Talk:Regular prime
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alright, I can't follow exactly what a regular prime is, but I'm pretty sure that 2 is either regular or irregular. Thus, it should appear on one of the lists of the first few fooregular primes. LizardWizard 04:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
- That is a little like asking for a two-sided polygon and trying to distinguish it from a straight line. --Henrygb 16:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- 2 would be regular, FWIW. Charles Matthews 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- But it is not considered either way, in part because of the statement in the article "Historically, regular primes were considered by Kummer since he was able to prove that Fermat's last theorem holds true for regular prime exponents (and consequently for all exponents that were multiples of regular primes)." --Henrygb 14:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Sloppy, I think. But let's have odd primes only as regular, then. Charles Matthews 20:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- By the definition we give 2 should be trivially regular; the field in question is gotten by adjoining -1 to the rationals (i.e., is the rationals); and its class number is 1. But odd prime is probably best. Septentrionalis 13:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sloppy, I think. But let's have odd primes only as regular, then. Charles Matthews 20:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Kummer
Isn't Kummer's proof for the first case of FLT, where p doesn't divide any of the three bases, a, b, c? Septentrionalis 13:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
