(Hope you did not see the rest of this post before I got a chance to delete it. Stupidly, put my foot in my mouth with that thoughtless comment.)]]>

Feel free to join the forum.

]]>Thanks for providing the solution. Checking out the scienceforum link you provided their is a member that is like you but under another alias. On checking out her profile it leads to the invision forum where you appear as Jane Fairfax.

bobbym

]]>You would be wrong to suppose my question is almost solved there is still some work to be done.

- Your problem has pretty much been solved already. The part that's left is considerably easier than the part that's been done.

- Your result is used in a nice proof for my problem, so I thought it'd be a good extension.

Anyway, sorry for upsetting you.

Everyone please focus completely on the original question because that's what this topic is about.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6344

Now can we please concentrate on my own question here?

]]>It then followed up by asking you to show that 4[sup]n[/sup] + n[sup]4[/sup] is composite (for n>1).

Any takers?

]]>

But I don't think that is the solution you were looking for

]]>(This is a problem I made up myself.)

]]>