[sci.math] Re: Counterexample to FLT! :-)

[Pat Fleckenstein <pat@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

ullrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
>                       I've seen proofs of FLT based on "the
> essential squaritude of squares" - it was clear there that the
> reason nobody understood was because we were all too simple to
> understand what that meant.

This is indeed a difficult subject, but rewarding one.

The squaritude of a square has to do with its vertices, the
squaritudinosity, with its sides.  There is a duelity of these
concepts, which "squaritude" usually wins (because of its
superior pointiness).  Hence, the squaritudinosity is often
removable, allowing the interior of the square to expand
toward infinity, which is the true reason p-adic numbers
come into play.  However, it would be naive to think that
the edges of a square can be entirely discounted:  they are
one-dimensional manifolds when projected into the Euclidean
plane from the 26-dimensional string-theoretical space in
which they live.  The boundaries of cubes, hypercubes, and
supermegafanstasticohypercubes do not have this string-
theoretical nature, so Pythagorean Reductionism does not
produce solutions.  The proof of this (Fermat's Last Theorem)
is a bit involved, of course, involving notions such as
quasiessential panreversosymplectiyottaleptoecletifarfamaticity
in the category of surreal hypercomplex matroid functors.