View Single Post
Old 2009-04-07, 13:25   #5
R. Gerbicz
R. Gerbicz's Avatar
"Robert Gerbicz"
Oct 2005

2×7×103 Posts

Originally Posted by retina View Post
So where is the error in the "proof"? I think it would be quite instructive to see where it goes wrong.
Yes, this is far from a standard proof in math. Here it is a big mistake:
"now, if 'p' is any prime divisor of 'R', then a^((Q-1)/4) = (a^k)^(2^(n-2)) == +/-1(mod p) implies that p == +/-1 (mod 2^n)"
This is totally false.
And R=Q in the "proof", if you haven't observed it.

Last fiddled with by R. Gerbicz on 2009-04-07 at 13:29
R. Gerbicz is offline   Reply With Quote