9
$\begingroup$

I'm asking about this question. I posted my answer a while ago, containing only the final result and a hint about where to search for a proof. I intended that I would post the full proof later, but actually never got enough time and enthusiasm to do that.

Now, another answer is posted and accepted, containing a correct full proof leading to the same result. The approach shown in the answer is basically the same that I used when I derived the result, so it would not make much sense now for me to post a duplicate solution.

Now my answer looks kinda useless and redundant. What the best thing I can do with it now? Should I delete it, or leave as is, or anything else?

$\endgroup$
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ I wouldn't worry about it. I do think that you can now skip the part about completing your hint to a full answer :-) $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Nov 28 '13 at 20:06
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ I answered the question since it had been over 6 months since your answer. The approach I took did not use Jonquière's formula or Hurwitz's formula, so from your suggestions, I thought that I would be avoiding your approach. Since your answer was posted first, I see no reason to delete it; rather consider my answer support for yours. $\endgroup$ – robjohn Nov 29 '13 at 2:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Should Fermat's last theorem be called Fermat-Wiles theorem or Wiles' theorem? $\endgroup$ – Julien Nov 29 '13 at 18:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @julien Maybe the Wiles-Taylor theorem.... $\endgroup$ – N. S. Nov 30 '13 at 16:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .