I rediscovered Fermat's proof of FLT last year. The proof is so simple, only three pages, that a high-school student can understand it easily and makes me think it was Fermat's.
Although there is good reason from my proof of FLT to think Fermat was able to, I have wondered why he did not state his theorem like this:
For any REAL number n > 2, there are no positive integers such that x^n + y^n = z^n.
Prof. Andrew Wiles said he did not believe Fermat had had a proof but I think there is something wrong with his word. What do you think about his?
Edited by nanonii, 27-07-2006 - 07:41.