I forgot about that proof for good reason. It's a proof of case 1 for n=3, which is nothing extraordinary. I did use congruences, though, which I thought was interesting.
As I said, I'll be posting a link to my other proof soon.
By the way, I also have a complete elementary proof for Case 1, in which none of x,y, or z are divisible by n. I'd forgotten about that one.
I'll be posting a link soon.
No, Fermat produced a proof for n=4. Euler was the first to prove it for n=3.
There's no old proof for all odd n, only some for specific or limited values of n.
Wiles' proof is newer, and claims to be valid for all n>2. (I've read that he had to prove 3 and 4 as special cases, with his...
I've been enormously impressed with the core members of this forum, especially hurkyl. There was a guy who claimed to have a proof of FLT, and hurkyl and others gave him a lot of time over two weeks and were much more fair to him than he deserved. Since I'm hoping to get a fair hearing for my...