For the DU Mathematicians - Elegant New Approach To 350-Year-Old Math Riddle

[adieu]

9. This is not a new idea

The traditional approach that most mathematicians had tried to prove FLT had been to look at the equation purely as a number theory question. You don't think it failed the best minds of the past 350 years because they decided to create the whole world of elliptic curves and algebraic geometry to try to solve it. Most people, professional and amateur mathematicians, tried solving it the "number theory" way.

In a way, they had succeeded for various numbers of "n". First proof fo n = 3 was done, not too difficult. Then 4, then 5, then, some advances as it was proven for all n < (some big number). Then that (some big number) grew even bigger. But, mathematically, it doesn't matter if it's just true for all n less than some huge honkin' number. The theorem has to be for all n > 2.

The problem was that the proof for n = (some number) doesn't extend well to other n's. It's like each n had to have it's own proof. Well, that can get tiresome.

So, I doubt McLarty has any more insight to the problem than the past 350 years' worth of top mathematicians.