| ▲ | tslater2006 5 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Because if he had the general proof he wouldn't need to go out of his way to prove n=4, since it would be covered already by the general proof | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | DoctorOetker 5 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It is simply an obvious fault line in the nature of the problem statement: you can crack the problem in 2 parts: the x^4+y^4=z^4 part, and the part that claims x^p+y^p=z^p with p a prime. Suppose Fermat solved the proof by using this natural fault line -its just how this cookie crumbles- solved the n=4 case, and then smashed his head a thousand times against the problem and finally found the prime n proof. He challenges the community, and since they don't take up the challenge, "encourages" them in a manner that may be described as trollish, by showing how to do the n=4 case. (knowing full well the prime power case proof looks totally different) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||