ideas other than braying "nonsense" like a donkey?)

Or was it just to stop me from posting in my own thread?

(Moderator, my ass)

## Bookmarks